Sitting Tories to be automatically renominated

[jdobbin]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

The governing Conservative Party has moved to shield its 143 sitting MPs from grassroots challenges to their right to run for the Tories next election. This means incumbents will be automatically nominated as candidates and spared riding-level battles.

The move came after the Tories polled members by mail in the 143 ridings and found that support for opening up the nomination process did not reach a relatively high bar - 66 per cent - in any of them.

It's a repudiation of the party's populist roots in the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance. But Tories say it's necessary to ease stress on their MPs and allow them to stay focused on the onerous demands of a minority government.

For some Reform supporters this has to be a bitter pill.

I'm sure there are some MPs who are breathing a sigh of relief.

Edited May 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

It's funny how Harper left the PC party in disgust to join the Reform but has since dropped anything resembling Reform politics and has instead embraced PC/Liberal style politics. Yuck.

[jdobbin]

It's funny how Harper left the PC party in disgust to join the Reform but has since dropped anything resembling Reform politics and has instead embraced PC/Liberal style politics. Yuck.

Parties should be free to set the terms of who stands as their candidates as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with appointing candidates or stopping a challenge. The trick for party headquarters is to balance the needs of the party with the local constituency.

Reform policies allowed for recall and challengers. It seems those ideas have been abandoned. I imagine that this is not a policy that will be embraced by some supporters of the present Conservatives. It remains to be seen what some of those supporters might do. Some way vote for other parties, others may not vote at all.

[Muddy]

As an old Reformer ,I at first blush have trouble with this policy. An MP can be good for the leader but maybe a lousey MP for the riding. Yet a good sitting MP `s constituency can be shanghied. Scenario. Say a certain minority group wants to undermine a certain party . They sign up the whole tribe and put in one of their own ,only to put a pretend candidate in who will subvert the party in question.

I am no fan of Harper,but I can live with this if I hold my nose.

[Wild Bill]

Reform policies allowed for recall and challengers. It seems those ideas have been abandoned. I imagine that this is not a policy that will be embraced by some supporters of the present Conservatives. It remains to be seen what some of those supporters might do. Some way vote for other parties, others may not vote at all.

Not likely, jdobbin. It has been said before many times in this forum that the Conservative vote feels it has no other choice. They may be dissatisfied with the present CPC but they are very unlikely to consider voting Liberal, at least for another couple of terms to see if the party has truly changed from its present and previous colours.

Nor are they likely to just stay home. While a Liberal supporter might do such a thing I don't believe that those that support the CPC are likely to do such. You see, if you listen to most Liberal supporters or better yet, examine their posts made here on this forum and you'll quickly see that they tend to pick their heroes on an emotional level. Ignatief is a hero 'cuz he's a Liberal. Harper is evil 'cuz he's not a Liberal.

They vote for who they like personally, unlike the typical Conservative voter who tends to be more objective. Tories don't expect perfection and they don't fool themselves that their particular champion is perfect. They weigh the words and deeds and then cast their vote for (as I like to say!) whoever smells the least!

Maybe it's because they tend to be older!

To a Conservative voter, their objective opinion is that the Liberals are still a worse choice than a flawed CPC. So far Ignatief has shown nothing concrete to change that. To be fair, he really can't do anything but make promises until and unless he has a term in power. At that point we can judge him by what he actually does. Right now Conservatives are not going to just blindly swallow promises.

For a Conservative voter to "stay home" it would be understood to be in effect a vote for the Liberals. That still would look to such a voter as a worse outcome.

I can't see any growth potential for the Liberals in those regions of the country where the core of the Tory vote resides, at least for the next election. Central Canada might award a minority to the Liberals but that will only leave us in yet another term of a split country. Ignatief seems to understand this. He's actually been talking "civilized" to Western Canada - the first Liberal to do so in decades. There's just no way this can have an effect in just one election but nonetheless he's planted some important seeds and if he or his successors don't blow it it may come to fruit in 10-15 years! I'm surprised to see a politician with such forethought. I don't ever expect we'll see a Liberal sweep of the West but if they could ever pick up even 20-30 seats from Winnipeg to Vancouver I think it would be good for Canada as a whole.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

You see, if you listen to most Liberal supporters or better yet, examine their posts made here on this forum and you'll quickly see that they tend to pick their heroes on an emotional level. Ignatief is a hero 'cuz he's a Liberal. Harper is evil 'cuz he's not a Liberal.

They may be dissatisfied with the present CPC but they are very unlikely to consider voting Liberal, at least for another couple of terms to see if the party has truly changed from its present and previous colours.

See, unlike Liberals, Conservatives never make choices on emotion as demonstrated above. After all, Ignatieff is bad because he's a Liberal, right?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

See, unlike Liberals, Conservatives never make choices on emotion as demonstrated above. After all, Ignatieff is bad because he's a Liberal, right?

You don't seem to speak from a mathematical or scientific perspective. Did you actually read my words?

"To a Conservative voter, their objective opinion is that the Liberals are still a worse choice than a flawed CPC. So far Ignatief has shown nothing concrete to change that. To be fair, he really can't do anything but make promises until and unless he has a term in power. At that point we can judge him by what he actually does. Right now Conservatives are not going to just blindly swallow promises."

To put it even more simply, I'm saying that Ignatief has had no opportunity to actually SHOW us anything! Unless he's in power he can only make promises.

What has that got to do with being a Liberal? Are you saying he HAS shown us he's different, even though he's never yet been in a position to actually govern?

How is it emotional to make a choice based on actual deeds? We see what Harper does every day. What track record do we have with Ignatief?

Logically, not emotionally, he's just an unknown at this point.

We DO however have the history of his party over at least the past decade or so, if not more! It's all very well to tell us that "that was then and this is now" but that is about as definitive as someone at my door Sunday morning telling me that the Bible is the Devine Gospel because it says it is!

Might be true I'll admit but some of us need a bit more than that before we'll believe it.

Sorry, but so far you still sound "religious" in your argument to me.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

We see what Harper does every day. What track record do we have with Ignatief?

And what kind of a track record does Harper have that would please the the objective conservative voter? I don't expect them to ever vote for Ignatieff on the basis of social issues (you know, that emotional stuff, he's not about to abandon the values of social justice that the Liberal party usually holds), but on the fiscal side of things, there really seems to be no reason for a conservative voter to vote for the Conservative party. They have not been fiscally conservative in any way aside from the fact that they cut taxes (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being fiscally conservative given the circumstances....it seems that under the current lack of fiscal prudence, the tax issue is another emotional one.

[Wild Bill]

And what kind of a track record does Harper have that would please the the objective conservative voter? I don't expect them to ever vote for Ignatieff on the basis of social issues (you know, that emotional stuff, he's not about to abandon the values of social justice that the Liberal party usually holds), but on the fiscal side of things, there really seems to be no reason for a conservative voter to vote for the Conservative party. They have not been fiscally conservative in any way aside from the fact that they cut taxes (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being fiscally conservative given the circumstances....it seems that under the current lack of fiscal prudence, the tax issue is another emotional one.

I feel like I'm shouting at a brick wall!

If they don't vote for the CPC they get Liberals! They may not like the CPC but they think that the Liberals are WORSE!

I give up!

I'm putting you on "ignore", along with Myata and Charter.Rights. Life is just too short.

[Smallc]

Anyway, the issue i was addressing is an important one, whether or not the person I was discussing it with reads it.

What non emotional reasons would conservatives have to vote for the CP, when they have acted in what can be argued to be a less fiscally responsible manner than the LPC? What non emotional issues make them 'better' to conservative voters?

[Wilber]

I think there is a real problem with the membership process. A person should have to be a party member for at least a six months before being allowed to vote in a nomination process. As no one knows when the next election will be, this would avoid the last minute selling of memberships by candidates which is in fact, vote buying.

The parachuting and appointing of candidates by party leaders is something both parties have been guilty of and it is distasteful no matter who does it or whatever the reason.

[Smallc]

I actually don't really have a problem with bringing in candidates. If the people in the riding have a problem, they have a chance to show their displeasure on voting day...as some have probably done in the past.

[Wilber]

I actually don't really have a problem with bringing in candidates. If the people in the riding have a problem, they have a chance to show their displeasure on voting day...as some have probably done in the past.

What if they all decide to do it, then what do you do?

[Smallc]

What if they all decide to do it, then what do you do?

Then if the people disagree, they will show their displeasure and they won't do it again.

[Muddy]

A couple of the things to address. Parachuting appointed candidates is very distasteful to me. I like the idea of a longer time period for membership to vote in the candidate selection process. I have seen many rideings where the hard working board members and a potential good candidate who has done his or her homework has the candidacy taken over by an ethnic tribal mass membership drive. After the election the new members disappear leaving the stalwarts to pick up the pieces of a wrecked association.

Mean while I think Wild Bill has much merit to his argument. I am old and went through my life a a PC, then when disgusted joined Reform ,the first and last truly democratic people driven party that foolishly laid it`s policies out in book form for their enemies to discern. To my lasting regret I went along and worked at creating the CA and then Harper brought us full circle back to being PC or as is now known as the CPC. Yes Bill this old war horse will vote conservative , as the less evil as I see it. There is a Liberal core that would vote Liberal if Joseph Stalin was reincarnated. But the tribal votes of the ethnics can change quickly to whom they perceive will win.

[Molly]

The trouble with so harshly restricting membership benefit (6 months minimum to vote) is that so very much of the membership base comes directly from recruitment during nomination campaigns. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the membership recruitment that keeps a riding association alive.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, perhaps, Muddy.

[Wild Bill]

The trouble with so harshly restricting membership benefit (6 months minimum to vote) is that so very much of the membership base comes directly from recruitment during nomination campaigns. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the membership recruitment that keeps a riding association alive.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, perhaps, Muddy.

Perhaps some don't already know that was precisely what happened with Chuck Cadman, the MP who after he died became the focus of the "Cadman Affair". Some folks claimed that Harper or at least some of his people had tried to bribe Cadman (then an independent) to vote with the government on a very close confidence motion.

Chuck had been one of the original Reform founding members. He believed strongly in the core party planks, such as voting according to the majority wishes of his own riding's constituents, as best as he could ascertain. For that reason he voted against the government, although there were rumours he personally would have backed them.

Anyhow, the reason Chuck had become an independent is because one particular ethnic group organized and swamped his nomination meeting with "instant members" to install their own candidate. They got him in but they got more than they had bargained for. The riding executive all quit, leaving the newcomers floundering to get organized. All the workers left to help Chuck run as an independent. When the votes were counted Chuck had blown the "parachutist" out of the water!

It was obvious that those who usurped the process had not thought beyond winning the nomination about the consequences of their action and the resources they would need to actually win the seat!

Hopefully, they sent a strong message to anyone else who wanted to pull a similar stunt.

Meanwhile, I find it ironic that parties worry about an open nomination not going the way they want yet all parties have routinely parachuted in their own candidate and ignored the local wishes for years and years!

Hypocrites!

[Molly]

Why 'hypocrites'? The very nature of a 'party' is an 'all for one/one for all' agreement... which means what goes on in one riding does have an effect on other ridings.

The questions/problems are common to all parties/ all ridings, and the solutions have not been perfectly ironed out by any of them.

(If there's hypocricy involved, it is adherence to a belief that the rules that any one party has chosen are perfect-- then not quite following them.)

Edited May 7, 2009 by Molly

[Wilber]

Then if the people disagree, they will show their displeasure and they won't do it again.

How will they show their displeasure if all the parties do it?

[Smallc]

How will they show their displeasure if all the parties do it?

That's a highly unlikely scenario....but if it were to happen, I suppose people could vote for independents. I personally wish we had the ability refuse ballots at the federal level.

[Wilber]

The trouble with so harshly restricting membership benefit (6 months minimum to vote) is that so very much of the membership base comes directly from recruitment during nomination campaigns. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the membership recruitment that keeps a riding association alive.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, perhaps, Muddy.

It is not really a party membership base if it is just focused toward one candidate. That candidate doesn't get nominated and that member disappears. Seems to me you want members who support a party and its policies and aren't there solely to participate in nominating a particular individual.

[Wild Bill]

Why 'hypocrites'? The very nature of a 'party' is an 'all for one/one for all' agreement... which means what goes on in one riding does have an effect on other ridings.

The questions/problems are common to all parties/ all ridings, and the solutions have not been perfectly ironed out by any of them.

(If there's hypocricy involved, it is adherence to a belief that the rules that any one party has chosen are perfect-- then not quite following them.)

I guess it depends on your particular political viewpoint. Reformers believed that power should come from the people. They should pick their own candidate and if he wins the seat he should represent THEIR beliefs, which may not always be the same as the policies of the party and/or its leadership.

It seems to me that parties are denying open nominations in the name of protecting a riding from an undemocratic takeover while cheerfully exercising the right to deny a riding any democratic choice of candidate if it's convenient for the party. That's what I meant by hypocrisy.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that if you join a political party then you should follow it. It will tell you where its going and if overall you agree then you will comply.

After the delicious taste of the Reform philosophy I for one could never again become just a follower.

To me it seems like we're debating two very different POV's. One is based on democratic populism. The other seems simply "Borg".

Resistance is NEVER futile!

Edited May 7, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

I understand... but no, my view of political parties is a long shot from the Borg version.

Party membership is a tradeoff. Work with like-minded folk... and for their help, be willing to support them on issues that are important to them, but of no great consequence to you. When push comes to shove, a single issue can far, far, far outweigh any party loyalty.

IMO a representatives priorities should be 1) common sense; 2) the best interest of the constituency; 3) the best interest of the nation/province/municipality/what have you; 4) the best interest of the party.... in that order. Personal best interests don't even make the list, because, darn it, it's "public service". If you aren't willing to sacrifice yourself in service to the public, don't apply.

[Molly]

And yes, IMO, open nominations are extremely important. I dislike the very idea of parachute and/or appointed candidates-- it's disdainful of true democracy-- but I also see those things having a place.

My tolerance is because I don't like seeing 'the right thing' ending up bypassed just because the rules-to-excess writers didn't happen to foresee unforseeable circumstances. I'm rather fond of the idea of the buck eventually stopping with some ONE individual actually making a decision, and wearing it.

It takes a little trust, but call me a cockeyed optimist. Most folks who take a keen interest in politics are motivated by 'the greater good'.

[jdobbin]

Not likely, jdobbin. It has been said before many times in this forum that the Conservative vote feels it has no other choice. They may be dissatisfied with the present CPC but they are very unlikely to consider voting Liberal, at least for another couple of terms to see if the party has truly changed from its present and previous colours.

Didn't say they would vote Liberal but voter turn out was definitely down even in hardcore Tory ridings.

Nor are they likely to just stay home. While a Liberal supporter might do such a thing I don't believe that those that support the CPC are likely to do such. You see, if you listen to most Liberal supporters or better yet, examine their posts made here on this forum and you'll quickly see that they tend to pick their heroes on an emotional level. Ignatief is a hero 'cuz he's a Liberal. Harper is evil 'cuz he's not a Liberal.

So you think the downturn in voters in hardcore Tory ridings was because Liberals and others stayed home but not Tories?

They vote for who they like personally, unlike the typical Conservative voter who tends to be more objective. Tories don't expect perfection and they don't fool themselves that their particular champion is perfect. They weigh the words and deeds and then cast their vote for (as I like to say!) whoever smells the least!

Please. I have rarely heard such unsupported claims.

For a Conservative voter to "stay home" it would be understood to be in effect a vote for the Liberals. That still would look to such a voter as a worse outcome.

Since voter turn out seems to be an issue for Tories as much as any party, I don't think you can possibly claim that people are not sitting at home because they worry about it electing Liberals. They stay at home because they feel disenfranchised or have no interest at all.

I can't see any growth potential for the Liberals in those regions of the country where the core of the Tory vote resides, at least for the next election. Central Canada might award a minority to the Liberals but that will only leave us in yet another term of a split country. Ignatief seems to understand this. He's actually been talking "civilized" to Western Canada - the first Liberal to do so in decades. There's just no way this can have an effect in just one election but nonetheless he's planted some important seeds and if he or his successors don't blow it it may come to fruit in 10-15 years! I'm surprised to see a politician with such forethought. I don't ever expect we'll see a Liberal sweep of the West but if they could ever pick up even 20-30 seats from Winnipeg to Vancouver I think it would be good for Canada as a whole.

I doubt there will be major inroads in the west either. I see some possible wins in some urban ridings considering how many women appear to be unimpressed with Tory policies.

Harper has appeared to blow it with Quebec by attacking the BQ and by extension those that voted for the party. His chance of repeating even a minority is slipping away.