CPC Leadership Predictions

[Scotty]

Trick is finding someone that appeals to the broader group of voters, like moderates and left-wing swing voters, not just the base.

Left wing voters would only vote for the "Conservative" party if it had no onservative policies, in which case Right wing voters would drop them like they did the dreadful PCs. The Conservatives don't need a liberal leader. They need a conservative with a lot more communication skills and a friendlier attitude than Harper had. Right now, Jason Kenney is the clear front runner there.

[Machjo]

I don't think Harper was bilingual either at the start. You can always learn to speak French, it's not even that hard. I don't think being able to speak french now should be a requirement.

Yes and no. No law says a Prime Minister must be bilingual, how much less a party leader. The law aside though, many French Canadians would boycott any such party.

Not only that, but many French Canadians within the party could chose to leave it for that reason.

[Scotty]

Yes and no. No law says a Prime Minister must be bilingual, how much less a party leader. The law aside though, many French Canadians would boycott any such party.

Most don't vote for them anyway. Diefenbaker won a majority with heavy support from Quebec, though.

[BC_chick]

Why Lisa Raitt? She's not bilingual and has two young children. Does she want it?

I know you're a feminist so the fact that you would question whether a woman's motherhood would hinder her career ambitions just goes to show how badly we are ingrained with these sexist beliefs.

Trudeau has 3 young children and nobody asked whether that made a difference for aspirations.

[Boges]

I know you're a feminist so the fact that you would question whether a woman's motherhood would hinder her career ambitions just goes to show how badly we are ingrained with these sexist beliefs.

Trudeau has 3 young children and nobody asked whether that made a difference for aspirations.

He was probably just quoting what the great bastion of Liberalism, the CBC, wrote about her.

[ToadBrother]

Left wing voters would only vote for the "Conservative" party if it had no onservative policies, in which case Right wing voters would drop them like they did the dreadful PCs. The Conservatives don't need a liberal leader. They need a conservative with a lot more communication skills and a friendlier attitude than Harper had. Right now, Jason Kenney is the clear front runner there.

Kenney certainly is a better communicator, but he may be viewed as a bit too "Reformish" for the Red Tories, and it's the Red Tory types that, at least in part, handed the Liberals the election. Kenney is going to have perform a delicate balancing act, he won't be able to repeat Harper's iron fist style of party management. Is he up to that task? I think he is, but I've got the impression that some Conservatives are not so convinced.

His most significant advantage, by all accounts, is that he's been quietly creating a leadership team for the last year to a year and a half, and when the leadership race is called, will likely be the first one out of the gate.

[cybercoma]

I know you're a feminist so the fact that you would question whether a woman's motherhood would hinder her career ambitions just goes to show how badly we are ingrained with these sexist beliefs.

Trudeau has 3 young children and nobody asked whether that made a difference for aspirations.

I questioned Trudeau's aspirations back then as well, for the record. I'm not saying she shouldn't run. I'm saying that her children will definitely be a consideration, just as Trudeau's were. He had to be coerced into running for the LPC leadership. He wasn't going to yet.

And it's not that it would hinder her ambition. If that's what she wants, she should go for it. You can't say her children's lives wouldn't be a consideration in this though.

Edited October 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Diane Finley has put her name forward for interim leader already.

I think Michelle Rempel should as well. It would be an opportunity to raise her profile for the actual leadership convention.

[cybercoma]

I think it's a foregone conclusion for interim now though. Diane Finley will get it. She too well connected and liked by the MPs in the CPC.

Article here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/diane-finley-intends-to-run-for-interim-conservative-leader-1.2622416

Edited October 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[Newfoundlander]

Diane Finley has deep roots but Denis Lebel would also have a good shot if he enters. While having a woman at the helm would be good for the party having a Quebecker would also be good. Lebel is said to have done a good job as Harper's Quebec lieutenant and played a key role in the party's success in this election.

[Moonlight Graham]

A liberal, in other words.

No not a liberal LOL. A right-centre kind of guy. A PC kind of guy. A John Baird, but without the viscous attack-dog style. A Peter MacKay, but with a better reputation. Maybe someone not from the prairies LOL.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[The_Squid]

Diane Finley has put her name forward for interim leader already.

I think Michelle Rempel should as well. It would be an opportunity to raise her profile for the actual leadership convention.

Rempel will be going for the outright leadership.... she won't want to be the interim leader.

[The_Squid]

No not a liberal LOL. A right-centre kind of guy. A PC kind of guy. A John Baird, but without the viscous attack-dog style. A Peter MacKay, but with a better reputation. Maybe someone not from the prairies LOL.

You mean like a Doug Ford!

[dre]

Left wing voters would only vote for the "Conservative" party if it had no onservative policies, in which case Right wing voters would drop them like they did the dreadful PCs. The Conservatives don't need a liberal leader. They need a conservative with a lot more communication skills and a friendlier attitude than Harper had. Right now, Jason Kenney is the clear front runner there.

He said "swing" voters. And the CPC did not lose because of communication. In my opinion they lost because of bad policies and legislation and most of it was not "conservative" anyways. Theres nothing "conservative" about our policy of entering the Syrian civil war for example. This type of world policing and global socialism is actually something conservatives have traditionally opposed. Theres nothing "conservative" about C51. Theres nothing "conservative" about the Internet Surveillance Act. These are all just bad misguided ideas and thats why you have a Liberal Government now.

[cybercoma]

acoyne

Look, if Ben Harper is old enough to vote hes old enough to serve, is all Im saying. For now.

2015-10-22, 4:33 PM

[ToadBrother]

He said "swing" voters. And the CPC did not lose because of communication. In my opinion they lost because of bad policies and legislation and most of it was not "conservative" anyways. Theres nothing "conservative" about our policy of entering the Syrian civil war for example. This type of world policing and global socialism is actually something conservatives have traditionally opposed. Theres nothing "conservative" about C51. Theres nothing "conservative" about the Internet Surveillance Act. These are all just bad misguided ideas and thats why you have a Liberal Government now.

Classical conservatism has always been rather "hawkish". The classic Tory of the English tradition was always the one clamoring to get involved in some dynastic dispute. It was always the Whigs, and their descendants; Liberals and Socialists, who advocated for a less interventionist approach.

Think of the greatest of the Tories; Disraeli, whose sole goal in life was making the British Empire as large as it could be. And then look at the greatest of the Liberals, William Gladstone, who literally had to be bullied into sending in the troops to try to save Gordon at the Siege of Khartoum.

That being the case, I see nothing "unconservative" about military interventions. We can debate whether bombing ISIS is good (frankly, I don't think there are enough bombs in the word, and once we've bombed them into oblivion we should keep dropping bombs on them for another ten years), but I see nothing un-Conservative about it.

Frankly I can't think of many policies the Tories put forward that, in and of themselves, I disagreed with. Income splitting has its arguments, and I'd approve of it in general if it was more fairly applied, and if its impact on the treasury wasn't so profound. Balanced budgets are in general a good thing (though I think balanced budget legislation is farcical). Trade deals don't bother me, and are necessary and important (I only wish we'd actually get an EU deal). Obviously I think the policies that lead to the end of the long form census were dreadful, as was the muzzling of scientists and the general anti-academic flavor of Harper's government, but then again, I'm sure I'll find some of the policies Trudeau puts in place very distasteful.

The problem with the Tories wasn't policies, to my mind, it was the way that even defensible policies were used as a sort of bludgeon. I doubt there was a single change of statute or policy during the nearly ten years of the Harper government that wasn't viewed as a way to further a partisan end or to use as a weapon against the opposition.

Coyne has it right in his latest column in the National Post. It wasn't policies that killed the Tories, it was the cynicism and naked self-serving maintenance of power at all costs, and despite any moral or ethical perils. Even the likes of Mulroney, Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and Mackenzie King, the shiftiest and shifty operators, still seemed to have some ideological or at least philosophical compass. They played the game of politics, and certainly played it to win, but you could still sense some remnants of a higher purpose. With Harper, there seemed no higher purpose; electoral victory at all costs, that was it. I can't quite think of another Government in Canadian history that so thoroughly desired power simple for the sake of power.

I think calling the Harper Government Nixonian is right on the money, and in the end, that cynicism and naked lust for power made the majority of Canadians not just dislike the Tories, but actively hate them. The Tories tried to act like "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was some fault in their opponents, they never got that it was their own fault.

Edited October 22, 2015 by ToadBrother

[waldo]

slim pickens and slim left town! When you see the names floated and they actually offer comment that they're contemplating it - yeesh! Names like lightweights and/or deadwood Ambrose, Rempel, Clement, Raitt, etc.. What? You mean Harper didn't "groom" anyone to take over?

oh wait... there's always Mr. Charisma 'Jason Kenney'!

Edited October 22, 2015 by waldo

[ToadBrother]

slim pickens and slim left town! When you see the names floated and they actually offer comment that they're contemplating it - yeesh! Names like lightweights and/or deadwood Ambrose, Rempel, Clement, Raitt, etc.. What? You mean Harper didn't "groom" anyone to take over?

oh wait... there's always Mr. Charisma 'Jason Kenney'!

Why is Raitt a lightweight? She was one of the few Tory ministers who seems to have had some degree of independence, and while she had a shaky start, all in all I'd say she was probably one of the abler members of Cabinet. I'd much prefer Raitt to Kenney.

[Moonlight Graham]

Coyne has it right in his latest column in the National Post. It wasn't policies that killed the Tories, it was the cynicism and naked self-serving maintenance of power at all costs, and despite any moral or ethical perils. Even the likes of Mulroney, Chretien, Pierre Trudeau and Mackenzie King, the shiftiest and shifty operators, still seemed to have some ideological or at least philosophical compass. They played the game of politics, and certainly played it to win, but you could still sense some remnants of a higher purpose. With Harper, there seemed no higher purpose; electoral victory at all costs, that was it. I can't quite think of another Government in Canadian history that so thoroughly desired power simple for the sake of power.

I think calling the Harper Government Nixonian is right on the money, and in the end, that cynicism and naked lust for power made the majority of Canadians not just dislike the Tories, but actively hate them. The Tories tried to act like "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was some fault in their opponents, they never got that it was their own fault.

I agree, excellent post. The policies though were increasingly a factor. Legislation was passed that were increasingly designed to maintain or increase CPC power in government. ie: The Fair Elections Act, or Bill C-51 etc.

Like you say, there's playing the slimy/shady game, which Liberals have always done, and the provincial and Chretien Liberals would lie and politically maneuver in dishonest if even corrupt ways, but then there's a kind of authoritarianism and verging-on-tyranny of power-lust and control that the Harper gov had increasingly acted with. The slimy and shady way is disgusting, but the Harper way was downright frightening.

Classical conservatism has always been rather "hawkish". The classic Tory of the English tradition was always the one clamoring to get involved in some dynastic dispute. It was always the Whigs, and their descendants; Liberals and Socialists, who advocated for a less interventionist approach.

....

That being the case, I see nothing "unconservative" about military interventions. We can debate whether bombing ISIS is good (frankly, I don't think there are enough bombs in the word, and once we've bombed them into oblivion we should keep dropping bombs on them for another ten years), but I see nothing un-Conservative about it.

There's certainly a kind of conservative that is hawkish in foreign policy, such as ie: neoconservatives. The kind that shuns diplomacy in favour of tough talk/actions, of using military force as a more primary tool, and as they say, when a hammer becomes your primary tool you begin to see all problems as nails.

But, there's also the old conservatism that believes in a smaller government, that distrusts government and its power over people, that sees big government and widespread regulation as a threat to personal liberty, that wants less government spending and gov intervention, whether domestic or foreign. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have foreign policies that are popular among lefties, but they aren't rooted in leftism, both these men are conservative libertarians, and they see widespread military intervention like the US takes part in as one of the negatives of big government, high gov spending, high taxes, and government control.

[waldo]

Why is Raitt a lightweight? She was one of the few Tory ministers who seems to have had some degree of independence, and while she had a shaky start, all in all I'd say she was probably one of the abler members of Cabinet. I'd much prefer Raitt to Kenney.

her “sexy” medical crisis (ala the Chalk River reactor shut down)... her open slagging of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq (albeit well deserved, a competent thinking cabinet minister does not play that out in public)... it was painful listening to her attempt to speak for the government in the early days of Lac-Megantic (which might just reflect the hold Harper/PMO had on everything)... subsequently, other than standard talking points she couldn't intelligently speak to the status of problems with old rail cars or timelines around when they would be 'retrofitted' or replaced... etc.. Notwithstanding she has limited communication skills and can't seem to think "on her feet".

[Boges]

I suspect no potential candidate would meet member Waldo's criteria for a "good candidate". If there was one, they wouldn't be Conservative now would they?

[The_Squid]

I suspect no potential candidate would meet member Waldo's criteria for a "good candidate". If there was one, they wouldn't be Conservative now would they?

Perhaps not... but his assessment of Raitt is bang on. She was a pretty bad Minister...

[blueblood]

No not a liberal LOL. A right-centre kind of guy. A PC kind of guy. A John Baird, but without the viscous attack-dog style. A Peter MacKay, but with a better reputation. Maybe someone not from the prairies LOL.

Why not someone from the prairies? We are just as canadian as anyone else.

It should be the best person for the job. French can be taught, competence cant be.

[Scotty]

His most significant advantage, by all accounts, is that he's been quietly creating a leadership team for the last year to a year and a half, and when the leadership race is called, will likely be the first one out of the gate.

I think his significant advantage is he's done well in the cabinet posts he's been placed in, and developed good working relationships with the opposition. That in itself would seem to suggest his inclnations do not run in the same direction as Harper's. I think what he needs to do first is make it clear to caucus as well as to any potential recruits that a Kenney government would not be a micromanaging one, that other cabinet ministers would have real power and that both they and caucus members would have a degree of freedom to speak their own minds. Though obviously there needs to be a central message and it wouldn't help the party if individuals start saying things too contrary to that message.

[Scotty]

Rempel will be going for the outright leadership.... she won't want to be the interim leader.

Rempel is too young and inexperienced.