Conservative leadership race #1

449 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
In January 2016, O'Leary expressed interest in running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, saying that he had been inspired by Donald Trump's campaign for President of the United States.

Finally, the bar has been lowered so that the wealthy might participate!

Quote:
O'Leary attempted to stir political controversy by offering to invest $1 million in the economy of Alberta in exchange for the resignation of Premier Rachel Notley

I'll give him this, he's a quick study.  That's textbook Trump.

 

Debater

So the Conservatives now have their own Donald Trump running for Leader?

How nice.

Debater

Conservative Leadership Candidate Kellie Leitch Pledges To Re-Criminalize Marijuana, If Elected

April 26, 2016

http://www.am980.ca/2016/04/26/conservative-leadership-candidate-kellie-...

quizzical

well she just lost 2/3rds of Conservative voters

Debater

I guess Leitch is trying to appeal to the social conservative base.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

O'Leary is tiresome. Conservatives are generally lumpenproletarian people and they will resent him. Leitch and Bernier are more their speed...

kropotkin1951

Brian Mitchell a Conservative from Quebec is throwing his hat into the ring.

Quote:

A member of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's board of directors has resigned from his position to seek the presidency of the Conservative Party of Canada, The Tyee has learned.

Brian Mitchell, a Montreal lawyer, confirmed that he resigned Sunday after eight years on the government-funded broadcaster's board of directors and its pension board of trustees.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/04/27/CBC-Board-Member-Resigns/

 

CanadaApple

^

It says he wants to run for Party President, not leader, unless that's a mistake. 

Debater

I guess the Cons are looking for a new Party President, as well.

Debater
josh

Michael Chong becomes the third person to officially join the race which will culminate in a vote in just over a year's time. 

 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/05/16/chong-joins-race-for-conservative-party-l...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more on m. chong

Conservative Michael Chong enters leadership race and embraces carbon pricing

With 17 words, Conservative MP Michael Chong took a bold step on Monday to chart a new path for his party on the environment.

“On the issue of climate change, I think it’s clear that carbon pricing has arrived in Canada,” said Chong, 44, at a news conference to officially enter the Conservative leadership race.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Chong wants a (carbon) tax so he can lower taxes. More Conservative snake oil. 

swallow swallow's picture

Wow, a genuine conservative in the Conservative leadership race. Extraordinary. I didn't think there were any of them left. 

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-cpc-ndp-leadership-fundraising-1...

Article by Grenier about how the leadership contenders stack up on past fundraising, which he feels may give clues as to how well they'll do.  Admittedly, there's no real conclusion that I was able to get from his meandering analysis.  Still, interesting for those who may be interested to follow various little quirks and details of this Conservative leadership race (which, I assume, may not be many).  The article also includes a discussion of potential NDP leadership candidates, where the fundraising data is a little clearer (IE, it places Boulerice as the clear favourite).

Debater

Conservatives reject bid to let Rona Ambrose run for leadership

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-reject-bid-to-let-rona-ambr...

Debater

After Harper, Conservatives have no dream replacement

Chantal Hébert

May 28, 2016

http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/fe6a983e-9c70-495c-aa22-fab0b1575f59|_0.html

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Muslim Tory shames Conservatives for fear mongering in election

She didn't expect an apology. She didn't expect applause. In fact, she didn't even plan it.

When Muslim Tory supporter Uruzurum Heer stepped up to the microphone on Friday morning at the Conservative Convention, it was a matter of passion and instinct. Voice quivering and tears in her eyes, the Brampton-South, Ont. delegate shamed the executive director of the Conservative Party for Stephen Harper's fear-mongering and race-baiting during the 2015 federal election.

"How would you feel if you were me?" she demanded. "For the first time I felt like I didn't belong here and this is my country. It's unfair to my people."

She was of course, referring not only to Harper's widely-criticized proposal to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies, but his last-minute snitch line, the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, as well. The former alienated Muslim women, and arguably incited a spat of violence against them in the days leading up to the vote, while the latter targeted immigrants, hyped up fear of terrorism and perpetuated negative stereotypes.

The confrontation was bold and unexpected, and Tory executive director Dustin van Vught visibly stumbled. He did not condone or deny her allegations while simply indicating that the party "has some work to do."...

video

The Muslim Tory who shamed the Conservatives for fear-mongering

swallow swallow's picture

Debater wrote:

After Harper, Conservatives have no dream replacement

Chantal Hébert

May 28, 2016

http://startouch.thestar.com/screens/fe6a983e-9c70-495c-aa22-fab0b1575f59|_0.html

What a bland and uninformative column. Perhaps that's appropriate for the race to lose to Trudeau next time. 

[url=http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201605/..., La Presse thinks a man defeated as PM of New Brunswick ten years ago would immediately become the frontrunner if he declared.[/url] Be our handsome bilingual saviour, Bernard Lord! 

josh
quizzical

getting weird is putting mildly.

Debater

NDP, Conservative conventions take far different twists on similar plot

Chantal Hébert

New Democrats, Conservatives both entered their first conventions in the Trudeau era licking wounds of defeat. Their tones and outcomes, though, couldn’t have been more different.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/29/ndp-conservative-conventi...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater, don't you have an opinon on what happened at YOUR convention?

Debater

Tony Clement, former Harper minister, to run for Conservative leader

The Globe and Mail

Friday, July 8, 2016

Quote:

Veteran Conservative MP Tony Clement is set to join the leadership race to take over the helm of his party.

The former cabinet minister will make an "important announcement" in Mississauga, Ont., on Tuesday night, alongside his wife Lynne, about the "future of the Conservative Party of Canada," according to a release.

"Obviously, I'm going to talk about the future of our party and our country, and I look forward to getting the feedback," Mr. Clement, who declined to confirm his leadership bid, said when reached by phone on Friday. "So far the feedback has been excellent."

Mr. Clement, 55, has held a variety of roles in both the federal and provincial cabinets, including treasury board president and industry minister.

Organizers say Mr. Clement has been exploring his options for several months and has been travelling across the country since the last election, including to the Conservative convention in Vancouver in May and the Ontario Progressive Conservative convention in Ottawa last March. He is also expected to use social media during the campaign, with an active presence on Instagram and Snapchat.

-

Full article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/politics/tony-clement-former-harper...

mark_alfred

Clement loves social media, and generally befriends anyone on Twitter, regardless of their political persuasion.

Debater

Focus now on former MP Peter MacKay over possible Conservative leadership run

By Jason Fekete, Ottawa Citizen

July 13, 2016

Quote:
OTTAWA — With Tony Clement in and Jason Kenney out of the Conservative leadership race, all eyes now turn to potential front runner but undeclared candidate Peter MacKay.

MacKay, a former top lieutenant in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government for nearly a decade, would certainly add some political heavyweight credentials to the leadership race, if he decides to join it.

But there’s seemingly no great rush for a more established potential candidate like MacKay to jump into a contest that still has more than 10 months to go. Conservative members will elect a new leader on May 27, 2017.

“The party created a nice long runway that accommodated both candidates that needed to build name ID and build national movements, with candidates who can wait a bit longer,” said Chad Rogers, a Conservative strategist with Crestview Strategy.

“The time, in this case, becomes an equalizer that’s as powerful as money,” said Rogers, who is not working on any leadership campaign.

MacKay didn’t respond Wednesday to a request for comment.

Full article:

http://www.canada.com/news/national/focus+former+peter+mackay+over+possi...

CanadaApple

With Kenney out I think it's MacKay's to win if he wants it. 

Rev Pesky

You mean 'helicopter' Peter Mackay? Yeah, I remember him. He's the guy who promised David Orchard he would not accept a merging of the old Progressive Conservatives with the Reform party. But he did, trading his integrity for that lieutenant's position.

If he's a 'heavyweight, someone's got their thumb on the scale.

Debater

CanadaApple wrote:

With Kenney out I think it's MacKay's to win if he wants it. 

I think you're right that MacKay would be the frontrunner, but he has a few liabilities:

1.  Not fluent in French

2.  Long history of sexist comments about women

3.  Baggage from the Harper years

4.  Would have to run in a by-election outside Atlantic Canada to get into the House

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

With Kenney out I think it's MacKay's to win if he wants it. 

I think you're right that MacKay would be the frontrunner, but he has a few liabilities:

1.  Not fluent in French

2.  Long history of sexist comments about women

3.  Baggage from the Harper years

4.  Would have to run in a by-election outside Atlantic Canada to get into the House

5. Reputation of being untrustworthy after merging the PCs and Alliance after being elected on a promise not to.

quizzical

he could always run on the platform of putting the p back in

Debater

I don't think the Cons want the "P" back in.

CanadaApple

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

With Kenney out I think it's MacKay's to win if he wants it. 

I think you're right that MacKay would be the frontrunner, but he has a few liabilities:

1.  Not fluent in French

2.  Long history of sexist comments about women

3.  Baggage from the Harper years

4.  Would have to run in a by-election outside Atlantic Canada to get into the House

5. Reputation of being untrustworthy after merging the PCs and Alliance after being elected on a promise not to.

I wouldn't say any of those are deal breakers, except maybe number five in a leadership race. I doubt the average Canadian really cares or remembers. 

Newfoundlander_...

CanadaApple wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:

CanadaApple wrote:

With Kenney out I think it's MacKay's to win if he wants it. 

I think you're right that MacKay would be the frontrunner, but he has a few liabilities:

1.  Not fluent in French

2.  Long history of sexist comments about women

3.  Baggage from the Harper years

4.  Would have to run in a by-election outside Atlantic Canada to get into the House

5. Reputation of being untrustworthy after merging the PCs and Alliance after being elected on a promise not to.

I wouldn't say any of those are deal breakers, except maybe number five in a leadership race. I doubt the average Canadian really cares or remembers. 

Seeing both parties voted in favour of the merger I doubt it'll become an issue. As well, who's going to make it an issue? The other leadership candidates won't want to bring it up and if it's brought up by other parties I don't think it'll be taken too seriously.

mark_alfred

Kellie Leitch is in the lead in fundraising so far. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-financials-jun2016-1.3...

josh

Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost is the sixth Tory to announce his intention to seek the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The social conservative MP launched his website Tuesday billing himself as "a 100 per cent conservative" touting his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brad-trost-conservative-leadership-1.372...

 

Debater

Brad Trost is delusional.

mark_alfred

josh wrote:

Saskatchewan MP Brad Trost is the sixth Tory to announce his intention to seek the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The social conservative MP launched his website Tuesday billing himself as "a 100 per cent conservative" touting his opposition to abortion and gay marriage. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brad-trost-conservative-leadership-1.372...

Finally.  Rather than Liberal-lite, the Conservatives need to truly be conservative to win. 

ETA:  the link above has a space at the end which breaks it.  Here's a working link: 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brad-trost-conservative-leadership-1.372...

nicky

He may be delusional Debater but there is a significant social conservative element in the party. What do you think his chances are?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

We should support the most extreme candidates as they will get the fewest votes for the Conservative Party.

mark_alfred

Quote:

We should support the most extreme candidates as they will get the fewest votes for the Conservative Party.

I imagine some people out there, who wish to see the NDP fail, make the same case for the NDP.

josh

montrealer58 wrote:

We should support the most extreme candidates as they will get the fewest votes for the Conservative Party.

 

Trost would be the one.  But Bernier is the most extreme on economic issues, which apparently is more tolerable to the voting public than being extreme on social issues.  Wouldn't want to give him the chance.

mark_alfred

The more extreme the Conservative Party is, the more likely people are to strategically vote for the Liberals, squeezing out both the NDP and Greens.  When Cons are not seen as extreme on social issues, and are basically spouting the same pro-corporate policies of the Liberals (with slightly different emphasis here and there), then they split the vote allowing for both the NDP and Greens to do better.  Having the Cons hovering closer to the centre is better, IMO.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

The more extreme the Conservative Party is, the more likely people are to strategically vote for the Liberals, squeezing out both the NDP and Greens.  When Cons are not seen as extreme on social issues, and are basically spouting the same pro-corporate policies of the Liberals (with slightly different emphasis here and there), then they split the vote allowing for both the NDP and Greens to do better.  Having the Cons hovering closer to the centre is better, IMO.

Well the elephant in the room is electoral reform.

The Conservatives have to guess at what system they will be in becuase what leadership and configuration is best for a PR type system is the opposite of what would work best under FPTP.

Under FPTP the Conservatives are best with a moderate and to tell the extreme right wingers to shut up and get to power. This was the formula for years and followed by all leaders (dishonestly in some cases).

Under PR the party woudl get more votes in total as two parties: one that will fire up the right and another that can attract the centre. Such a configuration would get wiped out under FPTP.

The Alliance/PC parties before their merger were ideally suited to PR. And Harper and his party favoured it, unsurpirsingly, as late as 1996 when Harper co-wrote a paper on it. They reconfigured the right to one party to be able to succeed in a FPTP environment and are therefore invested in FPTP. But other than self-interest there is nothing behind this position.

If the Conservatives were to split they would like magic want PR again.

The key difference is that we have a unique position. A party that did not think it could win did with a campaign on PR coming from its self interest as a small party. This was so quick that the party has brought to power a commitment, firmly held by a platform and a number of MPs, that you have in the past only seen from parties that needed it and did not get elected. If the Liberals do not back down they would become the only party that did not immediately need PR to represent it. It is this change of fortunes that might make reform possible.

This context has huge meaning to the Conservative leadership race becuase this unthinkable prospect of a (false) majority government bringing in PR is suddenly real. The Conservatives may come down to the best leader for PR adn the best leader for FPTP and that person is liekly to be different. Then they have to guess. If they guess wrong they will ahve the absolute wrong leader.

It seems that the party will bet on FPTP and for that reason I expect they will stay as one party if they can (big if) and do so under a leader (they think) is middle of the road.

I somehow think they will also abandon most of Harper's front bench -- wisely. So not MacKay. My guess is they do try to go for a female leader who thankfully for them had a lower profile during the Harper years and who appears moderate and a new face.

But if the country goes for PR and they lose -- then the next leadership campaign will split the party back into to factions best able to do well under PR.

The instant run-off models speculated on as being preferable to some Liberals would ahve the same effect as PR -- the Conservatives would be better off as two parties.

mark_alfred

You're right that I was not considering PR in my post.  If the Liberals do ultimately bring in PR (MMP open list) I will truly be impressed.  To bring in something in the interest of truth (IE, more proper representation of votes, balanced slightly by the need to maintain local representation) which potentially trumps self-interest (IE, no more false majorities for Canada's "Natural Governing Party") would be a truly commendable thing. 

Regarding the Conservatives, the thing about having two parties is the cost.  Your fundraising needs are suddenly doubled.  So the Cons would have Red Tory Party for the urban areas to compete with Libs there, and would also have Populist Right Party for smaller towns.  It would be fine if they didn't need to run candidates in all 338 ridings (or combination of ridings and districts, as the case may be with PR.)  Another issue is that with the Populist Right Party you've also got a split here, with social Cons on one side and Libertarian Cons on the other (though perhaps the Red Tory Party could accommodate the libertarian wing -- still, that's a divergence from the slow Lib approach of Red Tories, IMO).  I dunno.  But given the cost of fundraising for two, I just don't see it.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

You're right that I was not considering PR in my post.  If the Liberals do ultimately bring in PR (MMP open list) I will truly be impressed.  To bring in something in the interest of truth (IE, more proper representation of votes, balanced slightly by the need to maintain local representation) which potentially trumps self-interest (IE, no more false majorities for Canada's "Natural Governing Party") would be a truly commendable thing. 

Regarding the Conservatives, the thing about having two parties is the cost.  Your fundraising needs are suddenly doubled.  So the Cons would have Red Tory Party for the urban areas to compete with Libs there, and would also have Populist Right Party for smaller towns.  It would be fine if they didn't need to run candidates in all 338 ridings (or combination of ridings and districts, as the case may be with PR.)  Another issue is that with the Populist Right Party you've also got a split here, with social Cons on one side and Libertarian Cons on the other (though perhaps the Red Tory Party could accommodate the libertarian wing -- still, that's a divergence from the slow Lib approach of Red Tories, IMO).  I dunno.  But given the cost of fundraising for two, I just don't see it.

Sorry but I do not accept a cost argument. First a more narrow casted couple of parties will likely lead to more donations. There would be greater options for them in negative ads (two candidates allows for twice the money the right can spend). The Conservatives have a financial base that is massive. When one they suffer this is usually becuase something has gone wrong in the party -- a second version would easily pick up the slack. Don't get me wrong I am not hoping they do well but it is clear to me that this is the model that would work for them. It also is the only configuration that in a more proportionate parliament could routinely elect them. Two centre parties with parties on each wing creates a balance where power can alternate. A single party on the right would find it very difficult to get into government if the NDP was continually finding a majority with the Liberals.

mark_alfred

After the Progressive Conservative Party became the Conservative Party (IE, after it was basically taken over by Reform), some Progressive Conservatives (red Tories) did form the Progressive Canadian Party, which went nowhere.  I think the only way a new party would happen, PR or not, is if the hard core right gets pissed off enough to splinter off and form their own party.  In this case they'd be campaigning against the Cons, rather than strategically hoping to form a coalition with them in a PR situation.  Seems now, the absolute maximum Cons can get is 40% -- and I wouldn't anticipate a change in that in the future.  Whether it's one party getting 40%, or two getting 20% or whatever each, wouldn't make a difference, IMO.  PR for the right might make sense in Alberta, where we see the two parties of the right could potentially benefit from it.  Federally though you have the Liberals sucking up too many votes for a two-party Conservative block to work even in a PR system.  That said, the Libs are pro-trade and pro-corporate and pro-tax cut enough for Cons, I figure.  So, if PR happened and the the NDP ever got a plurality of the vote (and thus of seats) and were preaching corporate tax increases and other stuff that Libs & Cons hate, then maybe we'd see Libs and Cons form a coalition (like they did in Britain).  But given the circumstances, even with PR, I don't think it would help the Cons to split in two.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

After the Progressive Conservative Party became the Conservative Party (IE, after it was basically taken over by Reform), some Progressive Conservatives (red Tories) did form the Progressive Canadian Party, which went nowhere.  I think the only way a new party would happen, PR or not, is if the hard core right gets pissed off enough to splinter off and form their own party.  In this case they'd be campaigning against the Cons, rather than strategically hoping to form a coalition with them in a PR situation.  Seems now, the absolute maximum Cons can get is 40% -- and I wouldn't anticipate a change in that in the future.  Whether it's one party getting 40%, or two getting 20% or whatever each, wouldn't make a difference, IMO.  PR for the right might make sense in Alberta, where we see the two parties of the right could potentially benefit from it.  Federally though you have the Liberals sucking up too many votes for a two-party Conservative block to work even in a PR system.  That said, the Libs are pro-trade and pro-corporate and pro-tax cut enough for Cons, I figure.  So, if PR happened and the the NDP ever got a plurality of the vote (and thus of seats) and were preaching corporate tax increases and other stuff that Libs & Cons hate, then maybe we'd see Libs and Cons form a coalition (like they did in Britain).  But given the circumstances, even with PR, I don't think it would help the Cons to split in two.

I don't accept your assumptions.

Campaign agains the moderate Conservative party yes, but being aware of and being intereted in taking a role in government once the votes are counted would be expected and is normal. The only party we have ever had at the Federal level that was not interested in a role in government has been the BQ. there is no contradiction between the campaign and the willingness to get the maximum power your seats can provide. They may fight openly but they would be aware that the configuration of two parties could give greater potential to produce a majority of seats. In fact this leads to the next assumption I take issue with the 40% ceiling.

The conservatives as a united party I think have a practical ceiling of perhaps 45% (more than you suggest). If they do not do as well, and the federal centre party becomes unpopular there is a greater potential. I do agree that a popular vote majority for a single right of centre party is near impossible. But even this is not impossible -- see election results from 1988 and ask why they cannot be replicated ever again -- it can.

This is much easier if they are two parties between them as the right wing of the Conservatives does scare off centre votes. A centre party (call it Liberal, Progressive Conservative or whatever) can command 30-40% even with a right wing party pulling in 20%. A second slightly right of centre party, unsaddled with the more right of centre positions and persons, would have the ability to create a popular majority on the right when a single party could not as easily. Essentially what we are talking about is two parties much like the Liberal party -- one Progressive Conservative just a hair to the right of the Liberal party. This would easily be able to take enough from the centre to have a majority when working with a right wing party.And it is the only configuration that can deliver that easily.

A Progressive Conservative type party would keep the Liberals just a little to the left of where they would be with a united Conservative party. That difference is enough to have that new PC party a contender for enough of the centre to leave the NDP and Liberals in a minority while they and the more right wing party have a majority.

mark_alfred

The idea of willfully creating another entity to capture different parts of the market I don't think has happened elsewhere in PR run democracies.  IE, like Pepsi taking over and marketing both 7-Up and Mountain Dew to counter Coke taking over and marketing Sprite (not to mention Pepsi taking over Tropicana juices to counter Coke having Minute Maid juices).  Then maybe Pepsi could win majority market share with the combined sales of Tropicana, 7-Up, Mountain Dew, and of course Pepsi to counter Coke.  So, perhaps the Conservatives will come up with or take over current existing parties (IE, take over Progressive Canada Party, Libertarian Party, Christian Heritage Party and have them as brands to the umbrella Con party) to increase their overall market share in a PR system.  Yeah, I just don't see it happening.  I believe they would find it easier to simply work on rejigging their main brand rather than wasting resources on creating or taking over smaller brands and trying to build them up.  Plus supporting a party that's supposed to be a competitor is likely against some rule somewhere.

Pages