• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Next Conservative Leader

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
A spoiler ... or maybe a king maker if the Conservatives go by way of a convention.


Very possible, too ... he is very, very popular with one (important) slice of the CPC. One challenge for the Party President, Mr Walsh, and the interim leader (whomever (s)he will be) is to keep the party united. Both the old true blue Refromers and the old Red Tories will be looking to pull the party away from the centre.

I, as a party member and donor, will be pushing for a centrist leader.
 
Having had Baird as my Minister, i would say that although he was decent to the staff of the department, he was micro-manager and his selection of office staff was dismal. It was a breath of fresh air when Strahal took over.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Others potential contenders mentioned in the article Altair copied (without attribution  :tsktsk: ):*

BernierMaxime_CPC.jpg
 
Brad-Wall.jpg
 
Ford-tough-guy.jpg

    Maxime Bernier      and          Brad Wall            and,                                    even Doug Ford
who, I agree will almost      who I, personally,                        who some conservatives will want but who, fortunately,
certainly be a candidate    would favour, but who,                    has zero (degrees Kelvin) chance of leading the CPC
                                                I think, will sit it out



____
* I know, posting from a phone makes things harder
CPC backroom guy who posted this on another forum but who might not want too much attention drawn to him.

Must protect my sources.
 
A Ford brother would be the kind of sideshow the media would like to encourage to draw attention away from substantial debate or allow them to avoid covering it at all (2 minutes of Ford - oh, sorry, no time left).  He would also serve as a pretext for slagging the CPC in general.  In lieu of an actual candidacy, they will speculate on one, perhaps hoping that the horse will start to sing.
 
Jean Charest has quashed rumours that he would be a candidate: ""I will not be a candidate to succeed Mr. Harper. I am very happy with my new life and with my work at the McCarthy Tétrault law firm," Charest wrote in an email to Radio-Canada." I never thought he would be a contender.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Jean Charest has quashed rumours that he would be a candidate: ""I will not be a candidate to succeed Mr. Harper. I am very happy with my new life and with my work at the McCarthy Tétrault law firm," Charest wrote in an email to Radio-Canada." I never thought he would be a contender.
I will never go back to a goverment salary
 
CBC News is reporting that Michelle Rempel is pondering a bid ...

politics-20121019.jpg

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel took to Twitter in the middle of the night to air her
thoughts about running for Conservative leadership.                              (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)



Edit: spelling  :-[
 
According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Conservatives are starting to openly criticize the recent campaign and Prime Minister Harper's leadership style. They are discussing the next leader's style, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-openly-criticize-partys-election-performance/article26945334/
My emphahsis added
gam-masthead.png

Conservatives openly criticize party’s election performance

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015

Members of the now-leaderless Conservative Party are speaking more publicly and frankly about what went wrong and how to dig themselves out of defeat, with some MPs decrying centrepiece legislation or criticizing the campaign’s senior strategists.

The Conservatives are no longer in the thrall of Stephen Harper, the only leader the 12-year-old party has ever had. Mr. Harper resigned this week, and the Tories are casting about for an interim chief to guide them while they select a permanent replacement. Diane Finley, one of the few senior cabinet ministers returning in the next Parliament, put her name forward on Wednesday as a candidate for interim leader.

Mr. Harper enforced a strict message discipline, and now members find themselves able to talk more freely – at least for now.

It began on election night, shortly after the Tories lost to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, when Harper lieutenant Jason Kenney served up a fundamental criticism of the campaign, telling the national press the Conservatives had been too negative. “I think our obvious weakness has been in tone, in the way we’ve often communicated our messages. I think we need a conservatism that is sunnier and more optimistic than we have sometimes conveyed.”

As the week wore on, more Conservatives opened up, with those in Calgary – Mr. Harper’s hometown – in a particularly candid mood.

Calgary Forest Lawn MP Deepak Obhrai, who most recently served as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, talked to media of how he had never liked Bill C-24, a key part of the Harper Conservatives’ legislative agenda that was controversial in the election campaign. Bill C-24, now law, allows Ottawa to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism.

“I was not comfortable with the whole idea,” Mr. Obhrai said in an interview. He said he does not think the government should have the power to take away citizenship, adding that, in his job, he had “travelled around the world and seen this abuse take place.” He said he never hid his feelings on the bill. “The Prime Minister was aware of the fact I was not very happy about this.”

The legislation unnerved members of the immigrant community, and the Tories encountered concern while door-knocking. Mr. Obhrai said he thinks it hurt his party.

He called Mr. Harper a “visionary leader,” but added that, with a new chief, the Tories need to present “a different, softer image.”

“Somewhere in the middle of the campaign, we became out of touch with Canadians.”

The knives are also out for Jenni Byrne, who managed Mr. Harper’s campaign.

Newly elected Calgary Signal Hill MP Ron Liepert talked of how shocked he was at the consistent anti-Harper sentiment he met at the door while campaigning.

“That really surprised me, because I’d thought in Calgary he was almost godlike,” Mr. Liepert said to The Calgary Herald this week.

He proceeded to air his displeasure with Ms. Byrne’s management style, recounting a “15-minute shouting match” he had with her several months ago, when she visited Calgary to voice her unhappiness at how things were going for the Tories there.

“It was the most classless conversation I’ve ever had in my life.”

On CBC Radio’s Ontario Today program on Tuesday, Toronto-area MP Lisa Raitt questioned whether the Conservatives were able to reach women aged 18 to 49.

“I don’t know whether or not our party and our government did a good job of communicating with women like me,” Ms. Raitt said.

Some Conservative brass feel the public criticism of the campaign is not helping.

On Twitter on Wednesday, Guy Giorno, a former chief of staff to Mr. Harper, and 2015 national campaign chair, admonished those who would take their concerns to media.

“Any views on why we fell short, I owe it to my party to share with [the] party and national council instead of the media and public,” Mr. Giorno wrote.

This new Conservative glasnost extends to MPs contemplating running for the leadership.

Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel posted some arresting comments on Twitter late this week about how much resistance a young female Conservative MP would face in a run for the leadership.

“But, but, but, but she’s so YOUNG and ONLY FOUR YEARS and SO BOSSY,” Ms. Rempel tweeted. “These are the things we face. I am competent, proven, and ready. Here’s the question – are you ready for someone like me?”

Turning around her party’s own criticism of Justin Trudeau – that he was too young and “just not ready” – the MP wrote, “Just not ready is no longer an argument. Times have changed.”


First: Conservatives need to be careful: they (we, I need to emphasize, too) are not Liberals.

Second: The "old Canada:new Canada" model, which some of you don't like, works; it explains what we see and it is, therefore a good theory. Yes, Ontario and British Columbia are not as Conservative as, say the Prairies, but they are, even more, not as Liberal as Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The fact is that the Conservatives and Liberals are both, once again, national parties who can be competitive across the country, but the Liberals' base is East of the Rivière des Outaouais and the CPC's base is to the West of the Ottawa River.

Third: A winning party cannot be dominated by angry, old, white men. Lisa Raitt and Michelle Rempel are right: the CPC cannot be what it wants to be and where it wants to be until it can appeal ~ almost as well as the LPC and NDP ~ to younger women, too.

Fourth: (The is a variation of the sort of joke I taught my nephew and niece ~ "Rule #1: Mom is ALWAYS right; if Mom is doing something wrong, remember Rule #1") See my First point: We are not Liberals.

Stephen Harper, was indeed, a "visionary" leader: his vision was to lead Canada, by barely perceptible, incremental steps, towards a more Conservative national position. he has, in some large measure, succeeded. He has, correctly, abandoned the "hard right" and the 'religious right." At the moment they have no other place to go, and if they find one it will be no great loss ... if the "hard right" and the "religious right" abandon the CPC it will be possible to poach from the stream in which the Blue Liberals swim.

The vision Stephen Harper has is of small town Canada, from Port Alberni (represented by an NDP MP since Monday) to Mount Pearl (represented by a Liberal) but exemplified by someplace like Shelburne or Orangeville in Ontario. That is the "firm base" of Canadian Conservatism. That is where the next leader must have his or her roots ... it's fine, even good to live in Calgary or Ottawa, but (s)he has to "fit" in Shelburne, ON or Swift Current, SK and (s)he has to share the values and vision of the people there. Those values and visions are different from those of the Big City, Big Business Big Labour Liberals and NDP voters in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal ~ they are not "better," but nor are they in any way at all "worse." They are the Conservative values of social moderation and fiscal prudence and they can win elections.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Stephen Harper, was indeed, a "visionary" leader: his vision was to lead Canada, by barely perceptible, incremental steps, towards a more Conservative national position. he has, in some large measure, succeeded. He has, correctly, abandoned the "hard right" and the 'religious right." At the moment they have no other place to go, and if they find one it will be no great loss ... if the "hard right" and the "religious right" abandon the CPC it will be possible to poach from the stream in which the Blue Liberals swim.

I think the part in yellow is the basis of the Conservative campaign failure.

Personal story here: I found out at age 16 that I was myopic. I was siting at the back of the class and considered a bit of a class clown in those days. One day, a teacher asks me to read the quote he put on the blackboard and I answered that there was nothing on the board. After the laughter died down and he insisted on my reading it, my friend, next to me said "here Pierre, try with these on" and handed me his glasses. It must have had the right prescription and I suddenly discovered a world I was missing.

How could I have missed it? Well, I probably started to lose my sight somewhere around age 10, by very small increments. So small indeed that every time I lost  bit more, I probably could not notice as I could not remember that only a few months back I could see just a little better. At every step, the world looked just the same to me, and I had no reference frame to figure that I could see a lot better many years before.

Since PM Harper was changing things ever so slowly, I suspect that most Canadian's failed to notice the ongoing ever so slight changes constantly taking place (it did not help that most of them were buried deep into extensive omnibus bills, so no one ever talked about it in public forums). To then, nine years later, run on your record was a terrible mistake: People's view of your record was that in nine years, you didn't do anything.

Couple that with a campaign that seeks to compare "your" record with the other party's platforms as your sole "positive" ads and promising more of the same (the other ones were just attack ads on the other parties, period) made it look like you had nothing to offer and just wanted to hold on to power for the sole sake of being in power. (As a certain French cartoons would tell us "I want to be calif instead of the calif".

Basically (unless I missed it), the Conservative campaign offered Canadians nothing, over a period of 78 days. Failure was the only possible consequence.
 
It's difficult to evade that pattern.  Another trite observation: conservatives prefer to manage change, progressives are eager to create change.  Conservativism should be the natural inclination of people who depend on stability and for whom one major disruption can be a life-ruining event.  For the people with good educations, interesting and important jobs, comfortable incomes, all sorts of prospects and options, etc, etc to ponder - do you really think the "ordinary" people caught up in the turmoil at the margins of your next pet cause really enjoy being playthings so that you can feel better about your position in Maslow's hierarchy?

If the next Conservative leader comes from QC, so be it, but there have been a lot of recent PMs and party leaders from QC.  Whether or not the next Conservative leader comes from AB should not get anyone's panties in a knot.  (The NDP seems to do the best job of finding leaders from different regions.)

Since Harper helpfully stood with the Fords in the closing days of the campaign, he has essentially freed everyone who chooses to stand apart  from having anything to do with the Ford ilk.
 
Brad Sallows said:
It's difficult to evade that pattern.  Another trite observation: conservatives prefer to manage change, progressives are eager to create change.  Conservativism should be the natural inclination of people who depend on stability and for whom one major disruption can be a life-ruining event.  For the people with good educations, interesting and important jobs, comfortable incomes, all sorts of prospects and options, etc, etc to ponder - do you really think the "ordinary" people caught up in the turmoil at the margins of your next pet cause really enjoy being playthings so that you can feel better about your position in Maslow's hierarchy?

If the next Conservative leader comes from QC, so be it, but there have been a lot of recent PMs and party leaders from QC.  Whether or not the next Conservative leader comes from AB should not get anyone's panties in a knot.  (The NDP seems to do the best job of finding leaders from different regions.)

Since Harper helpfully stood with the Fords in the closing days of the campaign, he has essentially freed everyone who chooses to stand apart  from having anything to do with the Ford ilk.


That's a very important point:

    First: The Fords do represent a small but significant slice of the Conservative base; and

    Second: Stephen Harper, himself, represents a somewhat larger one.

Prime Minister Harper, de facto, brought those two groups into the same orbit ... but my guess is that the next CPC leader is going to be "not-Harper." John Baird, Tony Clement and Jason Kenney are, perhaps, the possible contenders most closely aligned to Prime Minister Harper so the "not-Harper" thing is most likely to work against them. Rona Ambrose, Maxime Bernier Kellie Leitch, Peter MacKay, Erin O'Toole and Michelle Rempel were all part of "team Harper" but less, I think, identified with him.

I like the fact the Ms Rempel has come out swinging at the CPC establishment. I also like the fact that Dr Leitch made a lot of friends as she campaigned tirelessly for others ~ almost as much an energizer bunny as Jason Kenney. I, personally, have no problems with a female, or a gay man, leading any Canadian political party, including my own.
 
The Huffington Post says:

  "In the wake of the Conservative Party's defeat, three high-profile female cabinet ministers are being discussed as possible successors to Stephen Harper.

      The first, Dr. Kellie Leitch — a pediatric surgeon, outgoing minister of labour and minister for the status of women — is reportedly set to launch a campaign to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.

      The second, Michelle Rempel — a fast-rising Tory star and outgoing minister of state for Western economic diversification – is opening up about the challenges of mounting a run.

      The third, Lisa Raitt — a much-respected outgoing minister of transport — is keeping her cards close to the vest."


I haven't mentioned Lia Raitt much nor have i heard any rumblings ... but she's a good, solid contender who was rumoured to have been considering a jump to enter the Ontario PC leadership race, but didn't.
 
Some issues affecting any decision Lisa Raitt makes are being one year away from a serious health event and leaving two young boys in Milton ON while she is in Ottawa leading a recovering political party.
 
From Michelle Rempel (with my emphasis added):

    "[size=14pt]I don't want our leadership race, or the direction the party takes going forward, to be defined by what the media or what the chattering class of our party says it has to be or not be. To recapture the hope and
    optimism of Canadians who didn't vote for us on Monday but who would have, we need a leadership race that is vibrant, full of many candidates, that focuses first on ideas and who we are as a party. We don't need people
    self-deselecting because "they're from Calgary" or "they have two young kids" or "they're maybe a bit too young" or "their French/English isn't impeccable" because the media and the inner circles of our party say those are
    things that disqualify them from the race.

    No.

    First we need to take stock of our loss and the emotional toll a nearly 80 day campaign has taken on many of us. Then we need to refocus on who we are as a party - one that champions freedom of economic opportunity,
    rights of the individual, less government, and more prosperity
- and how we inspire Canadians with that message. Only then should we be selecting a leader - because we need to know who we are and where we're going
    before we can choose someone who best embodies the capacity to get us there."
[/size]

I share her priorities, and I consider that "rights of the individual" and "less government" means that the government doesn't concern itself with many social issues: abortion, for example, is a matter of privacy ~ a fundamental right for each woman. You or I may dislike abortion, disapprove of it, wish it wasn't the "easy way out" for too many, but the government and the churches must leave women alone to make their own choices and reconcile with their own gods. It's none of the state's bloody business. Ditto marriage ~ "normal" or gay or whatever, as long as it doesn't involve children or defenceless animals. (If you want to try to make with a tiger ... fill your boots, but don't expect Medicare to stitch you back up again!) And it really doesn't matter if you want to wear a head scarf or face mask to swear allegiance to the Queen ~ but you must uncover your face to get a driving licence, testify in court or vote.
 
Paul Wells, writing in Maclean's, reports on rumours about the CPC leadership. He says that:

    "Senior Conservative sources said there is already growing concern that either Harper, or people who were close to him while he was prime minister, are seeking to organize his succession. Some members of the party’s national
    council are calling for a leadership election as early as May of 2016, which would give an advantage to members who are already well-organized, The member who most closely fits that description is Jason Kenney.

    Kenney will have competition. Simcoe-Grey MP Kellie Leitch, not one of the most prominent members of the former government, is said to have an organization already in place, including Andy Pringle, who was chief of staff to
    former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory, and pollsters Nick Kouvalis and Richard Ciano."
 
E.R. Campbell said:
From Michelle Rempel (with my emphasis added):

    "[size=14pt]I don't want our leadership race, or the direction the party takes going forward, to be defined by what the media or what the chattering class of our party says it has to be or not be. To recapture the hope and
    optimism of Canadians who didn't vote for us on Monday but who would have, we need a leadership race that is vibrant, full of many candidates, that focuses first on ideas and who we are as a party. We don't need people
    self-deselecting because "they're from Calgary" or "they have two young kids" or "they're maybe a bit too young" or "their French/English isn't impeccable" because the media and the inner circles of our party say those are
    things that disqualify them from the race.

    No.

    First we need to take stock of our loss and the emotional toll a nearly 80 day campaign has taken on many of us. Then we need to refocus on who we are as a party - one that champions freedom of economic opportunity,
    rights of the individual, less government, and more prosperity
- and how we inspire Canadians with that message. Only then should we be selecting a leader - because we need to know who we are and where we're going
    before we can choose someone who best embodies the capacity to get us there."
[/size]

I share her priorities, and I consider that "rights of the individual" and "less government" means that the government doesn't concern itself with many social issues: abortion, for example, is a matter of privacy ~ a fundamental right for each woman. You or I may dislike abortion, disapprove of it, wish it wasn't the "easy way out" for too many, but the government and the churches must leave women alone to make their own choices and reconcile with their own gods. It's none of the state's bloody business. Ditto marriage ~ "normal" or gay or whatever, as long as it doesn't involve children or defenceless animals. (If you want to try to make with a tiger ... fill your boots, but don't expect Medicare to stitch you back up again!) And it really doesn't matter if you want to wear a head scarf or face mask to swear allegiance to the Queen ~ but you must uncover your face to get a driving licence, testify in court or vote.


My only quibble with what you have said is here.  I have no problem with the face being masked in public.  But the act of swearing allegiance needs to be witnessed, just as procuring a driver's licence, testifying and voting must be.  The prospective citizen needs to bare their face when swearing allegiance.

However.

They do not have to swear allegiance in public.  2 out 3 of my official attestations were done in the presence of only two people other than myself.  Only once was I on public display.

If the person attests in private and still wants to participate in the public theatricals with their face covered I am quite alright with that.

PS.  I still want to shake hands with a bare-face when concluding personal contracts.  That is my choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top