Name the next CPC and NDP leaders

[SpankyMcFarland]

I should not have said anything about Erin's jib. He's going for the caretaker's job instead, along with Finley and Nicholson. Why so much interest in this temp post? Is Jason going to have a coronation?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-otoole-interim-leader-conservatives-1.3288843

[The_Squid]

Here is Jason Kenney's pre-politician resume:

He then studied philosophy at the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit university in San Francisco, California. He left university to begin work for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party.^[6] In 1988 he served as executive assistant to Ralph Goodale, who at the time was leader of the party. He also started working in the non-profit sector, where beginning in 1989, Kenney was hired as the first executive director of the Alberta Taxpayers Association, which advocated for fiscal responsibility. In 1990, Kenney was named president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Do CPC supporters think he should be PM?

Next question: How is he more qualified to be PM than Trudeau?

A philosophy major... and a policy wonk for his entire working career... then a politician for the last 17 years.

And can anyone tell me how he was qualified to run our Dept. of National Defence?

Edited October 26, 2015 by The_Squid

[Argus]

Do CPC supporters think he should be PM?

Next question: How is he more qualified to be PM than Trudeau?

A philosophy major... and a policy wonk for his entire working career... then a politician for the last 17 years.

And can anyone tell me how he was qualified to run our Dept. of National Defence?

As opposed to the number of generals we've had running DND?

Kenney has proven his abilities through those seventeen years as a politician, including eight years as a cabinet minister.

[SpankyMcFarland]

He's certainly well qualified and should give the PM a run for his money in QP. But he'll have to lighten up a bit, get a dog or something. Harper was the grimmest PM since, when, Diefenbaker? Barring catastrophe, I don't think we want a return to that too soon.

Edited October 27, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

He's certainly well qualified and should give the PM a run for his money in QP. But he'll have to lighten upa bit, get a dog or something. Harper was the grimmest PM since, when, Diefenbaker? Barring catastrophe, I don't think we want a return to that too soon.

I never saw Harper raise his voice. Grim? If anything, he lacked emotion in his public appearances. He had a bland voice and appearance. He was uncomfortable in public appearances.

[angrypenguin]

I never saw Harper raise his voice. Grim? If anything, he lacked emotion in his public appearances. He had a bland voice and appearance. He was uncomfortable in public appearances.

People really need to read Harper's biography. He came a very long way from what he was absolute shit when it came to presenting. I agree with you, he was uncomfortable, but watch him speak in the 90s...Harper is an effective communicator, albeit cold, and without passion. Trudeau beats him in that way, but then again, Trudeau is not an introvert, by any means.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I never saw Harper raise his voice. Grim? If anything, he lacked emotion in his public appearances. He had a bland voice and appearance. He was uncomfortable in public appearances.

Not to dwell on what is gone now, but his view of the world was fairly dark.

[Argus]

Not to dwell on what is gone now, but his view of the world was fairly dark.

I disagree. He believed in small government, and he believed in addressing security concerns. Now the style in which he ran the government was dark in that he absolutely did not trust the media, and he was forever playing defense, like if he could stop any Conservative from saying or doing anything that the media would notice, and keep secret all the information about what the government was doing, the media and opposition would have nothing to criticize. He was paranoid about shielding his government from criticism, and the cabinet ministers who gained his confidence were those whose departments were run cleanly and without any sort of scandal that would draw bad press. If a department or agency caused him troubles he turned on it. He quickly turned on the military for example, because of all the bad press he kept getting from that department, whether it was alleged abuses in Afghanistan or sexual harassment in Canada, or weapons purchases. He turned against the RCMP for similar reasons. A department which caused bad publicity was a department and minister in his bad books, and both could expect to be punished.

[Canada_First]

Maxime Bernier for CPC.

Mulcair for NDP.

[ToadBrother]

I disagree. He believed in small government, and he believed in addressing security concerns. Now the style in which he ran the government was dark in that he absolutely did not trust the media, and he was forever playing defense, like if he could stop any Conservative from saying or doing anything that the media would notice, and keep secret all the information about what the government was doing, the media and opposition would have nothing to criticize. He was paranoid about shielding his government from criticism, and the cabinet ministers who gained his confidence were those whose departments were run cleanly and without any sort of scandal that would draw bad press. If a department or agency caused him troubles he turned on it. He quickly turned on the military for example, because of all the bad press he kept getting from that department, whether it was alleged abuses in Afghanistan or sexual harassment in Canada, or weapons purchases. He turned against the RCMP for similar reasons. A department which caused bad publicity was a department and minister in his bad books, and both could expect to be punished.

If it was only the media Harper did not trust, that would have been one thing. What has become very clear is that Harper trusted almost no one. There were a few senior cabinet ministers that were either viewed as his lieutenants or trusted members of the inner circle (ie. Kenney, Poilievre and Flaherty), and maybe a small number who he had to give senior positions to (Mackay), but in the end even Mackay was neutered by a well-placed act of political sabotage by Soudas (in other words, the PMO rendered Mackay impotent, and in the end crushed his political career). Other than that, by most accounts, he put little stock in the majority of his cabinet, largely ignored his caucus and preferred to run the government largely through the PMO. One of the chief rumors as to why Baird finally split is because the PMO basically took over any part of the Foreign Affair's file that dealt with Russia and with trade deals, leaving Baird little more than a placeholder. Let's remember, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is usually seen as the third highest ranking cabinet position behind the PM himself and the Minister of Finance.

This is not how you run a healthy collaborative government. It may even work, for a while, providing the leader retains the political capital to impose his will. But there are enough rumors coming out of the Tory caucus over the last year (somewhat confirmed by the emails that showed up in the Duffy trial) and by the exodus of cabinet ministers in the months leading up to the election, that it shows what happens when a one-man government begins to lose its ability to command the troops. Now that we know that the CPC knew it was doomed months before the election, it explains what looked like a slow motion meltdown, and why Harper was stuck with sclerotic placeholders like Joe Oliver.

I simply do not think a heavily top-down management style, where even most of your senior managers are on a short leash and not allowed as to so much growl without permission, is a good way to run any organization. I look forward to a cabinet that functions like a cabinet is supposed to function, and certainly Trudeau has at least some significant talent. I'm sure they will be screw ups, and maybe in the end Trudeau will fall into the same trap as previous PMs did, but he seems keen to start out on a more collaborative and communal footing with his government, and hopefully cabinet ministers will feel empowered, as opposed to just ciphers for whatever the PMO decides their department should be.

[Topaz]

I see MP Chong has made his way to run for leadership and HE maybe the only worthy of consideration, since HE was the first to disagree with Harper over Quebec is a nation within a nation.

[Argus]

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for a leader who will tell it like it is, who will speak his mind openly without regard to who he offends. If Trump had a little less unsavoury past and a little less childish in his insults he'd be an absolute shoe-in. He might well win even with all his warts. There will be a desire among every party to try and do something to attract that level of enthusiasm. Unfortunately, I don't know of any current politician in Canada who could do so. They have all been desperately focusing on being as inoffensive (and boring) as possible for the last twenty five years.

[Newfoundlander]

Trudeau managed to create a lot of enthusiasm without going to the level Trump did.

[Argus]

Trudeau managed to create a lot of enthusiasm without going to the level Trump did.

Only among those heartily sick of Harper, and only by promising to borrow a ton of money to bribe them with.

[overthere]

I am hoping for either Libby Davies or Svend Robbingstores for NDP, and either a resurgent Stockwell Day or Doug Ford for the Cons.

Long before then, Trudeau will have passed 'electoral reform', guaranteeing the dynasty and a second coronation . Might as well have a few laughs en route to the predictable majority.

[Newfoundlander]

Only among those heartily sick of Harper, and only by promising to borrow a ton of money to bribe them with.

He still did it. He tapped into a certain segment of the population, just like Trump has. Not everyone in the US infatuated with Trump.

[overthere]

He still did it. He tapped into a certain segment of the population, just like Trump has. Not everyone in the US infatuated with Trump.

It is a sign of a failed educational system that anybody equates Trump with Harper.

[Vega]

I was and am no fan of Stephen Harper, but I definitely appreciate the struggles he has had in public speaking and how far he has come, as another person said in this thread. It has always been patently obvious that Harper was never at his best in public, which is rather unfortunate because that's what his job entails. I'm truly surprised/shocked he got as far as he did in politics. The only way that him and Trump are similar is their hair, and it's varying authenticity.

We have the inverse of him as Prime Minister now, in literally every possible way. I'd be hard pressed to pick a former Prime Minister and his successor who were so incredibly different.

Anyway, I'm supporting Chong 100% and hope that he wins, even though I doubt he will. The next leader would be wise to put him close to them in the Shadow Cabinet.

And for the NDP, even though it is unlikely, and he is a bit old, Gary Doer would make a smashing leader, and I can't help but feel he'd be an incredible leader for where the NDP is right now.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Vega

[Newfoundlander]

It is a sign of a failed educational system that anybody equates Trump with Harper.

I wasn't talking about Harper. I was talking about Trudeau, and it was a comparison of the enthusiasm him and Trump have been able to create.

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

Prime Minister Maxime Bernier would be the best thing for this country right now. As for the NDP, they will pick some union hack or social justice crusader, and they will stay in third place where they belong.

[Newfoundlander]

Prime Minister Maxime Bernier would be the best thing for this country right now. As for the NDP, they will pick some union hack or social justice crusader, and they will stay in third place where they belong.

Why?

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

Why?

His talking points are all good (less government, personal responsibility, etc), but more importantly he is not an authoritarian social conservative, nor is he a free-spending liberal elitist manchild, and he certainly is not a socialist. And frankly he is the most electable of the CPC candidates.

[Argus]

His talking points are all good (less government, personal responsibility, etc), but more importantly he is not an authoritarian social conservative, nor is he a free-spending liberal elitist manchild, and he certainly is not a socialist. And frankly he is the most electable of the CPC candidates.

I think the Conservatives are going to lose the next election, and need to ride out the heady early years of the Trudeau regime and protect what they have. I'm not sure a Quebecer is the guy to do that.

[Newfoundlander]

His talking points are all good (less government, personal responsibility, etc), but more importantly he is not an authoritarian social conservative, nor is he a free-spending liberal elitist manchild, and he certainly is not a socialist. And frankly he is the most electable of the CPC candidates.

I've liked some of his points but I think he's probably a bit too ideological and needs to be more pragmatic. I also don't see how he's electable.

[capricorn]

I also don't see how he's electable.

He's a young, good looking Quebecer. Ring a bell? All he's lacking is a family dynasty.