It’s interesting that he didn’t really answer the first two questions about how he could effectively lead a party whose overall vibe is radically different from his own, not just in terms of conservatism but more broadly in terms of democratic norms and the rule of law. I guess the most accurate answer would be, “About as well as O’Toole did, if I’m lucky,” which is probably why he left it alone.
It was also interesting that the most fulsome and engaged response he gave was to the question about Bills 21 and 96, which might suggest that at the of the day, Québec issues are the ones still closest to his heart. Which is fair, of course, but might further remove him from the warm affections of the western Conservative base.
I think his chances of winning the race are remote, and if he did, his chances of steering that party towards government even more so. But I’m glad he’s making the effort, one that he clearly doesn’t need to and seems to be doing primarily to put up a good last fight for Progressive Conservatism, among other things.
Canada needs an alternative to the divisive liberal policies and their superficial priorities. I would hope that conservatives would go with someone more pragmatic, therefore Charest would be a good choice. However the party does not seem to want to govern Canada. I think it enjoys the job of whining and making sure it's leaders are incapable of reaching the majority of the country. If one tries the knives come out. This country is a mess at the federal level. I am glad we are a federation.
Great interview. We will see whether the party has fundamentally changed to the extent suggested by Jordan below. I am also wondering what the answer might be.
Regarding Jordan’s observation on the limited range of topics, maybe read his interview in Policy. He discussed climate, energy, Canada’s place in the world, etc.
Perhaps Ms. Furlong should look up the meaning of fulsome. Your interview was to the point and did not veer into the waste words that have become the usual for political statements. It was competent, tight and gave the best outline of Charest's plan for the nation.
It's nice to hear Conservative candidate sounding like a reasonable, well-rounded human being. A quick look south of the border shows us what right-wing populism is really all about. Let's choose sanity, please.
After Pierre the Liberals played safe and chose ‘conservatively’ from the ranks of those who ‘earned it’. Maybe something a bit more radical was in order. Who knows. Hindsight and all that. Zig Zag. The Cons went radical early and it seems to be their clarion. Will they continue crazy? Or will they go safe? Will they go ‘liberal’? Scheer tried to juggle while on a balance board. Doug Ford just shut up and won. Good luck Jean. Maybe the name is nostalgic enough :-).
It’s interesting that he didn’t really answer the first two questions about how he could effectively lead a party whose overall vibe is radically different from his own, not just in terms of conservatism but more broadly in terms of democratic norms and the rule of law. I guess the most accurate answer would be, “About as well as O’Toole did, if I’m lucky,” which is probably why he left it alone.
It was also interesting that the most fulsome and engaged response he gave was to the question about Bills 21 and 96, which might suggest that at the of the day, Québec issues are the ones still closest to his heart. Which is fair, of course, but might further remove him from the warm affections of the western Conservative base.
I think his chances of winning the race are remote, and if he did, his chances of steering that party towards government even more so. But I’m glad he’s making the effort, one that he clearly doesn’t need to and seems to be doing primarily to put up a good last fight for Progressive Conservatism, among other things.
I’m not a Conservative but after 50+ years I would consider voting for this voice of reason.
I really want to hear what Scott Aitchison has to say. He’s about the only one of them I would consider voting for.
illegal blockade???
He only gave you 15 minutes?? That's appalling. It take me 15 minutes to clear my throat.
Actually, I do have a serious question: Why the transcript only? Why not transcript and Zoom video?
Canada needs an alternative to the divisive liberal policies and their superficial priorities. I would hope that conservatives would go with someone more pragmatic, therefore Charest would be a good choice. However the party does not seem to want to govern Canada. I think it enjoys the job of whining and making sure it's leaders are incapable of reaching the majority of the country. If one tries the knives come out. This country is a mess at the federal level. I am glad we are a federation.
Hi Paul
Great interview. We will see whether the party has fundamentally changed to the extent suggested by Jordan below. I am also wondering what the answer might be.
Regarding Jordan’s observation on the limited range of topics, maybe read his interview in Policy. He discussed climate, energy, Canada’s place in the world, etc.
Hmmm … just like an adult!
Just say’n
Perhaps Ms. Furlong should look up the meaning of fulsome. Your interview was to the point and did not veer into the waste words that have become the usual for political statements. It was competent, tight and gave the best outline of Charest's plan for the nation.
It's nice to hear Conservative candidate sounding like a reasonable, well-rounded human being. A quick look south of the border shows us what right-wing populism is really all about. Let's choose sanity, please.
Good stuff, but get a pal to copy edit.
After Pierre the Liberals played safe and chose ‘conservatively’ from the ranks of those who ‘earned it’. Maybe something a bit more radical was in order. Who knows. Hindsight and all that. Zig Zag. The Cons went radical early and it seems to be their clarion. Will they continue crazy? Or will they go safe? Will they go ‘liberal’? Scheer tried to juggle while on a balance board. Doug Ford just shut up and won. Good luck Jean. Maybe the name is nostalgic enough :-).