REVscene Automotive Forum - Maxime Bernier leaves Conservative party

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Maxime Bernier leaves Conservative party (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715242-maxime-bernier-leaves-conservative-party.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8916280)

- Any flight over 6 hours = mandatory upgrade to FIRST class, this includes ANYONE who flies for work for the government

Its anything 9 hours and up, and its business class, not first class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8916280)

- Any flight over 6 hours = mandatory upgrade to FIRST class, this includes ANYONE who flies for work for the government
- Budget approvals are never until last minute, routine travel to Ottawa regularly costs $1500+++ per ticket due to always booking after that last minute budget approval is obtained... and countless numbers of all levels of employees fly to Ottawa sometimes even monthly for their jobs

On a flight to London, I attempted to upgrade to business class, but due to a full flight I got stuck in the cattle area with the rest of the proles. It was a long flight and after dark, so I walked up through the business class to use their bathroom.

I see a row of 5 seats in the middle aisle, with a pair of ugly little feet hanging off the end. It was this former NDP (current ICBC) troll.....

https://thetyee.ca/2003/11/20/joy200...uare_thumb.jpg

I was pissed that she had a full row to herself and said to the stewardess that this wasn't right. She rolled her eyes and told me that this was normal for gov't officials on Air Canada. McPhail had bought all 5 seats so she could stretch out and sleep comfortably on the flight, and she wasn't the only one. A week prior the whole business class was taken over by a half dozen officials and their staffers. Basically 3 seats per person, 1st class, all paid for by us.

I just thought I would share this as it still bugs me.

As I walked back to my seat, I took the opposite hallway and flicked a booger into her hair as she slept.

That is my opus.

That is my legacy to the Canadian taxpayers, pure boogery vengeance.

I don’t know man, there are so many checks and balances and signing authorities... I mean maybe provincial is a fuckin zoo, I don’t work for them and never have, but federal there is zero chance of that happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8916277)

Military planes should not be used

I think we can find better use for military hardware than personal taxis for politicians.

Why? What's a better use for military aircraft when they're sitting on the tarmac doing nothing anyways?

It's literally government assets moving around government assets. They get practice moving actual high value targets into different areas of the world instead of flying circuits around their home country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GabAlmighty (Post 8916592)

He was on a search and rescue helicopter. Imagine if an emergency happened. Sorry your boats sinking but our helicopters are busy flying around some politicians to their cottages.

I could maybe understand if it was for official government business but when it's for personal use that's B.S.

Also politicians are not government assets. It that was the case we could sell them.

If only his views on net neutrality weren't wrong, i'd vote for him.

actually i'd still probably vote for his party, because the pc's today are crap. oh well, justin and his identity politics will get another 5 years easily. he should buy a lottery ticket -- he apparently has horseshoes up his ass.

Coalition gov't between Bernier and PCs?

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ma...13-nationwide/

Quote:

Even before the party has been registered with Elections Canada or released any platform planks, a combined total of 49% of survey respondents say they are either certain to (6%), likely to (10%) or would consider (33%) voting forBernier and his new party in 2019.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carisear (Post 8916743)

It's hard to find a candidate who checks every box. You just have to scale them up and compare.

AFAIK he's also the only (possible) candidate with the gall to impose a reform of the equalization formula. I know Albertans will vote for that. British Columbians should too, TBH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infiniti (Post 8916758)

Coalition gov't between Bernier and PCs?

That should never happen. The libs and NDP could have done that and got rid of harper but they didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8916786)

That should never happen. The libs and NDP could have done that and got rid of harper but they didn't.

Could potentially make the argument that PCs and Bernier have more in common than the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infiniti (Post 8916801)

Could potentially make the argument that PCs and Bernier have more in common than the former.

That's never happened in Canada. The Liberals and NDP combined would still have more seats. Bernier still has to find qualified candidates for all riding's. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic! (Post 8916831)

That's never happened in Canada. The Liberals and NDP combined would still have more seats. Bernier still has to find qualified candidates for all riding's. Good luck with that.

>>qualified
>>looks at current mp's
>>hedy fry, jenny kwan

… the bar is set pretty damn low.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carisear (Post 8916851)

>>qualified
>>looks at current mp's
>>hedy fry, jenny kwan

… the bar is set pretty damn low.

And that's with all the resources their parties have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8916784)

It's hard to find a candidate who checks every box. You just have to scale them up and compare.

That's what I do, tbh. I'll never agree wholeheartedly with a single party's entire platform, so I'll usually go with the one that checks the most boxes. Doesn't help that a single party can change their position on an issue multiple times throughout the years.

It's what bothers me about single issue voters. "I only care about legalizing weed!" or "I only care about pro-life!" Okay great, ethically I understand where you're coming from. But before you place your vote based on that single issue, you might want to look at the rest of their platform and see how that might affect you as well. And when that party may not pass that reform and you decide to "punish" them by voting for another party instead, you may be cutting off your arm to spite your finger.

Welfare, I know we typically stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum, but at least you've shown that you're more than a single issue voter and actually seem to give a shit about why you lean in that direction. Everything else aside, that gets my respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8916784)

AFAIK he's also the only (possible) candidate with the gall to impose a reform of the equalization formula. I know Albertans will vote for that. British Columbians should too, TBH

I feel out of the loop. What's the equalization formula?

^
Transfer payments to the have-not provinces

Its not just about the payments per say. It's the formula they're structured on.
The provincial revenue streams that are (and aren't) considered when looking at fiscal capacity.
Quebec has always received the lions share in payments, while maintaining extremely generous social programs.
Programs that BC, a "have" province, don't come close to.
The system came up for review two months ago and (AFAIK) no changes to the next review in 2024.

Alberta paid almost $222b from 2007-2015 alone. All said, since the programs inception, they've paid in the area of $1t.
And even with their economic downturn they've received pennies back for it.
Kinda puts their frustration of this pipeline into perspective.

Here's his archives on his site to give an idea of the platform he'll be running.

Archives - Maxime Bernier EDA

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/max...-been-hijacked

Quote:

Since I left my Conservative colleagues and announced I would be creating a new party last week, I have been accused of being a sore loser and only interested in my own ego, of being excessively obsessed with the issue of supply management and of splitting the conservative vote — guaranteeing Justin Trudeau’s re-election.

To understand my real motives, my critics should read up on “public choice theory.” Developed by James Buchanan, who won a Nobel prize for economics in 1986, it explains how interest groups hijack political debates and capture politicians, winning huge benefits in the form of subsidies, trade protection, fiscal or legal privileges and other favourable regulations. They are willing to devote enormous lobbying effort and large amounts of money to get them.

Of course, ordinary taxpayers ultimately have to pay for these benefits. But a favour worth millions, even billions, of dollars to an interest group may cost only a few dollars to each individual taxpayer. Why would anyone make the effort to understand, let alone oppose, complex government policy? It’s just not worth it. As public choice theory explains, “rational ignorance” is a much better default mode.

This dynamic, of “concentrated benefits versus dispersed costs,” explains why we have so many bad policies that are obviously not in the public’s interest, why it is so difficult to reform such policies, and why government keeps growing: The number of groups a politician can pander to in order to buy votes is endless.

When I became Industry minister in 2006, I was squarely confronted with this dilemma. The Conservative Party was then totally reconciled to corporate subsidies; opposing them in the 2004 election had made it difficult to compete with Paul Martin, who was promising government money to various industries. There was no point in arguing. I concentrated on other files where I could have an impact, like telecom deregulation. And whenever there was a big corporate welfare announcement to make, I asked one of my colleagues to do it for me. They thought I was doing them a favour. The reverse was true.

Expressing my doubts publicly did not go down well. Some may remember that, in 2010, I publicly broke ranks with my colleagues from the Quebec City area who were pushing our government to subsidize a new sports amphitheater in the city. They had seized on this popular project to … What else? Buy votes. They were furious at me. I could mention the Bombardier bailout and many other similar cases.

Of course, the mother of all political hijackings is the ridiculous influence the small supply management lobby for dairy, poultry and eggs has managed to exert over every political party and every politician in Canada. Should we be surprised that it had 25 lobbyists at the Conservative convention in Halifax last weekend?

Beyond the importance of this issue at the NAFTA negotiations, the reason I have focused on supply management so much is that it is a litmus test: If you let yourself be manipulated by such a small cartel, how will you be able to resist other interest groups and make the right decisions for all Canadians? Simply, you won’t.

This is what I have been concerned with for the past 12 years: How to reconcile my desire to serve the public with a political dynamic entirely dominated by pandering and vote-buying strategies. Conservatives play that game as much as the Liberals, even though it directly contradicts the small-government, free-market principles the party purports to defend.

As I said when I resigned, I have come to the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot be reformed and that if I want to do politics differently, I need to do it elsewhere.

How do I plan to do this? By systematically reversing the dynamic described by public choice theory. That is, by taking positions based on principles I believe in and that accord with what I think is the public interest; and by resisting pressure from interest groups seeking favours, despite the short-term political cost.

I recognize this is a risky enterprise. It certainly explains why none of my caucus colleagues were interested in joining me. But the payoff for Canadians could be huge.

And what gives me hope is that with the Internet, it is now much easier and less costly to find relevant information and mobilize around an issue. A small group of motivated citizens can potentially have as much influence as a lobby group spending millions of dollars.

I know many Canadians are fed up with the traditional way of doing politics. We’ll see if enough of them are ready to follow me.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018...t-foreign-aid/

Quote:

For some time, I have been talking about how foreign aid needs to end. Canadian taxpayer dollars need to be spent within our country, helping strengthen Canada and help our own Canadian Citizens – instead of being given to foreign countries.

It’s something that none of the federal parties have been willing to discuss, but it looks like that is about to change.

Maxime Bernier – on the verge of launching his own political party – is calling for foreign aid to be phased out.

Here’s what Bernier said on Twitter:

“1/ So, Trudeau is preparing to waste more $B to have his seat at the UN and please international elites.
What I propose is a foreign policy that focuses on the security and prosperity of Canadians — not pleasing the dysfunctional United Nations and spending taxpayers $ abroad.”

“2/ Every year, we spend $5B on programs to help other countries. But the case for foreign aid is extremely weak. Countries that are growing out of poverty do so because they got rid of socialist policies and adopted free markets, liberalized trade and private property rights.”

“3/ Countries that remain poor are those where govs are still crushing private initiative. Until they liberalize their economy and free their citizens, no amount of aid will make a difference. On the contrary, it creates a cycle of dependency and helps these govs stay in power.”

“4/ We should use that money to cut taxes or help Canadians in need and phase out this foreign aid, for which there is no moral or economic efficiency argument. And focus on core humanitarian efforts during emergencies such as health crises, major conflicts and natural disasters.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/0...ef=ca-homepage

Looks like Bernier has some support.

Former Dragons den bad boy Michael Wekerle.
Former Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal involved in a number of scandals. I wonder why his wife a former MP and his sons are not on the list.
And finally pot baron and convicted felon Marc Emery.

:awwyeah:
You must be new to populism