CPC Leadership Potentials if Scheer Implodes

[FJAG]

One big reason I won't ever vote for liberals. I've mentioned this before and basically been called  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Well now there's two of us that think that way.

https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/the-crushing-of-wilson-raybould-and-philpott-is-proof-canada-is-run-by-a-liberal-cabal?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0JgpFc0dEPlLmFnAoyJL4U_68TltODuHdT8q4sjHaqqGft3kN5Ewt6Ano#Echobox=1555932552

Actually there are three of us and I, for one, have never called you out on this issue. I'm not sure cabal is the word I would use but cronyism is one that I definitely would. Spent much of my time in Manitoba and watched the backroom workings of the Axworthy and Asper/CanWest machines at work (anyone else remember Russel Mills being fired from the Ottawa Citizen for criticising Chretien?)

This is the one single issue why I can't vote Liberal regardless of how attractive they try to paint their policies (and quite frankly, this last regime has shown very few that I agree with anyway seeing as fiscal responsibility and significant defence reform are high on my priority list)

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

global news put this out yesterday.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5191123/federal-election-seat-projection-trudeau-liberals-minority/?utm_source=GlobalNews&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1zeTH9__BcKrzciiZo-tGrFQCQo35eN4SCf4f71Yzw35DJcSS6_E_mq04

So, in line with this thread, what happens to Scheer in that scenario? Does he stay on or will there be pressure to find a more electable leader?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Failing a Palace coup, most leaders are the party and the party is the reflection of the leader. I don't put stock in polls much any more.

You can see the political bias bleed through in their projects and research. Some are pretty blatant in their postures towards their preference. There are still polls out there showing trudeau at the top of the heap by fairly positive majorities. Yet, all indications are he's in the toilet.

Then there are the polls that are so overwhelmingly wrong as to be laughable, like Trump won't win and others of a like lopsided surprise.

We all know most polls are designed to reach a predetermined result, for a predetermined audience. The questions are skewed in favour of the poll flavour. The demographics are picked to reflect the people they want to answer the poll.

The only science behind polls is the science of predictability. You get the answer you pays for. Plain and simple.

Having said all that, I saw a recent poll that said something along the line that somewhere in the 60-65 percentile of eligible Canadians said it was time for trudeau and the liberals to go. I didn't grab it for discussion, simply because of my feelings above. It is just another piece of bumph and UFI. Not worthy for discussion, not reliable enough to take to the bank, not fact by any stretch of the imagination.

Polls are distractions. Not much different than personal opinion pieces sent to and pumped out by partisan media. They'll print what fits their agenda.

They are nothing but opinion and we know what nothing but opinion will get you, in discussions like those here.

 

[Remius]

Maybe PEI will be the litmus test for the east coast.

Possibly.  I think that the green Party is going to attract more and more disaffected NDP members and some Liberal voters to some extent.  The NDP is going through a bit of an identity crisis. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons. 

So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one right wing party (PPC).

Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons. 

So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one left wing party (PPC).

Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.

Given the move to socialism, I'd hesitate to call the liberals centre left. I think they are much further left than centre.

Nor would I call the PPC left wing, but right of centre.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Given the move to socialism, I'd hesitate to call the liberals centre left. I think they are much further left than centre.

Well the Libs are as close to the centre the left has in Canada.

Nor would I call the PPC left wing, but right of centre.

Typo, fixed.

 

[Remius]

Perhaps the Greens will do to the Liberals, what Maxime has done to the Cons. 

So we now have a center left party (Lib) and two left wing parties (Green, NDP) and one Center right party (Con) and one right wing party (PPC).

Those two left wing parties may end up causing some trouble for the Liberals. One captures to social(ist) vote and one the environmentalist vote.

I think it will have a larger impact on the NDP vote share.

The PPC may take 5-10% of the conservative vote share.  The Greens might garner 2-3% of the left leaning Liberals but likely similar numbers from the NDP as the PPC takes from the CPC.  So maybe 4-8% of the NDP share. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think it will have a larger impact on the NDP vote share.

The PPC may take 5-10% of the conservative vote share.  The Greens might garner 2-3% of the left leaning Liberals but likely similar numbers from the NDP as the PPC takes from the CPC.  So maybe 4-8% of the NDP share.

I really dont think the PPC will skim that much.  IMHO they will be lucky to get seat.

As for the NDP and Greens; with the right youthful leaders they destroy the Liberals.  There are millions of 18-30 year olds who want nothing more than to not vote Liberal or Con.  Unfortunately Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh aren't the right people, IMHO.

 

[Remius]

I really dont think the PPC will skim that much.  IMHO they will be lucky to get seat.

As for the NDP and Greens; with the right youthful leaders they destroy the Liberals.  There are millions of 18-30 year olds who want nothing more than to not vote Liberal or Con.  Unfortunately Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh aren't the right people, IMHO.

Oh, I don't think it will translate into seats.  Just popular vote.  But that could split the vote in some ridings allowing up the middle wins.

True about dynamic leadership.  There is a generation of young voters coming soon that care about the environment and what is being done about it.  Traditional parties may want to heed that going forward. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Oh, I don't think it will translate into seats.  Just popular vote.  But that could split the vote in some ridings allowing up the middle wins.

True about dynamic leadership.  There is a generation of young voters coming soon that care about the environment and what is being done about it.  Traditional parties may want to heed that going forward.

This is the difference with the Libs and Cons.  There is no viable alternative to conservative minded folks.  The PPC is not an option in Canada.  Too radical and a heavy perception of racism.  They wont be around more than a single election cycle me thinks.

I am a card carrying member of the Cons.  But I strongly suggest my party rids itself of abortion and gay rights issues.  These are dead topics in Canada.  Its time to move on to things that matter like alternatives for the environment, foreign affairs/defence, balanced budgets and equalization payments.  The former topics will get you people from across the board with the right solutions.

 

[Monsoon]

I am a card carrying member of the Cons.  But I strongly suggest my party rids itself of abortion and gay rights issues.

The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.

 

[Remius]

The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.

Ages?

Monsoon, I agree that there is a bit of hysteria in regards to the "hidden agenda" but let's be real.  Until 2017 the CPC had a clause defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. There was no support per se for gay rights but rather an explicit no go zone.  The last leadership campaign did show that there is a segment of the conservative movement that want those debates reopened.  Stephen harper never once went to a pride parade in his ten years in power.  Now, he does not have to and that is a fair choice on his or any other leader's part. 

But there is distrust and Halifax Tar was highlighting that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.

I you think underestimate the amount of Con Party members who wish change governance around gay rights and abortion. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJdgqhQhODU

He could have come out and said, unequivocally Yes to gay rights and Yes to abortion, with-out having to play his personal beliefs and constituents beliefs.  The undercurrent their is scary.

My party needs to come out and simply say we stand for equal distribution of liberties to all Canadians on all issues.  This includes the full envelope of Canadian Rights and freedoms to all Canadians inclusive of LGBTQ+ and the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion.  Get it over with once and for all and close the door for the Liberals to be able to attack this point. 

Those in my party who feel differently need to come to grips with the fact that the country has decided and moved on. 

Lastly you can keep your uncalled for an snarky remarks to yourself, thank you.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The Conservative party position on abortion and gay rights has been amply clear for ages. Remember that time they ran the country for a decade and supported abortion and gay rights? What more could it possibly do to "rid itself" of "issues"? The continued existence of "issues" will continue to be a Liberal talking point (remember the "hidden agenda"?), but I'd expect an actual party supporter to be aware of the reality.

I wouldn't say "amply" when the social conservatives in the party regularly attempt to bring the issue back to the platform.

Eight months ago.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918

A slim majority of Conservative convention delegates voted Saturday against a resolution backed by anti-abortion campaigners while at the same time affirming the party's opposition to using Canadian foreign aid to fund abortion services abroad — a mixed bag result for social conservatives.

Other controversial resolutions, including a push to limit citizenship rights for those born in this country to non-Canadian parents and an endorsement of moving Canada's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, received overwhelming support.

The abortion resolution, No. 65, would have struck from the party's policy book a pledge that a Conservative government would not support any legislation to regulate abortion, something added under former prime minister Stephen Harper to reassure some Canadians that the Conservative Party did not have a "hidden agenda" to legislate an abortion ban.

If the resolution had passed, an elected Conservative government would have been free to introduce anti-abortion legislation.

Some delegates said they were pro-choice but still supported stripping this policy from the Conservative playbook because they said the party should be entirely neutral on the issue, like they agreed to be on same-sex marriage at the party's last convention in Vancouver when they over turned a gay marriage prohibition.

The abortion resolution failed by a vote of 53 to 47 per cent.

The social conservative wing of the party holds a lot of sway; Andrew Scheer, who has identified with this branch in the past, likely wouldn't be leader without them, and they represent a not-insignificant number of the party's total membership.

They are also known in party circles as well-organized, devoted convention-goers who rarely miss a chance to put their ideas front and centre.

And so, while facing defeat on the larger abortion resolution, they claimed victory on another policy proposal which would enshrine in the party's policy book a pledge to oppose abortion funding in Canada's foreign aid.

 

[Monsoon]

Right, so what I'm reading here is a misunderstanding of how "policy debate" differs from "party policy". The fact that someone got the minimal number of signatures needed to introduce (say) abortion rights as a topic for debate at a policy convention in 2017 isn't what matters. What matters is that the party voted to maintain a policy of support for access to abortion in Canada.

Functional democracy means tolerating the fact that there are people out there whose opinions differ from your own; policy conventions are the literal embodiment of that principle. The Conservatives and NDP could make people happy by adopting the Liberal practice of having all policy motions vetted by an insider committee before being introduced for debate at a convention, but I give them credit for preferring to maintain a semblance of democratic process and trust that their membership will get the vote right.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Right, so what I'm reading here is a misunderstanding of how "policy debate" differs from "party policy". The fact that someone got the minimal number of signatures needed to introduce (say) abortion rights as a topic for debate at a policy convention in 2017 isn't what matters. What matters is that the party voted to maintain a policy of support for access to abortion in Canada.

Functional democracy means tolerating the fact that there are people out there whose opinions differ from your own; policy conventions are the literal embodiment of that principle. The Conservatives and NDP could make people happy by adopting the Liberal practice of having all policy motions vetted by an insider committee before being introduced for debate at a convention, but I give them credit for preferring to maintain a semblance of democratic process and trust that their membership will get the vote right.

The fact anything of that nature was even debated in 2017 is troublesome, and only further supports my position.  And it will continue to dog us; and be fodder for our opposition, until we stop bringing it up.

Our memberships needs to come to grips with the fact that gay rights an abortion are decided in Canada.  And any leader with so much as the stench of changing that around them is going be almost unelectable for the greater part of this country. 

 

[FJAG]

The fact anything of that nature was even debated in 2017 is troublesome, and only further supports my position.  And it will continue to dog us; and be fodder for our opposition, until we stop bringing it up.

Our memberships needs to come to grips with the fact that gay rights an abortion are decided in Canada.  And any leader with so much as the stench of changing that around them is going be almost undetectable (unelectable?) for the greater part of this country.

I agree with you but I also thought that two decades ago the abortion issue was settled in the US and that Gay rights were moving forward there at an acceptable rate. Boy was I wrong! I think that the social conservatives in the CPC are gaining confidence and strength from what is going on in the South and will continue to push and advocate to undermine what both you and I thought was a "settled issue" here. I think those of us who are more socially liberal within the CPC need to take a strong stand and be heard regularly. Mind you that might just result in the formation of another Reform or Wildrose Party and split the vote again.  :facepalm:

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well we could take the "science based approach" the left loves to go on about and apply them to the issue of the beginning of life. Now that would be interesting. As I said before, our current definition is "Legally neat" but not based on any science. Real science may prove the gay issue, but would slaughter the whole gender garbage except in the tiny, tiny fraction of people born with two sets of genitals.

Can you blame the right with dealing with the issues when they have had "Planned Parenthood" and 72 genders rammed down their throats for at least a decade? 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Thats interesting, because in the world of human taxonomy and science, there is no sub category of gender.