CPC Leadership Predictions

[capricorn]

He had a nice turn of phrase ...

Interesting. During my career, I have heard this expression used by only one group and that would be professional translators.

[ReeferMadness]

The more I reflect on Harper, the more I think he was just a lifelong politics geek who is probably just socially awkward, especially when he has cameras shoved in his face. A lot of people point to that time he shook his son's hand as a symbol of how inhuman he could be. I think he's probably just a socially awkward political wonk, whose gamesmanship and ideology I vehemently disagree with. I kind of feel bad about people misunderstanding his personality, but that's the downside to public life.

Seems like revisionism to me. If he's a lifelong politics geek, then he would surely understand that government isn't a corporation and the institutions that he treated like enemies (the courts, the press, the opposition, the foreign service the civil service) all have valid roles that may not be in lockstep with his.

I think that once he was elected, Harper gradually became a secretive autocrat with a bunker mentality. You can't blame all of that on social awkwardness.

[ReeferMadness]

This just in

In a sign of increasingly heavy-handed attempts to quell internal Conservative-party unrest following the defeat of Stephen Harper’s government, the party is planning a post-election caucus meeting to which defeated candidates would not be invited.

Even in defeat, the Harper gang can't bring itself to admit that it was the problem. If it can't deal with defeat honestly, the party doesn't deserve - and shouldn't expect - to be returned to power.

[angrypenguin]

The more I reflect on Harper, the more I think he was just a lifelong politics geek who is probably just socially awkward, especially when he has cameras shoved in his face. A lot of people point to that time he shook his son's hand as a symbol of how inhuman he could be. I think he's probably just a socially awkward political wonk, whose gamesmanship and ideology I vehemently disagree with. I kind of feel bad about people misunderstanding his personality, but that's the downside to public life.

Agreed. I know the left will never read Harper's biography but the more I read (i'm about half way done), well, let's just say I hope history is kind to him. He was a great PM, but he had his flaws.

Edited October 23, 2015 by angrypenguin

[cybercoma]

This just in

Even in defeat, the Harper gang can't bring itself to admit that it was the problem. If it can't deal with defeat honestly, the party doesn't deserve - and shouldn't expect - to be returned to power.

Why would defeated candidates be part of caucus?

[ReeferMadness]

, well, let's just say I hope history is kind to him. He was a great PM, but he had his flaws.

Personally, I'd rather history dealt with him honestly. We can't improve if we can't admit our mistakes. Still, I've heard people claim that Hitler was a great leader who saved Germany but just went mad at the end and less than a year ago, a huge crowd celebrated Stalin's 135th birthday so I'm sure there will be lots of people who will be in permanent denial about Harper too.

[ReeferMadness]

Why would defeated candidates be part of caucus?

They're not part of the caucus going permanently, they're part of the post mortem. Read the article - it says it's a normal practice. I can think of a few reasons:

1. They will have valuable input in terms of why the party failed. You learn more from failure than from success.

2. A lot of them will be unhappy with the party. You want to give them an opportunity to vent so they won't go to the press.

3. It's an opportunity for the party to heal. Unsuccessful candidates don't just disappear, a lot of them will remain active in the party.

Edited October 23, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[cybercoma]

Agreed. I know the left will never read Harper's biography but the more I read (i'm about half way done), well, let's just say I hope history is kind to him. He was a great PM, but he had his flaws.

He was an ineffective leader because he couldn't connect with people. He was far from a great leader. But he was also misunderstood. Like I said on election night, if the Harper that showed up to give the concession speech was the Harper we saw on the campaign trail, more people would have voted Conservative. It would have taken the wind out of Trudeau's sails. He was a kinder, happier Harper that said he just wanted people to keep more of their hard earned money and he wanted to defend Canada at home and abroad. That wasn't the campaign we got. We got an aggressively xenophobic Harper who pork-barrelled and couldn't connect with anyone. Edited October 23, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

it says it's a normal practice.

Thanks. I didn't read the article. I didn't know this.

[blueblood]

He was an ineffective leader because he couldn't connect with people. He was far from a great leader. But he was also misunderstood. Like I said on election night, if the Harper that showed up to give the concession speech was the Harper we saw on the campaign trail, more people would have voted Conservative. It would have taken the wind out of Trudeau's sails. He was a kinder, happier Harper that said he just wanted people to keep more of their hard earned money and he wanted to defend Canada at home and abroad. That wasn't the campaign we got. We got an aggressively xenophobic Harper who pork-barrelled and couldn't connect with anyone.

He was done anyway and knew it. He has his handlers whispering stuff in his ear too. Maybe he was relieved being done after 10 yrs and now gets to spend some time with his family.

[cybercoma]

You make it sound like he tilted. I don't think he would undermine the party like that. If he knew he was done, he should have stepped aside.

[Moonbox]

It was a kinder, happier Harper that said he just wanted people to keep more of their hard earned money and he wanted to defend Canada at home and abroad. That wasn't the campaign we got. We got an aggressively xenophobic Harper who pork-barrelled and couldn't connect with anyone.

The problem I think was that he was so defined in Canadian minds that it wouldn't have mattered. If he was going to show a kinder and more relatable side, that needed to happen back pre-2006/2008. There was no way he was going to reinvent himself and change perception in 2015 during his FOURTH federal campaign. People are over-analyzing the results of this election, or at least the Conservative campaign. It didn't matter what they did. Unless Trudeau stabbed a baby in the face or something, the Conservatives weren't going to win.

I think what you're saying above is all very true, but it needed to happen 6+ years ago and play out during his terms.

[Big Guy]

The fight for the heart of the party has begun. Finley has always been a talking head and is handpicked by Harper to maintain the far right wing flag and control the direction of the party. There are a number of moderates who are also looking to take control who would like their candidate for interim leader. I am not sure at this time who they will submit as their candidate.

Finley is visiting all the talk shows and explaining how it was the message, a misunderstanding, campaign mistakes etc which caused the Conservative loss - any reason except for Harper tone and the far right policies.

It will be interesting if the Conservative right can maintain a stranglehold on the party or if the progressives can push the right Reform/Alliance back out and re-establish the Progressive Conservative of the past.

[cybercoma]

There was no way he was going to reinvent himself and change perception in 2015

You know, you're probably right.

[cybercoma]

Rob Nicholson is the name currently being batted around for CPC interim leader. It will be a tough fight between him and Diane Finley.

[Big Guy]

I would like to see James Rajotte come back from retirement to be interim leader. I think he would be a better referee for the right vs moderate coming battle.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Harper did not have an opportunity to achieve greatness. There were no serious crises in his time. Certainly, he could not be ranked with Trudeau, whose legacy is still all around us for good or ill, Mackenzie King or Macdonald. Dull times are good for most people. Harperism will not become a commonplace word. He managed the economy well enough but he left a mixed legacy elsewhere, dividing Canadians relentlessly and further diminishing Parliament's role in government.

Has any defeated PM who was resigning failed to announce his resignation in a concession speech before?

Edited October 24, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[angrypenguin]

Harper did not have an opportunity to achieve greatness. There were no serious crises in his time. Certainly, he could not be ranked with Trudeau, whose legacy is still all around us for good or ill, Mackenzie King or Macdonald. Dull times are good for most people. Harperism will not become a commonplace word. He managed the economy well enough but he left a mixed legacy elsewhere, dividing Canadians relentlessly and further diminishing Parliament's role in government.

Has any defeated PM who was resigning failed to announce his resignation in a concession speech before?

2008????

[PIK]

Personally, I'd rather history dealt with him honestly. We can't improve if we can't admit our mistakes. Still, I've heard people claim that Hitler was a great leader who saved Germany but just went mad at the end and less than a year ago, a huge crowd celebrated Stalin's 135th birthday so I'm sure there will be lots of people who will be in permanent denial about Harper too.

Harper did not have an opportunity to achieve greatness. There were no serious crises in his time. Certainly, he could not be ranked with Trudeau, whose legacy is still all around us for good or ill, Mackenzie King or Macdonald. Dull times are good for most people. Harperism will not become a commonplace word. He managed the economy well enough but he left a mixed legacy elsewhere, dividing Canadians relentlessly and further diminishing Parliament's role in government.

Has any defeated PM who was resigning failed to announce his resignation in a concession speech before?

Global crisis, chretiens mess in afghanistan , the list goes on. And comparing harper to those two is disgusting. It seems to me ,you do not know history at all. Grow up.

Edited October 24, 2015 by PIK

[On Guard for Thee]

Global crisis, chretiens mess in afghanistan , the list goes on. And comparing harper to those two is disgusting. It seems to me ,you do not know history at all. Grow up.

Chretien had enough brains to stay out of Iraq, while Harper supported going in. So yeah, comparing the two is wrong.

[kimmy]

The more I reflect on Harper, the more I think he was just a lifelong politics geek who is probably just socially awkward, especially when he has cameras shoved in his face. A lot of people point to that time he shook his son's hand as a symbol of how inhuman he could be. I think he's probably just a socially awkward political wonk, whose gamesmanship and ideology I vehemently disagree with. I kind of feel bad about people misunderstanding his personality, but that's the downside to public life.

I agree... as an introvert who has often had to pretend to be an extrovert, I can relate to Harper's situation. It's difficult trying to "fake" warmth or enthusiasm you don't actually feel for the sake of meeting peoples' expectations or putting them at ease, or in Harper's case trying to present a likable image to persuade votes, or in my case in past years trying to create a fun exuberant atmosphere that made people want to buy alcohol and leave large tips. It's exhausting, and slightly stressful because some of your audience just isn't going to buy it and will perceive you as "fake".

I recall seeing Harper at some less-serious event, it might have been one of those Press Gallery functions. He poked fun at his image, saying in a drab monotone: "I'm excited to be here. This is me being excited. This is what I'm like when I'm excited." It stuck with me because I found it highly relateable, and probably among the few glimpses we got of the real guy.

He was an ineffective leader because he couldn't connect with people. He was far from a great leader.

I strongly disagree with this. Despite his impersonal bearing, he was a very effective leader. He held the merged PC/Alliance party together through sheer force of will. He won 3 elections. He was Prime Minister for 10 years. How could he have done all this if he were an effective leader?

But he was also misunderstood. Like I said on election night, if the Harper that showed up to give the concession speech was the Harper we saw on the campaign trail, more people would have voted Conservative. It would have taken the wind out of Trudeau's sails. He was a kinder, happier Harper that said he just wanted people to keep more of their hard earned money and he wanted to defend Canada at home and abroad. That wasn't the campaign we got. We got an aggressively xenophobic Harper who pork-barrelled and couldn't connect with anyone.

And this much I agree with. I think that the desire for change was too much for him to overcome, and I don't think he could have reinvented his image after so many years in the public eye. But conversely I think the extremely bad CPC campaign tactics really shot them in the foot and just served to reinforce peoples' negative views about Harper's meanness and combativeness.

-k

[dialamah]

I agree... as an introvert who has often had to pretend to be an extrovert, I can relate to Harper's situation. It's difficult trying to "fake" warmth or enthusiasm you don't actually feel for the sake of meeting peoples' expectations or putting them at ease, or in Harper's case trying to present a likable image to persuade votes, or in my case in past years trying to create a fun exuberant atmosphere that made people want to buy alcohol and leave large tips. It's exhausting, and slightly stressful because some of your audience just isn't going to buy it and will perceive you as "fake".

I recall seeing Harper at some less-serious event, it might have been one of those Press Gallery functions. He poked fun at his image, saying in a drab monotone: "I'm excited to be here. This is me being excited. This is what I'm like when I'm excited." It stuck with me because I found it highly relateable, and probably among the few glimpses we got of the real guy.

I get stressed, tired and sometimes depressed trying to be 'social' for too long a time, though in the short term people often mistake me for gregarious and charming. Thanks for putting a bit of a 'human' face on Harper, though. If his real personality shines through one-on-one, or in small groups, much better than it did in public/on camera, it may help explain how he became leader and maintained it for so long within his party.

Doesn't explain some of his policies, though.

[Argus]

Here's a name no one thought of ....Mulroney as in Mark. I was surprised when I read this article and Brad Wall says no thanks.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/names-fly-as-conservatives-plan-for-leadership/ar-AAfF7XZ?ocid=spartandhp

It sounds like both the Mulroneys could be considered excellent candidates - for MP. Neither has the political experience to be seriously considered for cabinet, much less the top job.

[Argus]

Jean Charest? Don't you have to be an elected MP to lead a party?

Charest is a political whore who bounces around and changes his ideology for whatever job he thinks he can get. He's tainted by the corruption scandals in Quebec and that's the very last thing the party needs. Besides, the other two parties are already led by Quebecers. Does it have to be all three?

[Argus]

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 French Canadians won't consider voting for a party not led by a Quebecer, no matter what, unless there are no Quebecers heading other parties.