战事汇报 (一 联邦保守党党领选举战况更新)

4. 2011 保守党究竟落后多少?
2011年保守党获得5百60万张选票,2015年大选,保守党获得5百60万张选票,是它历史第二好成绩,那为什么它会输掉?因为2011年自由党获得2百70万选票,但是2015年则激增到6百90万张选票。这激增的选票怎么来的?Rebel Media认为最主要是有组织的选票的造成的。我非常认同。另外,我还认为加拿大一向太平无事,岁月静好,Harper执政快10年,好多人觉得换换口味也不错,谁上台也翻不了天去,再有就是可能LGBT更支持自由党。在1700万投票人数中5百60万对6百90万,差距很大吗?从注释2中可以看到差距是不到8%。

土豆政府自从上台后,我以为它最重要的行动就是拼命扩大票仓,比如一系列罔顾对绝大多数正常人的冲击和影响,倾向LGBT的政策和媒体导向倾斜,大麻合法化等等,再比如亲属资助的难民份额给限制在2000人,其它全部是政府资助,这样可以加快整个移民和难民审批进程。今年土豆政府更是有计划针对几个难民国家,实行申请表-橡皮图章的方式加快难民申请过程(参见注释3的报道),每年40万移民中,华人已经从前三退出,被叙利亚代替,如果加上巴基斯坦的1万多人,则穆斯林移民总数雄局榜首,这还没考虑世界上其它众多穆斯林国家的移民数量总和(见注释4)
可以说土豆的上台,是穆斯林族裔一手促成的(至少是非常非常重要的一个因素),因此在现任政府内阁中有10名穆斯林族裔就不足为奇了,并且负责移民和难民事务的也是穆斯林族裔。因为他从2015年选举尝到了甜头,他只会不遗余力的继续扩大他的票仓。
然而由此产生的对社会大环境的影响也引发了很多人的不满:
例如M103的出台,单独强调一个信仰;
例如皮尔区公立学校允许穆斯林学生的集体祈祷,而同时魁北克最高法院缺判决当地一个公校不允许对上帝的集体祈祷,这里面体现的对不同信仰的不公正,以及如何公平的解读个人宗教信仰自由和Church And State?(见注释5的报道)
从加拿大政府公布的犯罪率数据显示,2014年过去十几年犯罪率都是以非常稳定和比较均衡的斜线向下,2015年第一次挑头向上,2016年数据还没有出来,但是可以查到多伦多的,多伦多2016比2015年谋杀案增长了43% (见注6)。今年会如何,还未知,但是我刚来加拿大的时候入室抢劫几乎闻所未闻,今年呢,如果我记错的话,40天内一个华人为主的区就发生了70起入室抢劫的案例(见注释7)。
有时候我看到那些自由党的支持者对保守党的支持者那个痛恨,我就心说,当大环境败坏的时候,难道那些入室抢劫者光抢劫保守党支持者的家,不抢劫你家?有这样的美事吗? 现在我每天看51新闻,如果当天没看到枪击或者刺伤事件,那就是例外了。
2015年的投票率是1993年以来的最高点,投票率达到68%, 展望2019年选举, 我们个人能做的就是动员和说服身边的人去投票保守党的票,特别是华人族裔是有名的投票率低,不过暂时还没查到数据到底是多少。有人说是不到20%,而2015年穆斯林族裔的投票率据说达到了80%多,男性更是达到了87%的投票率。这也可以说已有的穆斯林族裔投票的潜力基本上已经被发掘尽了(所以土豆政府才在不遗余力的扩大基本面)。反而是现有华人族裔倒是有很多潜力可以去挖掘,最难的就是动员他们去投票了。(见注释8)
这次法国大选按说到了决定法国国家命运的时刻,应该更多人站出来了投票,可结果却是历史低点,说明很多人觉得无论选谁,这个国家是没救了,索性不投了。就如同就算安省保守党党魁上台,我觉得跟自由党没啥区别,所以我也会有强烈的谁都不想投的想法。好在现在的加拿大还远没到这样的地步,这要感谢太平洋,感谢大西洋。
 
--- 后记
作为2011年根本就没投票,2015年本来也不想投票,后来被同事劝说无论选谁都应该去投票,因为有专门的团体根据姓名研究各族裔的投票率提供给相关政治团体。到这次居然入党去选党魁。当我告诉老公这件事情的时候,他说你管这些事情干嘛,干点儿更重要的事情比如教教娃数学中文好不好?!他说他刚来加拿大的时候当过某华人候选人的义工,知道那里面是怎么回事。到了昨天晚上,我看到一些群里的一些对候选人的人身攻击和给自己心仪的候选人争取选票的方式(见注释9),实在忍不住向老公发牢骚,说看到的一些人怎么这么low啊!(我自己因为在群里发一些自己的想法,就被认为是Brad群派来捣乱的)他说你现在知道了啊。我说Brad是我见过的人品最为正派的政客了,可是还有人说他这那的,叛徒,软骨头,Puppy 所有候选人里这些是跟他最不着边的词往他身上安。他说谎言谣言说千遍总会有人误以为真的。
但愿所有的候选人和无论自由党和保守党的政客都不忘初心,在选择政治家这个职业之外,别忘了为国家和社会谋福祉的初心(如果有的话)。但愿像Brad Trost这样的政治家越多越好!

============注释区分割符============

注释1 我的评分理由:
-------------------
Brad Trost和Pierre Lemieux不用多解释。
Kellie Leitch 她的家庭理念是左的,但是她在难民移民问题上的坚定立场让我给她加分。假设Andrew Scheer上台, 他在华人关心的社会伦理问题比如LGBT方面是会往回纠偏,但是根据他的宣传资料中的纠偏方式大概从-100纠正回-80的程度。但是我更在意Kellie Leitch在这次候选人中最有别于其他候选人的主张。另外她在竞选纲领中特别提到了对大麻的反对也令我给她加了分。(声明:Kelie Leitch一直在我名单前列,无论收到Brad关于有原则候选人的邮件之前还是之后.
Maxime Bernier上台,选民至少在经济问题上会比自由党当政收益。我比较了他和Andrew Scheer各自网站的施政纲领,Andrew Scheer的网站上关于“与ISIS战斗”的部分倒是有好几个段落,但是其实一句话就可以总结出来,就是不应该撤出对ISIS的战斗人员。
令我惊讶的是,反而是Maxime Bernier的几个简要的主张深得我心:
1)将移民总份额减到25万,同时增加技术移民的比重(目前移民总量40万,中国移民2.6万左右,跟十几年前移民总额20万,中国移民2万比例基本接近,特别是增加技术移民的比重,对华人是利好消息);
2) 重新审查外援资金,停止对道德和经济没有益处的外援(比如Harper政府的外援是保护孕妇和儿童的健康,而土豆政府的外援是支持堕胎和割礼妇女的健康);
3) 再比如不能令移民变成强迫加拿大改变文化和社会特征的一个工具,并鲜明提到了反对极端伊斯兰恐怖主义。(实际上只要任何候选人旗帜鲜明的指出极端穆斯林这个词都能获得我的加分,不见法国最新总理都说不怎么敢提及极端伊斯兰https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/emmanuel-macrons-refusal-talk-islamic-extremism-cost-dearly/#
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...-impress-french-muslims-170218192439532.html)
所以我把他排在Andrew Scheer前面.这个转变是今天刚刚发生的,原来光看了他几个采访视频,原来他一直在Andrew排名之上,今天仔细看了他的网站,没想到他在伊斯兰化的立场上是挺坚定的.另外他在C16上立场有所转变。
Andrew Scheer上台,保守派在保守党可以打及格分。 但是基于中间立场尽量争取左右派(特别是考虑到2019如果当选的话),那就意味着妥协,这样就有个问题:妥协的底线在哪里?他上台后,针对华人不满意的社会伦理等各方面也许会进行一定程度的纠偏。但是如果左派压力更大的话,也许不会。如果不是一个坚定的人,就不能肯定他未来妥协的方向是左还是右。如前文所述,他的网站上针对ISIS的可以总结为一句话,不应该撤出对ISIS打击的武装力量。然后其他我从群里的了解到的,是他提出更多关注在中东地区的基督徒收到迫害的问题。但是针对极端伊斯兰主义可能对加拿大的影响没有提出解决方案,故把他排在Maxime Bernier之后。

Lisa Raitt 在我的评价中甚至算不上经济保守党,防务保守党中的一员,当然更不是社会保守党。我管她叫保守党中的自由派。给予20分。当然她比Michael Chong好,Michael Chong在我眼里就是披着保守党名字的自由党。他上台只会继续带领社会向负分的方向发展。
注释2:
-------
加拿大历次投票人口和投票率 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_Canada
历次各党派支持人数和支持率 http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx
注释3 危险的难民橡皮图章批准方式:
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/04/2...er-stamp-potentially-dangerous-asylum-seekers
注释4:2016年各国移民数量
http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-immigrants-by-source-country-2016/
注释5: 公校不允许集体对上帝的祈祷
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...-the-lords-prayer-in-public-institutions.html
注释6:
加拿大犯罪率趋势图(见图2)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14642-eng.htm
2016年多伦多地区谋杀案的陡峭增长
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/27/sharp-rise-in-murders-in-toronto-in-2016
注释7:
为找到原来看到的文章,但是有类似的报道一个月内63起入室抢劫案http://weixin.51.ca/index.php/service/article/10663/2
注释8:
2016数据没查到2011年的统计数字,华人是1百32万人口
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm
而穆斯林占3千200万总人口的3.2% = 1百05万,那时候还比华人少呢
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada
现在假设穆斯林人口增长一倍是229万,华人按照每年3万新移民计算现在应该是150万
注释9:为自己心仪的候选人争取选票的不当方式举例,我就不提对候选人的人身攻击用词了
比如有所谓的美国牧师:
1) 整天反反复复根据1000来人的一个所谓民意调查,Brad 3.6%的支持率民以此调号召Brad支持者要顾全大局,不光要把Andrew Scheer加上,而且最好排在第一位。这种明显是揣着明白装糊涂的行为,我觉得连她自己都不相信。一方面不反驳CLC等反堕胎组织帮助Brad发展的新党员就有1万这个数字,并拿这个数字去攻击Brad是CLC的Puppy, 如果承认这个数字,1万人/25万 也是4%了好不好,再加上所谓民调3.6%(1000人抽样抽到CLC成员的概率可以忽略),这就7.6%了。还整天信誓旦旦这不是我说的,这是最新某某民调说的,什么数据看到难道不应该过脑子分析一下吗,发一遍就算了,就我看到的,几天内反反复复都10来遍都是往少里说,如果最后Brad Trost的支持率超过13%,接近甚至超过Andrew Scheer(谁知道会不会发生呢,那个媒体调查领先的Kevin O'Leary中排第一,还退选了呢),这人怎么面对自己现在的作为?用受到假民调的误导一句话就把自己摘清楚了?
2)一方面鼓吹只有中间派才能赢得2019年的大选,Brad作为右派没有机会。 另一方面,却又号召大家为法国勒庞获胜祈祷。原来她也认为只有右派(还是所谓的极右)才能挽救法国啊。相反,Macron此次正是以非左非右的中间身份获胜的,按照她对Andrew Scheer中间派立场的强烈支持,并以为只有中间派才能获胜的立场,她难道不应该去为Macron祈祷吗?多么自相矛盾的言行!

这种为了自己支持的候选人骗一个算一个的方式只会让人反感。
 
@all
An important message from Maurice Vellacott
Former Chair of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus
Dear Sarah,

My name is Maurice Vellacott, the former (retired 2015) Member of Parliament for the Saskatchewan riding of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin and long-time leader of Canada’s non-partisan Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus.

Words have consequences, which is why I will NOT be voting for Andrew Scheer in our party's upcoming leadership election.

Last May, at the Conservative Party Policy Convention in Vancouver, Andrew defended the decision to remove support of marriage as a union between one man and one woman from our party's policy declaration, calling the policy "anachronistic" (old fashioned). According to Campaign Life, Andrew "caved under pressure from homosexual activists and their media allies, to abandon his principles on marriage and the natural family."

In September, at a press conference to announce his candidacy for the CPC Leadership, Andrew made other disturbing comments. He told reporters that his government would follow the Harper policy of not reopening the abortion debate, stating that his objective as leader would be to "unify the party." When pressed to explain, Andrew repeated that as party leader or Prime Minister he would not reopen questions of abortion or same-sex marriage, stating "the caucus and party have already agreed those are settled."

But this is simply untrue. Delegates at the Vancouver Convention may have voted to remove support for traditional marriage from our party’s policy declaration, but those very same delegates voted in favour of a ban on gender-selection abortions which target baby girls just because they're girls, as well as legislation to punish those who injure or kill an unborn child during a violent attack on his or her mother.

Contrary to Andrew's assertion, rank and file members of our party clearly do not consider all issues that touch on abortion are "settled."

What about allowing backbench Conservative MPs to bring forward private member motions and bills that touch on abortion or marriage? After reminding reporters of his own ruling as Speaker that MPs have a right to speak in the House regardless of whether their leader gives them permission, Andrew went on to say that "it's not good for the team to do things like that. It doesn't advance the cause of the things that we believe in. It doesn't advance the cause of the party to be focusing on those things that even conservatives can't agree on."

Andrew's statements that pro-life legislation may be unconstitutional are also wrong. The Supreme Court itself found that there was no Constitutional right to abortion in its landmark 1988 ruling in R. v. Morgentaler. On the contrary, the Court upheld the right of Parliament to legislate limits on abortion and explicitly invited it to do so.

I fear that too many activists are being "too clever by a half" in this campaign. In political life, we call it "drinking the Kool-Aid." These activists are close enough to the political scene to convince themselves and others of their political savvy, but in reality, they are not close enough to know of, let alone understand, many of the more intricate workings of caucus and Parliament, and the subtle ways by which they are manipulated and MPs controlled.

It's all very nice to talk - as activists like Alissa Golob and her friends do - of getting a majority of Conservative pro-life and social conservative MPs elected to Parliament. Initiatives like hers are commendable. But even if pro-life and social conservative Members represent a majority within the Conservative Caucus, pro-life bills and motions would still not pass given that most Liberal and NDP MPs will vote against them.

To be successful, bills need to be initiated by Government or, in the case of private Member's bills, supported by the Government. That takes leadership from the top, something Andrew has repeatedly said he will not provide. Anything less will be a green light for advisors, staff and even some self-described pro-life MPs to pressure other caucus members into opposing pro-life initiatives. I know. As leader of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus I saw this happen again and again.

As to those "social conservative" MPs endorsing Andrew, my candid assessment based on personal experience is that many of them are "fair weather" social conservatives, worried more about their own promotion than they are about defending traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn. They rarely, if ever, fly their so-con" flag very high having discovered that the way to advance in the Party is by staying under the radar on crucial social conservative issues.

I believe Andrew Scheer has already drunk the "Kool-Aid." His repeated characterization of the pro-life cause as "divisive" undermines social conservatives while strengthening our opponents, particularly because people believe that he himself is a committed social conservative.

Social Conservatives who believe Andrew Scheer will "deliver the goods" once elected should think again. We've all heard that line before, including from Stephen Harper and, most recently, Patrick Brown in Ontario. In reality, there is no secret plan. Andrew's public pronouncements today will govern his conduct later.

That is why I am urging all social conservatives who support life to mark Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, in whatever order they prefer, as their first and second choices, on the mail-in ballot for our Conservative Party leadership selection.

Sincerely,

Maurice Vellacott
 
Below is from Pierre Lemieux :
Dear Members,

As the proud father of five children, I know the challenges of raising a family.

A pattern with which Canadians are all too familiar is parents working hard to provide for their children and governments working hard to raise taxes.

A Pierre Lemieux government will work to make life easier for parents, not more expensive.

Yet right now we have a Liberal government working hard to implement a carbon tax while ignoring the real needs of families.

Right now our tax code treats families more like roommates rather than the foundation of strength of our country.

This makes little sense and doesn’t reflect the reality of Canadian families.


That’s why as Conservative leader and Prime Minister I will implement the measures first introduced by Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty to help families make ends meet.

I will introduce income splitting for families with children, providing the option to share up to $50,000 of household income for federal income-tax purposes.

A $2,000 cap on the benefit a family can earn from income splitting will ensure that this benefit applies equally.

Canadian families will benefit from a helping hand from their government and I further commit to ensuring that tax relief for all Canadians is kept at the forefront of my economic policies.

Help me make this happen by donating today to support my campaign.

Sincerely,
Pierre Lemieux
 
YouTube from Pierre Lemieux about free speech and political correctness

 
upload_2017-5-13_15-13-42.png
 
Message from Pierre Lemieux about 大麻: Dear Members,

The Liberals have leaked to the CBC that they will legalize marijuana by July 1, 2018.

It's bad enough that the Liberals have chosen to keep this reckless election promise.

But linking it to Canada's birthday? What symbolism are they putting in the minds of Canadian youth? That drug use is an activity in which we should take national pride?

My position is clear:

Drug use is bad for youth, and bad for families.

It is bad for Canadians worried about drug-impaired driving.

I am opposed to this Liberal policy.

As Conservative leader and as Prime Minister, my focus will always be to fight drug use and drug abuse.

Sincerely,
Pierre Lemieux
 
Andrew Scheer should not be running for party leadership

Andrew Scheer’s name on the CPC leader race ballot is a contempt of parliament at best, switching directly to leader from Speaker and, with a family of five children under 10 years old, poor judgment at worst.

Despite the fact it was his choice to make, his haste to become leader is not entirely his fault. Andrew is backed by the remnant insiders of the failed Harper camp who for now, represent the party establishment. It’s a typical, self-serving move on their part to convince Andrew to run with their backing. A victory for Andrew will secure their own failed status quo power in the party hierarchy.

I’m willing to give Andrew the benefit of the doubt, that he was pressured into running by failed party insiders. I acknowledge he is an asset to the party and to caucus. Andrew has a bright political future.

I’m less forgiving however, if he had been plotting all along to run for leader at the next opportunity while sitting as Speaker of the House of Commons. I consider that contempt.

There is no precedent set by a Speaker to become leader and for good reason. It is customary (unlike the USA ) that the Speaker position *“is expected to be scrupulously non-partisan”. Acting as chair of the *Board of Internal Economy to oversee administration and finance of the House of Commons and maintaining decorum and rules of engagement in the Chamber.

Did Andrew have highly partisan ambitions while acting as Speaker presiding over the chamber? Was the Speaker plotting and planning his next move to become party leader at the next opportunity? Was the Speaker trying to be non-partisan by day while assembling a campaign team in clandestine fashion behind the PM’s back with disgruntled Harperites? I hope not, I really hope Andrew caved and decided to run out of pressure from failed party insiders, otherwise his integrity will be called into question. Creating greater distance between the two posts would have been a wiser choice for the long term.

The role of Speaker does little, by comparison of the other candidates, to bolster his thin layer of skill, education and work experience. An insurance salesman with a poli-sci degree and history major is missing something that only 20 more years of experience would fix. The Speaker position traditionally is isolated to the business of the House of Commons. Andrew did not attend caucus meetings or participate in chamber debate or committee work, or should not have.

Andrew may sound good but he does not have nearly the experience as most of his running mates when it comes to leading a ministry, developing and implementing government policy.

I think a young man like Andrew needs more experience and, with five children under 10, he should review his priorities to be closer to home in keeping with his social conservative values that he strongly represents.

*reference:http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/speakers/Hoc/index-e.htm

John Koury

Duncan
 
抛弃Trost了? 可怜的Trost。
 
"Michael Chong在我眼里就是披着保守党名字的自由党。他上台只会继续带领社会向负分的方向发展。"
同意。他还好意思自称保守党。
 
Maxime Bernier
Andrew Scheer
Erin O'Toole
Kellie Leitch

其他人没戏。

到了尾声了,竟然没有人退出。
 
Pierre Lemieux 的自我介绍

我成长在一个军人和双语的家庭,我明白服务意味着什么。我父亲在加拿大皇家空军服役了21年,他的军旅生涯使我们的家庭有机会体验到我们这个伟大国家各个地方不同的生活状况。

17岁时,我决定加入加拿大武装部队。在我20年军人职业生涯的最后阶段,我获得了中尉上校的职称。我从皇家军事学院获得了工程学士学位,科学硕士学位,我是专业工程师和认证的项目管理人员。

我在军队服务的时候,遇到了我的妻子奥黛丽。我们一起渡过了30年的婚姻生活, 养育了五个美丽的孩子,我们现在是两个孙子的祖父母。我相信生命的神圣性从受孕到自然死亡。

在Glengarry-Prescott-Russell地区定居后,我们决定以通过参与联邦政治这种新的方式服务于我们的国家。2006年,我当选为议会议员,为我的选民服务将近十年。

能够忠实地为我的国家,社区和家人服务是非常荣幸的一件事情。加拿大需要一个有正义感和奉献精神的领导人。我相信言论自由和强大健康的民主,这种民主允许所有的问题都能在彼此尊重的气氛中讨论。这就是我为什么要参加加拿大保守党新领导人的竞选。我重点关注三个关键问题:民主,家庭,和安全。

Pierre代表我们华人的价值观,他的从政经历和竞选纲领让我们感到他是一位诚实,有正义感,有原则,值得选民信任的候选人,所以,我们也强力推荐大家,把我们手中的票投给他。
 
转发QL精彩发言:古人说“利以诱之”,选民的关注点就是政客对华人群体政策行动的指挥棒。对于刚刚开始参与加国政治的华人选民来说,如果他们显示出他们的关注点更多的是在计算民调时,政客们就会想方设法通过民调与媒体去影响诱导,而当我们就是死脑筋老顽固——只关注我们关注的价值与利益时,他们将被迫对具体的事项做承诺,而他们是否会遵守承诺在将来是容易检验的。所有政客将理解对华人无需忽悠,只能对他们的每一个关注点做具体的答复,同意、打折扣或者反对。我们华人如果能在加拿大政治中留下这样的印象对整个族群的未来和华人对加拿大社会正面的贡献都将是非常有益处的。

-转发
 
后退
顶部