Conservative leadership race #1

Brachina wrote:

I've been hearing that Harper is ready to retire for years now, I'll believe it when I see it.

Espeically since he seems to have a great deal of antipathy towards the Liberal Party. I wouldn't put it past him to stick around just to make sure he beats the Liberal Party again.

Fun fact: If both the Conservatives and NDP elect new leaders who are currently under 40, Stephen Harper may go down in history as Canada's only [url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/baby-boom/]Baby boomer[/url] Prime Minister (b. 1946-1965).

Edited to add: Also [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell]Kim Campbell[/url], but she only had the job for 4 1/2 months.

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, seems Kevin O'Leary is considering it.  Ambrose indicates the Cons are interested.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/when-dark-economic-clouds-overshadow-th...

My perception of O'Leary is that he is a pure libertarian.  There doesn't seem a trace of social conservative in him. 

Yes, for him money is the only consideration.

O'Leary may have his timing wrong though. A leader like him who is going to say offensive things is mostly unelectable. However at the right window when people are upset at a government that is governing to the left -- perhaps due to scandals or missteps -- then there is an opening. At this point people remain upset at a long-time right wing government. If people grow angry at Trudeau it woud most likely be that he is not meeting the expectations of his left agenda, not that he has gone too far. At this point O'Leary may come in and be branded as a far right cartoon before people are willing to consdier the right again. So while not have the social conservatism may help him, hiw extreme right economic views and brashness would take him out of the picture right now. Had he waited, there might have been another opening if the next Conservative leader fails. The next Conservative leader will either have to come from the more moderate side or that party will not be viable to win for the next 1-2 elections despite how close they were in the election.

All this said, Trudeau's more significant risk is the fragility of his majority as it counts on many first time or traditionally non-voters. Trudeau either has to convince them to stay engaged, keep the NDP down in the low teens, bring over moderate Conservatives, otherwise his majority will be at risk.

Let's consider these:

A new government will come with some good will and the tone of the opposition will have a lot to do with that. If the opposition is strident against Trudeau personally, then his support may increase firther. However, if the opposition is constructive finding fault on issues this will be more difficult.

Keeping people engaged is a challenge for Trudeau. Many people who came out to vote did so out of a desire to see a fairer system and greater democracy. If Trudeau chooses a more democratic option like PR for electoral reform, the chance of a majority is extremely low. However, if he picks somethign that will help his party to a false majority like the run-off systems or retaining FPTP people who voted for democratic renewal are likely to be turned off and cynical. Eitehr option is a lose -- unless trudeau can spin this out with hearings and process to run out the closk on the next election. Then he can face the next election without the promise kept but at least without it broken completely. Those people being engaged again remains a long shot.

Keeping the NDP in the low teens might be difficult. Mulcair is a wounded leader and any change in leadership is likely to boost the party at least somewhat and it may do this disproortionately in the NDP's best prospect ridings if the race is seen to be dynamic and the party picks a good communicator. If the NDP returns to the 20% range (or just under) then the need to get support elsewhere to hold the majority becomes important. While the NDP appears to be imploding now there is no certainty that this will remain the case over four years. In fact the faster opposition grows to Mulcair the faster the party can renew and move on. If another option, such as what I have proposed were to grow that option could be a threat to Liebral seats as well as NDP seats, even if it were not powerful enough to govern.

The Conservatives are an interesting group. They could blow apart into two parties, a right wing and more centre option if the leadership race breaks down. However, they are more likely to choose a moderate leader and fall behind that person in the hope of dislodging the Liberals. The reason I think this is that while they lost they are not down that far. I think if winning were further away or an electoral system more forgiving of small parties, the Conservatives would split. Right now they have every reason to try to stay together and sound more centre (even if they are not really). I suspect that they will try to elect someone who they think can appeal: younger, possibly female. This would likely allow them to at least recover and hold their support. If the Liberals did not bring out their first-time-voter fans then likely the election would be closer and a minority.

The NDP fo its part needs to hope that it can get a decent leader who can be in contention and, in the next parliament, the balance of power. This is still quite possible although Mulcair could blow it for the NDP and keep a lame duck as leader through the next election who also may drive people out due to his lack of support for the social justice values that motivate NDP voters.

In this context, I think the Conservatives would be stupid to go with O'Leary. I don't like them but I don't think they are that stupid.

What O'Leary might do for them is plant the seed for others who are out of politics to step in. A person from the outside could shake things up and do serious damage. For example a guy like Andrew Coyne (not sure if he speaks any French) would shake things up if we were to talk about a media personality. Coyne is right of centre, well known and Conservative, however he has criticized the Harper government extensively on democratic issues. If the CPC were able to shake things up with an entry like O'Leary, they could bring in others like Coyne. It is possible O'Leary, while himself a joke, might cause others who are more serious contenders to come in. Any entry like this could shake things up for Trudeau somewhat.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is possible O'Leary, while himself a joke, might cause others who are more serious contenders to come in. Any entry like this could shake things up for Trudeau somewhat.

Remember Trudeau initially was considered a bit of a joke too.  The Cons may feel that celebrity sells.

Agreed about Coyne.  He won't run.

To be clear I picked Coyne as an example of out left field and more mainstream. I too do not see him running. However, I would not be surprised if someone who we would not imagine running suddenly did. And I think that an O'Leary candidacy improves the chance of that happening. I do see a figure that we do not expect -- like Coyne being a last minute candidate that could cause excitement.

That said I think Coyne would get it if he went for it -- and probably increase their membership hugely in the process.

Michael Valpy ran for the NDP.  So journalists do run sometimes.

mark_alfred wrote:

Michael Valpy ran for the NDP.  So journalists do run sometimes.

Yes, as I said above, there are some that run.  I just said the majority do not.  Particularly the really big ones that have a reputation (& income) to protect.

But it's true that all parties have had several journalists run for them at some point, including during this past election.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If Canada really wants its own Donald Trump, might I suggest Donald Cherry?

He's Canada's seventh greatest Canadian.

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said I think Coyne would get it if he went for it -- and probably increase their membership hugely in the process.

1.  Why do you assume Coyne is a Conservative? (eg. supporter of the CPC).  He certainly has some conservative economic viewpoints, but he isn't really a Conservative partisan -- not of Harper & the CPC incarnation.

2.  Why do you think Coyne would 'get it' if he went for it?  As I said above, wouldn't the fact that Coyne has written dozens of critical columns of the CPC and actually voted *NDP* in 2015 and *Liberal* in 2011 be an issue for CPC voters?

No he is not a Harper Conservative but he is a self-described conservative. He could be described as a progressive conservative. I think there are a good many people who would be attracted to that. As well there are a number of more Harper brand Conservatives there to split the field. A single really moderate Conservative of Coyne's stature would not only stand to gather the moderate support but also gain a lot of political middle Canadians. Other Conservatives I think would flock to him as better than Trudeau and a person who actually could take government as early as the next election. He would also sign up a lot of new supporters.

His criticisms likely would help him attract many of those who want a real break from the past.

I did not know he voted for the NDP in 2015 or see the reference -- but in both cases I would see this as a protest.

Re: post #122

True.  Cherry is #2 after Suzuki.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pundits are now saying what I have been saying for a while -- that the Conservatives may be waiting a bit to see what electoral system they will deal with and that they may be better off as two parties with one being moderate if the Liberals bring in a ranked ballot system.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2459108/unpacking-the-politics-what-will-becom...

I have a tough time putting much credit to Delacourt's speculation. 

Kevin O'Leary second behind MacKay in new poll.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-oleary-conservative-poll-1.3408600

Debater wrote:

This is beginning to resemble the GOP race down South.

Many of the top choices are unrealistic and unlikely to win.

How likely is it that MacKay will be the winner of the CPC leadership, for example?

I think too early to say that -- need to wait and see if serious contenders emerge. They may yet. The key infomration will be the deadline to enter the contest and the realistic unofficial deadline for viable campaigns. Until we are near that this is just entertainment.

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Kevin O'Leary second behind MacKay in new poll.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-oleary-conservative-poll-1.3408600

The numbers illustrate what I've been saying for a long time.

The survey, conducted by Mainstreet Research for Postmedia, gauged Conservative supporters on their thoughts on the upcoming leadership race. Among a list of six candidates rumoured to be mulling a run, MacKay and O'Leary topped their rivals with 25 and 23 per cent support, respectively.

They were followed at a distance by Alberta MP Jason Kenney at eight per cent, Quebec and Ontario MPs Maxime Bernier and Lisa Raitt at four per cent, and Ontario MP Kellie Leitch at three per cent. Another three per cent said "someone else," while 29 per cent were undecided.

The Conservatives are at risk of either splitting up or losing a lot of support. At one point reform types tried to change the leadership vote rules to one person one vote instead of votes being per riding. Peter MacKay fought it because the number of western members is much higher than in the east.

Alberta reform types are freaking out that Notley has a majority. They are not going to allow control of the Conservative party to shift east. From the perspective of the east they let the reformers have first choice of leader in Harper. Now it's their turn. This is very much like what is happening to the Republicans.

This is good news for Canadians and the NDP. I hope the reform types win the battle which they probably will because there are more of them. That will seal the fate of the Reformcons in Canada and hopefully lead to the NDP being the official opposition until they win.

The real contenders may not be declared. A number of Conservatives likely want an idea on what kind of electoral system we will have. If it is PR or ranked ballots -- either way -- the need for a united right is gone. In the case of ranked ballots the Conservatives gain form being two parties (more right has centre as second choice; with the centre being apart form the more right the centre can benefit from Liberal second chocies as well.

These may not be the final choices but in the end the Consevatives may not have to choose between a right wing person to fire up the grass roots and a moderate that can pull centre support form Liberals.

Liberals of course benefit in the same way: they get the second choice of the NDP and can get the second choices of the more centre Conservatives. This effectively would end the idea that Canada would be a 21/2 -3 party system and go back firmly to a two party system with minor parties being their stalking horses. This would be bad for democracy and very limiting in ideas. In this context the minor parties might drift further as they have no incentive to moderate as they will never be contenders again. They might exist for a small minority to put their vote to make a point but there would only be two parties in the running for government. The more dynamic system that PR could bring would ahve been avoided.

When you look at events and you want to know who did what -- you look for who benefits and then do a DNA and fingerprint test.

The numbers illustrate that a lot of people have heard of Kevin O'Leary and Peter McKay. I don't know that they demonstrate much else.

Well, maybe that politics is stacked against women candidates, but we already knew that. 

swallow wrote:

The numbers illustrate that a lot of people have heard of Kevin O'Leary and Peter McKay. I don't know that they demonstrate much else.

They illustrate a hell of a lot more than that. The men are opposites. McKay stepped aside for Harper to be the first leader of the new party. It was assumed that the next leader would come from the old Progressive Conservatives. They didn't expect Harper to win and rule for a decade. McKay appeals to the old Progressive Conservatives, the moderates. Kevin O'Leary appeals to the Reform types. Think of them as ideological place holders.

The same split will happen no matter who runs. The Reform types will likely win. If they do the new Conservative party will not be a threat for some time to come. Harper passed under the radar until this election when his desperation drove him to embrace Ford and suggest tip lines for racists.

Now we have Rona Ambrose making a fool of herself over deficit spending when Canada is heading into a crisis most likely more significant than the 2006 one because of Harper's focus on oil as the driver of the economy.

My sense is that the reformers are ready to double down which will alienate the PC types.

The Conservative Party of Canada announced today it will elect a new leader on May 27, 2017.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservative-party-leadership-selection-s...

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

Kevin O'Leary second behind MacKay in new poll.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-oleary-conservative-poll-1.3408600

The numbers illustrate what I've been saying for a long time.

The survey, conducted by Mainstreet Research for Postmedia, gauged Conservative supporters on their thoughts on the upcoming leadership race. Among a list of six candidates rumoured to be mulling a run, MacKay and O'Leary topped their rivals with 25 and 23 per cent support, respectively.

They were followed at a distance by Alberta MP Jason Kenney at eight per cent, Quebec and Ontario MPs Maxime Bernier and Lisa Raitt at four per cent, and Ontario MP Kellie Leitch at three per cent. Another three per cent said "someone else," while 29 per cent were undecided.

The Conservatives are at risk of either splitting up or losing a lot of support. At one point reform types tried to change the leadership vote rules to one person one vote instead of votes being per riding. Peter MacKay fought it because the number of western members is much higher than in the east.

Alberta reform types are freaking out that Notley has a majority. They are not going to allow control of the Conservative party to shift east. From the perspective of the east they let the reformers have first choice of leader in Harper. Now it's their turn. This is very much like what is happening to the Republicans.

This is good news for Canadians and the NDP. I hope the reform types win the battle which they probably will because there are more of them. That will seal the fate of the Reformcons in Canada and hopefully lead to the NDP being the official opposition until they win.

Wow, this is very ignorant and naive:

1) There isn't an active CPC leadership race going on right now, so any polls about support for one candidate or another are completely irrelevant for practical purposes.

2) As Sean pointed out, if PR or AV comes into effect, there will no longer be a need for the right wing to stay united under one party banner anyways.

3) The fact that you would cheer on the rise of the Reform is frightening. I live in Western Canada, I saw how they channeled people's anger by directing it towards, immigrants, French Canadians, Natives, and basically anyone who wans't like them. I don't want to have to go through that again. Or take the example of Quebec, where Mario Dumont was able to stoke the flames of xenophobia in la belle province, but even NDP candidates there broke ranks to agree with Harper on the niqab. There's no reason to think that a Reform II could not gain traction in Quebec. Furthermore, it is also naieve to take it for granted that such a thing would naturally allow the other parties to win, independent of those parties doing the work themselves. And no, Canadians are no less prone to cynical politics than anyone else. Harper is many things, but stupid he is not, and he would not have allowed the niqab to become an issue unless he had good reason to believe it would work. Sure it backfired on him, but what if there had been a major terrorist attack within a week of the election? Do you not think the shock and fear and anger may have handed him another majority? Look at how demagogues in the US, Europe, and even in Sweden are scapegoating foreigners and gaining traction in the polls because of it. Listen to how your fellow Canadians talk, and realize that we are not so special.

Pondering wrote:

If we switch to some form of PR I will still be happy to see the split because it will reduce their collective impact through revealing their true nature.

Doesn't mean the Reform and PC parties won't act together in some sort of coalition. If they were able to work as a coalition under the Conservative name, I don't see what would stop them from working as a coalition between 2 different parties. In Australia the right-wing coalition is actually composed of 2 parties, the Liberals and the Nationalists, and they pursue a common legislative agenda

Pondering is not completely wrong here. The Conservatives managed to get a reform Conservative to represent the full spectrum that party attracted. If they broke into two parties this would become clearer.

Looking into the future you can imagine in PR a moderate left party, a farther left party, a moderate right party, a further right party (and minor others).

The Liberals who are now centre or even slightly right might lose a few people to the moderate conservative party -- these would be the PC  people who went to the Liberals when the Conservative movement united behind a further right party.

So imagining these four parties you have three basic coalition blocks: moderate conservative and further Conservative; moderate conservative and moderate left; moderate left and further left. This is the same set of most likely electoral preferences we would expect in a ranked balloting set of choices except it would include better accountabiliy and representation.

This would also for the purpose of coalitions favour the centre parties as all coalitions would include one of them and either one of the wings or the other one. A move towards this configuration would be positive. We would not assume if the Conservatives split that the moderate conservatives would always work with the more reform types. Most here I think would see that the Liberals would also be a natural possibility. In sum the centre parties could look both left and right but the wings, for the most part would look to the closest centre party. However, it would not be impossible under some circumstance for the left party to work with the moderate conservative or the reform type to work with the Liberal. It would be more difficult and likely not long lasting but at least in theory all parties would have some coalition options and a need to remain accessible to this opportunity. This is largley what I would expect PR to bring us to.

I also would expect ranked ballots also to create a desire for the Conservatives to split. The borad uncomfortable unity is only forced by FPTP. While I do not favour ranked ballots (an unjustified heavy title to the centre and not representative) it would have the same effect in that the right would not need or want unity once they figure this out.

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean, why do you think ranked ballots would inspire the Conservatives to split?  There's a possible potential advantage of splitting within PR maybe -- but frankly even a split in this circumstance wouldn't be much help given the halving of fundraising dollars between the two; so, I don't see the possibility of it happening for any strategic purpose as Delacourt oddly states.  The only way I see it happening is if the two sides start fighting again -- but I don't see that happening either at present.

The reason is simple. A more right wing Conservative party would not be a second choice for anyone.

But if you have a centre Conservative party, it will start by drawing some votes that might go Liberal in a more polarized choice. Then in the few ridings the NDP might be in a runoff with the moderate Conservative, that moderate conservative would draw a number of Liberal second choices where as if the option were between a more right wing Conservative and the NDP most Liberals would opt for the NDP. In all cases the votes for the more right wing version are not lost they would flow to the moderate option. This could in many cases elect a moderate Conservative when a united Conservative option might be rejected by more Liberals and otherwise a New Democrat elected.

This is especially critical for New Democrats who think their party could survive a ranked ballot system as a viable party. As soon as there are two centre parties they will essentially gain significant support of each other knocking out any parties that are not at the centre.

With a united right that is quite far to the right this would not happen as most Liberals would likely opt for the NDP if they did not make the final ballot.

Liberals would also gain disproportionately by any Conservative votes if the Conservatives can't make the top two.

This is the reason so many have said that the ranked ballots will overly favour the Liberals. A second party close to centre on the right could benefit in the same way and the two centre parties could duke it out not worrying about any serious threat from right or left.

mark_alfred wrote:

Okay.  If I understand correctly, you're not making the same speculation that Delacourt made.  Rather, you feel that they'd firmly split as before (PC and Con) based on ideological grounds rather than strategic, right?  A byproduct is that for the PCs, RBV would work well.  But, given the stubbornness of the two sides, they'd not be able to agree on adopting a softer Con face (IE, a PC face) for the one party, and thus would split in two.  Delacourt argued, wrongly, I feel, that they'd engineer this as a strategic move for RBV, to then reunite in the House after an election.  A silly assertion, I feel, particulary for RBV.

Yes, there are differences between what I said and Delecourt -- especially that they would re-unite. If there is no electoral reason for them to be united then they will not do it.

I think the reason for splitting is both ideological and strategic. I think the tendency for ideological purposes is to split. The reason to be together is the necessity created by FPTP. Without this unifying necessity, I would see them split.

I think the issue of stragey woudl be conscious and certainly the fact that being split works better for the strategy in RBV would be a driving force. They would not split unless it made sense on ideological AND strategic grounds. I think they would be aware that the reform type Conservative party unity would be hurt by RBV and that splitting into two would be the best approach.

So a little of column A and a little of column B -- An awareness of both and a very conscious strategic based decision. But in response to the ideological split.

the only thing that would prevent an ideological split woudl be the emergence of a leader who would appeal to both camps. If both sides want the same person they have a reason to be united to get that person. Without such a figure they liekly will find that it is easier for each camp to pick their own best leader.

Finally, I am not sure if this change would happen before the next election. It is possible that one side or the other could win out and an election loss under that person might happen before the final decision to split based on aome degree of acrimony from the other camp.

I think that under PR the Conservatives side might get more votes with two different leaders each attacting a following and each not being the other so the downbisdes of that attraction not driving the voters who did not like them to the Liberals. Und RBV as I said I think the total vote for the Conservative side would go up for these reasons as well as some votes (even if it is a minority) comging from Liberals when they do not make the top two. The strategic value creating more votes will be impossible to ignore once you see the system in practice.

I do see a split being the most likely if Canada goes with either PR or RBV.