Name the next CPC and NDP leaders

[ReeferMadness]

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Tories are actually in debt at the end of this election:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/20/harpers-final-days-and-what-happens-next.html

Not only does this show how Harper's long election gambit didn't work, it has actually left the party in the hole. What's more, there are now suggestions that the Tory strategists never actually felt the party had a chance, so it seems this unnecessarily long and expensive election not only did not help the Tories, but has left them in a position where a new leader has going to spend a good deal more time fundraising.

The Tories, it strikes me, should be happy there is a majority government in power. They'll probably need four years to rebuild the party and its finances.

They ran paid ads on CBC radio. Since they were pretty strongly anti-CBC and cut its funding every chance they got, I have no idea which genius thought that was a good use of money.

[ToadBrother]

They ran paid ads on CBC radio. Since they were pretty strongly anti-CBC and cut its funding every chance they got, I have no idea which genius thought that was a good use of money.

Well, if the stories coming out are true, the Tories seemed to know they were screwed before the writ was even dropped. This would certainly explain the number of MPs and cabinet ministers who walked away in the months preceding the election. You can be pretty darned sure that guys like Mackay, Baird and Moore knew very well that the Tories were spent, and weren't going to stick around to end up on the opposition benches, or worse kicked out completely.

In the end I think the Tories just didn't know how to win this. You can look in hindsight and see that if the Tories had surreptitiously supported the NDP, by at least laying off on Mulcair a bit, it might have increased the number of ridings they could walk up the middle on, but at the time maybe they thought the niqab issue would corner Trudeau just as much as Mulcair.

But even in the best case scenario, the Tories would have ended up with a minority that everyone had to know would be defeated at the earliest opportunity, to be replaced by one of the other parties with third party support. What would the point of a technical win that lead to Parliamentary defeat.

I still think the Tories would have had a better shot if Harper had been shown the door a year and a half ago. Maybe it would have ended in loss, but at least they'd be a lot further down the road to rebuilding, and have been a year and half in the post-Harper era.

[The_Squid]

At least the Conservatives found a woman to blame for their loss...

"She's a lightning rod, partly because of her personality, but also because she's a woman," said the source. "She's going to bear the brunt of a lot of knifing because she's a woman at the top of the food chain."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-jenni-byrne-tossed-1.3280702

The quote above pretty much spells out what's wrong with the CPC...

[Kageshima]

In my view, if the CPC wants to achieve success in the next election, they're going to need to elect a leader that will steer them more towards the center instead of push them further right. They need to disassociate themselves with the kind of politics that defined Harper's terms in power, and what ultimately got the voters to give him the boot. They're going to have to convince voters that they've changed in order to regain the red Tory vote and perhaps steal a bit of blue Grits.

Unfortunately for them it doesn't look like many of the potential candidates seem to hold that kind of view. While Jean Charest and Brad Wall would have my (relative) support, it remains to be seen whether either will even run (which in Wall's case is highly unlikely, since he seems to be a man of his words), much less receive the support of the reform-dominated CPC base.

If the CPC elects more and more hardline rightists I think their electoral fortunes in the near-to-mid future may be dim. It is in the best interests of the party to get someone who is able to nab some centrist votes and redefine their image in the wake of what will probably be a nomination process dominated by an identity crisis.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Perhaps Tories should ask why they became so hated.

Those on the left live to hate. An extremist Muslim seeing a cartoon of Mohamad has nothing on a progressive who sees someone with a different opinion. The only difference is the progressive doesn't believe in God and isn't about to off himself. Harper was hated, loathed and despised before he was even elected as prime Minister. And everything he did thereafter was read through the most paranoid, frenzied eyes to see the supposed underlying evil in it. No one in this country is as angrily intolerant as progressives.

Here's a tip for future Conservative governments. Don't give jerks like Pierre Poilievre bully pulpits to show how incredibly and apologetically vile and mean your party can be,

Any conservative will be hated by the left no matter what he does or says, simply for being conservative. If he holds money back from public service unions or the CBC or causes the progressives like he's satan himself.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Civis Romanus sum]

In my view, if the CPC wants to achieve success in the next election, they're going to need to elect a leader that will steer them more towards the center instead of push them further right. They need to disassociate themselves with the kind of politics that defined Harper's terms in power, and what ultimately got the voters to give him the boot. They're going to have to convince voters that they've changed in order to regain the red Tory vote and perhaps steal a bit of blue Grits.

The last thing the Tories need to do is become liberal light again, a poor copy of the Liberals, standing for nothing. The conservatives didn't get booted out of office because of what the party did, but how it, under Harper's direction, did it. Politics is a game, and Harper refused to play it by the rules. You need to let the opposition make mouth noises over bills if they want. You need to play the schmooze game with the media. And you can't be so hyper partisan about everything. You also can't make the party all about one man unless that one man is an awfully attractive and charistmatic one. Harper's government wasn't very conservative at all, in fact. It was solidly centrist. But they got no credit from the frenzied mob of the left.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Civis Romanus sum]

In the end I think the Tories just didn't know how to win this. You can look in hindsight and see that if the Tories had surreptitiously supported the NDP, by at least laying off on Mulcair a bit, it might have increased the number of ridings they could walk up the middle on, but at the time maybe they thought the niqab issue would corner Trudeau just as much as Mulcair.

I think Tom Flanagan had the right take on it. The Tories didn't offer anything unique, anything new, anything to entice people to vote for them. They offered no change after almost ten years, nothing to get excited about.

Experience suggests that a conservative party cannot successfully run only on a theme of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, except perhaps when government spending has gotten completely out of hand. In normal times – and this was a very normal time – a conservative party has to show how its free-market, fiscally responsible policies will make ordinary people better off – and that means better off in the next four years, not in the past. The Conservative party of 2015 seemed to have forgotten the lesson of 2006.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/conservatives-had-the-money-but-forgot-the-message/article26883457/

Edited October 21, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[Civis Romanus sum]

Trudeau took every single seat in all four Atlantic provinces. I don't think that has ever happened in history.

The welfare provinces need to be bought with promises of more free money. That's all they care about, really. Harper didn't offer them anything new, and Trudeau had a big bag of cash on his back when he came calling.

[ToadBrother]

The last thing the Tories need to do is become liberal light again, a poor copy of the Liberals, standing for nothing. The conservatives didn't get booted out of office because of what the party did, but how it, under Harper's direction, did it. Politics is a game, and Harper refused to play it by the rules. You need to let the opposition make mouth noises over bills if they want. You need to play the schmooze game with the media. And you can't be so hyper partisan about everything. You also can't make the party all about one man unless that one man is an awfully attractive and charistmatic one. Harper's government wasn't very conservative at all, in fact. It was solidly centrist. But they got no credit from the frenzied mob of the left.

Whatever the merits of the Tory policies (and they were a mixed bag), it was the style of government, not merely the hyperpartisanship, but the shoddy way he treated even his own cabinet and MPs. What kind of message do you send to your caucus when your missives are delivered to them by a pack of unelected PMO toadies. What kind of message do you send to your caucus, when those same toadies are forcing policy and media points on them, as if members of the Government are no more than brainless ciphers whose sole job is to move their mouths in time to the PM's inner circle?

You know what killed the Tories; Harper's absolute lack of trust in any but a very small cadre of appointees and a couple of trusted ministers. It was indeed a Nixonian style of government, with a small inner circle who viewed the entire country as simply an extension of the PM's will.

If Harper had showed even the tiniest bit of deference to our Wesrtminster style of government, I might have felt very differently, but as it was, he viewed any obstacle to his authority as something that needed to be mowed down, obliterated, and publicly trashed.

And that's the problem. At the end of the day, what did Stephen Harper ever represent but Stephen Harper? There was no grand vision; and that famine of big ideas became very evident in the ridiculous boutique tax credits, silly balanced budget legislation, attempts to invoke general distress over the clothing worn by less women in a citizenship ceremony than can fit in my 2002 Toyota Corolla. It was like a campaign run by a soul-less Vaderesque marketing guru. There was nothing to point to that didn't look mean, petty and uninspired.

[ToadBrother]

The welfare provinces need to be bought with promises of more free money. That's all they care about, really. Harper didn't offer them anything new, and Trudeau had a big bag of cash on his back when he came calling.

In what world do you imagine insulting voters wins votes?

Have you pondered the admittedly remote possibility that you in no way represent the majority of Canadians, or even the majority of Conservatives?

[angrypenguin]

No one here has said why Kenney is a bad idea as a CPC leader. I'd like to hear some reasons please.

Danke.

[ToadBrother]

No one here has said why Kenney is a bad idea as a CPC leader. I'd like to hear some reasons please.

Danke.

The chief reasons that I've heard is:

- Guilt by association. He has long been perceived as one of Harper's most trusted lieutenants, and thus the party may feel that he invokes Harper too much.

- He is perceived, perhaps somewhat unfairly, as being very much a social conservative from the Reform wing of the party, and that could be viewed as a liability in a future race against Trudeau.

You can counter this with the fact that, other than a somewhat mixed record as Minister of Defense, Kenney was one of the more able, and more importantly, more trusted of Harper's ministers. Whatever some may think of him, he was seen as competent and hardworking.

So we'll just have to see how the Conservatives weight it out. They seem in no rush to pick a new leader, which I think is smart. I think Kenney would be a contender in a leadership race, but his negatives are going to be a problem.

[ReeferMadness]

Has anyone suggested Doug Ford?

[angrypenguin]

The chief reasons that I've heard is:

- Guilt by association. He has long been perceived as one of Harper's most trusted lieutenants, and thus the party may feel that he invokes Harper too much.

- He is perceived, perhaps somewhat unfairly, as being very much a social conservative from the Reform wing of the party, and that could be viewed as a liability in a future race against Trudeau.

You can counter this with the fact that, other than a somewhat mixed record as Minister of Defense, Kenney was one of the more able, and more importantly, more trusted of Harper's ministers. Whatever some may think of him, he was seen as competent and hardworking.

So we'll just have to see how the Conservatives weight it out. They seem in no rush to pick a new leader, which I think is smart. I think Kenney would be a contender in a leadership race, but his negatives are going to be a problem.

Based on the article from TorStar about the Conservatives being broke now, there is a line in there IIRC that they are immediately starting to look for a leader. Immediately being - this morning. If it's not mentioned there, it's mentioned here:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/150116/Tories-begin-post-mortem

I'm curious where you see otherwise? Thanks!

[Smeelious]

Of Harper I'd say:

-He was one of the better Opposition Leaders in History.

-His Government was Centrist

-The things that people dislike about his government where the same things he himself hated about the Liberal Governments before him.

Heaven knows what'll happen to Trudeau after being PM for four years.

The next leader of the CPC has a hell of a battle ahead of him. As much as I'd like to see Chong as leader, I'm not sure that he would be good for CPC unity.

[angrypenguin]

The next leader of the CPC has a hell of a battle ahead of him. As much as I'd like to see Chong as leader, I'm not sure that he would be good for CPC unity.

I disagree with many about this. I think in 4 years, Trudeaumania will have worn off and that the wrecked economy will cause the Conservatives to win again.

[ReeferMadness]

I disagree with many about this. I think in 4 years, Trudeaumania will have worn off and that the wrecked economy will cause the Conservatives to win again.

You mean like how the economy was wrecked when Harper took over?

[angrypenguin]

You mean like how the economy was wrecked when Harper took over?

Harper and the LPC and NDP lead at the time all agreed to spend like a wild person during 2008 to invest in the economy. Then Harper did the following, and cut out deficit every single year, and came out a year ahead of target to get us back in the surplus. I don't understand why people keep on saying that Harper wrecked the economy. No, he fixed it. Trudeau though is about to sink our country back into a deficit, when we don't need one. Oh well, it doesn't affect me much. I just pay more taxes. Part of me wants Trudeau to go through with all of his promises, to wreck this country, just so I could say "I told you so"

Edited October 21, 2015 by angrypenguin

[Hydraboss]

...Have you pondered the admittedly remote possibility that you in no way represent the majority of Canadians, or even the majority of Conservatives?

Actually, he pretty much nailed the opinion of this country's conservatives. Perfectly.

[Hydraboss]

That must somehow mean 40% of voters are wrong.

But doesn't that mean that.....60% of voters never wanted this guy?

He must be....eeevvviiillll!!!!

(did I get that right? is that how the whole 'slander the guy in charge' thing works?)

[Newfoundlander]

Harper's polices - for the most part - weren't the reason he lost the election. It was his politics. People talk about how the Conservatives need to move further to the centre to win - yet Harper won three times - but what policies have the Conservatives been promoting that are so far to the right?

[hitops]

Sour grapes, plain and simple.

Trudeau took every single seat in all four Atlantic provinces. I don't think that has ever happened in history.

Trudeau went from a decimated third place party to forming government. That's happened only once before and it was in 1925.

The Liberals took ridings like Fundy Royal which have been Conservative for literally 100 years.

Only a staunch partisan with an axe to grind would call last nights performance "unremarkable."

I'm not a partisan in that sense. I would have gladly voted for Goodale if he was leader because gov needs to change after some time.

The result was remarkable, Trudeau was not. He is cringe-worthy. But the anti-Harper sentiment was intense, and voters decided within the last 2 weeks to go Liberal. The polls in the days before the election are consistent with the result. But not a few weeks ago, if the election were held then, we could easily be talking about a Mulcair or Harper victory.

If Trudeau was dominating the polls for months we could say he was great. But that's not what's happened. The election hit at exactly the right time for CPC decline and NDP implosion. This was an anti-Harper election which swung to the Libs in the 11th hour. NDP lost Quebec and when people saw they no longer had to vote CPC to prevent an NDP government, they rushed to the Libs.

What is truly remarkable and unique about this election is that there was a three-way tie for some time and lots of changes of position. That doesn't tell a story of a great and historic Liberal campaign, they were losing to both other parties during much of it. It tells a story more analogous to a game of hot potato or a Mexican standoff, where nobody is the clear favourite until the last second, and then it's winner take all.

This election is perfectly summed up by the following fact: Thomas Mulcair, who was higher in the polls at one point within the last month than Trudeau was the day before the election, nearly lost his own seat.

Edited October 21, 2015 by hitops

[Smallc]

The result was remarkable, Trudeau was not. He is cringe-worthy.

I thought that too, but watching his first press conference yesterday made me feel much less so. He spoke like the leader of Canada. It was actually impressive.

[Smeelious]

I thought that too, but watching his first press conference yesterday made me feel much less so. He spoke like the leader of Canada. It was actually impressive.

I mostly had the opposite reaction to that press conference. Suddenly he didn't have a script and he was struggling. I have faith that he'll be OK in the end, he will have quite a while to get familiar with the role.

[Scotty]

I like that guy.

Because he's a frequent commentator on the politcal panel shows. The moment he entered politics the knives would be out, along with the jokes about how he believes the world is only 10,000 years old and can't tell which way a river is flowing.