Conservative Party of Canada Leadership Race Megathread-May 27th 2017

[136or142]

Rempel is running for interim, backed by LeBel, and seems to think it's a done deal. Not happy that someone so underqualified would get the leader's post.

She'd be better than Diane Finley.  She was interviewed on "The House" yesterday and she repeated the nonsense about 25,000 refugees from Syria coming to Canada by the end of the year constituting a 'wave of undocumented refugees' that Canadians need to be frightened of. 

For one thing, Canada accepts nearly 25,000 immigrants a month. So processing 25,000 refugees over two months shouldn't be something that isn't doable.  If it does prove to be infeasible though, I think the vast majority of people who voted Liberal, NDP or Green would be satisfied if the government had at least started the processing of 25,000 refugees provided that those refugees weren't gong to have to wait for many months before they could come to Canada.

She also made one other extreme right wing comment in that interview, but I forget what it was.

Given the election results and the rejection by the vast majority of Canadians to the Conservative Party 'be very afraid' campaign, I'd say she'd be a terrible choice for Conservative Party interim leader.

[136or142]

The other name mentioned initially as interim leader was outgoing Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson.  But, as was mentioned at the time he got that portfolio, he doesn't speak French.

I would suggest Peter Van Loan as interim leader.  He was the Government House leader which meant he was effectively the Chief Operating Officer and, I would suspect that he needed to speak French in order to have been appointed that.  I also don't think he's interested in running for the full leadership job.

[136or142]

Rempel is running for interim, backed by LeBel, and seems to think it's a done deal. Not happy that someone so underqualified would get the leader's post.

Between that and her little Twitter outburst, she seems to not have the best judgement. FInley is the best candidate if we need to choose a woman/minority.

The other name mentioned initially as interim leader was outgoing Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson.  But, as was mentioned at the time he got that portfolio, he doesn't speak French.

I would suggest Peter Van Loan as interim leader.  He was the Government House leader which meant he was effectively the Chief Operating Officer and, I would suspect that he needed to speak French in order to have been appointed that.  I also don't think he's interested in running for the full leadership job.

VanLoan is a bit of a bulldog IIRC. Might not be the best for setting the less confrontational tone everyone is talking about.

I've heard that, but he'd have to have at least somewhat worked with the opposition House Leaders to do his job.  At this point I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he can do a Baird and go from being a pit bull to a statesman almost immediately once he got the Foreign Affairs job.

[136or142]

Ambrose is interim.

Fair enough.

Ambrose may not be as bad as the noxious Pierre Polievre, but she's still on the freak show side of the Conservative Party. She was a goofy 'reefer madness' promoter and a dissembler on other illegal drugs during her time as health minister, and as environment minister, no doubt under the orders of Harper, essentially did nothing.

With her as the interim leader, I'd say the credible opposition will come from the NDP.

That said, maybe she'll surprise us with an attitude of 'free at last,  free at least, thank God Almighty, Free at last.'

[136or142]

As Andrew Coyne pointed out yesterday, in this case it makes sense for the Conservatives to wait and see how and in what way the electoral system is changed.  Who they want as leader could be different with a first past the post system or with a IRV system or with a MMP system.

[136or142]

It was interesting to see Tony Clement who had been a hard right wing member of the Mike Harris government say that the Conservatives need to move beyond economic issues and address issues of poverty and aboriginal problems.

Other than, I think, unfairly throwing Bernard Valcourt under the bus who I believe genuinely tried to address aboriginal problems (although maybe Clement was saying that he wasn't backed up by Harper or the cabinet or the boys in the PMO), I think Clement will have truly had an epiphany once he realizes that poverty and aboriginal concerns are economic issues.

[136or142]

The Tories need to move back to their Progressive Conservative roots and win back the immigrant vote if they want to win another majority.

The Tories did well among Chinese voters (winning Markham-Unionville which is more Chinese under the new riding configuration, increasing their vote share in Agincourt and holding on in Richmond while getting slaughtered in the GVRD).  Among South Asians however there was a big swing to the Liberals.

The Conservatives held Richmond Centre but that riding had the lowest voter turnout in British Columbia.  My early guess is that it was mainly the Chinese who didn't turn out to vote as they were turned off by the Conservative campaign demonizing some immigrant groups but couldn't vote for any other party. 

The Liberals won the other Richmond riding, Steveston-Richmond East.

[136or142]

In Markham-Unionville, the Conservatives received 6500 more votes than last time.

Didn't John McCallum run in Markham-Unionville in 2011?

[136or142]

These sorts of polls of the general public on party leadership contests are pretty worthless and are just a measure of name recognition. Remember Forum's poll of Ontarians after McGuinty quit that said that Gerard Kennedy was far and away the leading candidate for the Ontario Liberal leadership? (he ended up a distant third). Or what about their poll way back when that showed that Christine Elliott was far and away the leader in the race to be Ontario PC leader...she was crushed by Patrick Brown - who the initial polls said was at about 1% among the general public.

Well, obviously campaigns matter. Though name recognition means more in federal leadership races. There's a reason why Brian Topp didn't become NDP leader.

Having said that, MacKay likely won't win. BUT, he will likely do much better than the nay-saying pundits think he will. My money is on Jason Kenney.

I probably should be above this, but I want to point out that I mentioned months ago that Peter MacKay would start out as the front runner in any Conservative leadership campaign and would be a serious contender and my comment at that time was roundly ridiculed.

[136or142]

These sorts of polls of the general public on party leadership contests are pretty worthless and are just a measure of name recognition. Remember Forum's poll of Ontarians after McGuinty quit that said that Gerard Kennedy was far and away the leading candidate for the Ontario Liberal leadership? (he ended up a distant third). Or what about their poll way back when that showed that Christine Elliott was far and away the leader in the race to be Ontario PC leader...she was crushed by Patrick Brown - who the initial polls said was at about 1% among the general public.

Well, obviously campaigns matter. Though name recognition means more in federal leadership races. There's a reason why Brian Topp didn't become NDP leader.

Having said that, MacKay likely won't win. BUT, he will likely do much better than the nay-saying pundits think he will. My money is on Jason Kenney.

I probably should be above this, but I want to point out that I mentioned months ago that Peter MacKay would start out as the front runner in any Conservative leadership campaign and would be a serious contender and my comment at that time was roundly ridiculed.

Not from me, I hope. Though the last time this was brought up was right when he resigned after some scandals, so not the best time to suggest he had a good chance.

I was ridiculed 4 years ago when I said Justin Trudeau was the only saviour for the Liberals, but look where we are now.

I don't believe it was from you, no.  I don't recall any scandals that led to MacKay's resignation and not even any suspicions of allegations.  I recall that with John Baird.

[136or142]

As DL said, leadership polls are crap, but here's another one showing MacKay with a big lead.

As their press release said Jean Charest is the least likely to run, but for some reason they didn't poll on Tony Clement, Pierre Polievre and even Michelle Rempel may still run.

So, if the likely Conservative candidates were compared to the Republican Presidential candidates, who would you say is most closely alligned.  In no order, for me:

1.Lisa Raitt: John Kasich
2.Doug Ford: Donald Trump
3.Peter MacKay: Jeb Bush (or Marco Rubio?)  (Alleged moderates but actually far right conservatives)
4.Jason Kenney: Ted Cruz?
5.Brad Wall: ?
6.Michelle Rempel: Carly Fiorina
7.Michael Chong: Rand Paul
8.Tony Clement: Jeb Bush?
9.Kellie Leitch:  ? (I don't really know anything about her)
10.Pierre Polievre: Bobby Jindal
10.Maxime Bernier: Rand Paul?

[136or142]

I would see Brad Wall as the canadian version of Scott Walker

I thought of that as well, but Brad Wall would likely run strictly on the economy while Walker's campaign was scattershot. Sometimes focusing on economic issues and sometimes trying to appeal to religious conservatives.

[136or142]

Clement is organizing a bid, assuming that Kenney won't run and may return to Alberta to lead the smoking hulk.

From the article: Brad Wall
The populist Saskatchewan premier, 50, has been in power since 2007 and is up for re-election in April. Many federal Conservatives want him to come to Ottawa and lead them back to power. He’s taking French lessons.

[136or142]

Being leader of a major political party in Canada requires totally FLUENCY in English AND French - taking a few Berlitz courses and knowing how to order dinner in a restaurant will not cut it for Wall.

Why do you insist on doubling down on this?  Exactly how do you know that all Wall is doing is taking a few Berlitz courses?

I can't see how you could actually know that.  You're determined that Brad Wall won't run for the Conservative Party leadership.

I don't know if he'll ultimately get in or not, but the most likeliest explanation for his intervention against the Liberal government was not for any defence of Saskatchewan but for testing out themes for a run and seeing how they would go over with Conservatives throughout Canada.  And now we have this news that he is taking French lessons.

So...

[136or142]

Moore isn't running. Rest is usual stuff from usual suspects - hoped for better from Ibbitson. Like say, interviewing a single Blue MP.

Ibbitson is a moron.

[136or142]

In a year end interview with the Regina Leader Post, brad wall goes even further in denying any federal ambitions. He says has NOT been taking any French lessons and remains unilingual. So GONG

Showoff

I suppose there is a possibility that Brad Wall is just keeping his options open.  However, I have to concede that if he wanted to run for the Conservative leadership, the logical thing for him to do would be for him to step down as Saskatchewan Premier before their upcoming election.

That said, should Brian Pallister somehow lose the election in Manitoba that will be held around the same time as the Saskatchewan election, Brad Wall may not like the prospect of being the lone reliable right wing premier.  Christy Clark leans to the right, but she isn't reliable to pretty much anybody.

Pallister seems to have a comfortable lead right now and the NDP seem finished outside of their ten or so strongest ridings (mainly the 12 ridings that they managed to win back in 1988) and I don't think the provincial Liberals can win in many, if any,  rural ridings (all the ridings they won back in 1988 were in Winnipeg, but one rural Progressive Conservative crossed the floor to join them shortly after that election), but Pallister is a very strange person and if anybody can blow an election, it's him.

[136or142]

And besides, if the Cons are looking for a "fresh face", Pallister is 60 plus.  (And Clark is too historically capital-L Liberal.)

Please read what I wrote again.  I never suggested Pallister for Federal Conservative leader, I said that in all likelihood he will join Brad Wall as a fellow right wing premier in a few months.

If Christy Clark is capital L anything, she'a capital L Liar, but she seems to pretty much have no ideology beyond doing whatever gets her in front of a camera or a microphone as much as possible.

As horrible as it is to think and say, I suspect that when Christy Clark went up north to visit where that horrible boating accident occurred that at least some of the people in that village thought to themselves "she's only here to get media attention."  Similarly, when she condemned Donald Trump, I think a lot of British Columbia political observers weren't primarily thinking that she was trying to please the small l liberal wing of the Liberal Party base, but that she was speaking up to get on television.

[136or142]

If Christy Clark is capital L anything, she'a capital L Liar, but she seems to pretty much have no ideology beyond doing whatever gets her in front of a camera or a microphone as much as possible.

It's not about ideology, it's about affiliation--prior to her Premiership, she was indeed more commonly identified with the federal Liberals (to the point where it was a factor in her lack of caucus support as leadership candidate), and of course her ex-husband Mark Marissen was very much part of the fed Grits' BC machine. (And if she isn't so now, I did use the "historically" qualifier.)

If she's at all Conservative leadership material, it's only from the perspective of "Liberal, Tory, same old story" jaundice (fueled by how the BC Liberals are presently a "free enterprise coalition" entity, i.e. Not. The. NDP.)

That is true and I believe her ex-husband has continued to assist her campaigns even though they are not divorced.

That said though, even when she was identified with the federal Liberals, she was also regarded as a very 'blue' Liberal. 

[136or142]

Considering she has opposed pretty much every policy of Trudeau since he won (from the right), I'm not sure they are interested in her.

But it doesn't mean the *Cons* would be interested in her, for opposite type reasons.

In the end, on "slipperiness" grounds the Libs still seem the most fitting home for Christy Clark--she's only a "Blue Liberal" insofar as far as it serves the caucus she leads.  And remember, too, that when it comes to strains of Liberalism banished by Trudeau, she isn't exactly socon a la, say, John McKay.

Maybe not as *leadership* material, but the federal Grits would gladly, even now, have a Christy Clark in their caucus--if only to show off the degree to which the Cons have terminally "lost the centre"...

I'm not sure about that. I know at least one person who was with her at the mock Parliaments for university students (I forget what it's called) and he or they both said she was very right wing for a Liberal even back then.

I agree she seems to flip back and forth between the different branches of liberalism and all the way into conservatism on economic issues both before she became Premier and as Premier.

[136or142]

I'm not sure about that. I know at least one person who was with her at the mock Parliaments for university students (I forget what it's called) and he or they both said she was very right wing for a Liberal even back then.

I agree she seems to flip back and forth between the different branches of liberalism and all the way into conservatism on economic issues both before she became Premier and as Premier.

*Economic* issues.  So?  That's how Paul Martin warded off the ReformAlliance threat.

And, "very right wing" vs *what*?  In the case of BC, that'd disproportionately be the NDP--and whether you're federally Lib or Con, it'd still be you vs the Socialist Hordes.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.  Christy Clark was a member of the Federal model Parliament according to my friends, and she was right wing in comparison to a lot of the Progressive Conservatives there.

[136or142]

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.  Christy Clark was a member of the Federal model Parliament according to my friends, and she was right wing in comparison to a lot of the Progressive Conservatives there.

Note: *Progressive* Conservatives.  And if we consider *when* she was in said model parliament (presumably 25-30 years ago), that would've been fundamentally pre-Reform Party, right?

Red Tories still existed then--and who knows how many of them have themselves since migrated to Liberal/NDP/Green...

Sure, but in British Columbia the then young Social Credit members (a provincial party to be sure, but there was a lot of crossover between Social Credit and Progressive Conservative members) were referred to as 'the Hitler Youth.'

The young Progressive Conservatives in the early 1980s were among the leaders in trying to drive their party to the right that succeeded in toppling Joe Clark and getting Brian Mulroney elected as leader.  This would have been a few years later but I don't think things would have changed all that much in such a short period of time.

[136or142]

Red or blue, I agree that the tone of the Christy-bashing in this thread is beside-the-point youth-parliament juvenile ("If Christy Clark is capital L anything, she'a capital L Liar, but she seems to pretty much have no ideology beyond doing whatever gets her in front of a camera or a microphone as much as possible.", or "The only "ism" Christy Clark believes in is NARCISSISM!")--not that Lotuslander's historical pattern of Christy-basher-bashing angry-ex-husband disgruntlement's any better, of course.

Yes, it's not relevant to the discussion.  And I'm glad to rip the testicles out of *both* Adam T *and* Lotuslander in one post...

I gather you don't live in British Columbia.  She herself makes all sorts of juvenile jokes, mostly against the NDP, but in all sorts of ways.  I personally thought her joke about holding a Yoga event someplace after people complained about her announcing that some major bridge in Vancouver would be shut down for half a day (albeit a Sunday mostly in the morning) was kind of funny, but I can understand that most people didn't find her joke funny but found it to be flip and in poor taste (as well as downright stupid, and, yes, juvenile.)

The worst thing she did in this regard was she asked a radio show host named Drex (who is now at CKNW and can be provocative sometimes and also happens to be gay which is of slight significance to this) to ask her either whether she considered herself to be a 'MILF' or simply asked him to ask her a provocative question just for fun, and then laughingly responded to the M*** question, but as soon as the question generated backlash she claimed she was 'offended' and 'shocked' that he asked her that, and the radio station he was working at at the time fired him.

In response to her being a compulsive liar, I can't think of a single time she told the truth on the campaign trail especially her claim that by the end of her first full term B.C would have five LNG plants in operation and our province would soon be 'debt free.'  And, her campaign bus was even painted with the phrase 'debt free B.C.'  Not a single plant is anywhere near close to being built and only one company is even now looking at starting up a plant.  Obviously LNG (and oil prices which can be a substitute for LNG) have declined since then, but, at the time of the election, most people in the industry doubted that more than two plants would start up  and nobody seriously thought that even all five plants would generate the income to eliminate British Columbia's full government debt (including crown corporations, which was her exact promise.)

Since, then she her most cynical lie was her response to the government deletion of emails (or simply not writing information down in the first place) in which she said that 'now that I'm aware of this, I'm going to put a stop to it' even though:
1.As premier, unless she's completely out of the loop of her own government, it's inconceivable that she wouldn't have known it was going on.
2.There had been a previous report by one of the official government watchdogs that reported on this same matter and she said at that time "now that I'm aware of this I'm going to put a stop to it.'

I don't know if she made some juvenile flip joke on the matter but it wouldn't surprise me.  

The Minister who was called out for this, Transportation Minister Todd Stone (who previously worked in the computer software industry) even said that he would continue the practice of deleting emails (known as triple deletion) and despite Christy Clark calling the practice 'unacceptable' never fired him or told him to step down.  Maybe he gave a mea culpa and said publicly he'd stop doing it and I'm simply not aware of that, but I wouldn't believe either of them without an audit to confirm that he and his staff haven't continued to triple delete emails.

In regards to her being a media hound, there are quite a number of non partisan political science professors who have said that she has shown herself to be quite capable in communications but pretty lousy at actually governing. Certainly it may be a bit more partisan to call her a narcissist or that she only wants to be premier because it places her in the spotlight and she only is interested in going to places if she knows the cameras will be there, but there are a lot of people in the province, and not just New Democrats or B.C Conservatives who agree with that assessment of her.

So, that covers her flippant juvenile humor and why I respond to her in the same way, that covers her being a near constant if not pathological liar, and that covers her media communications as governing and ideological philosophy and it's not just 13 year old British Columbians who agree with me on Christy Clark.

All that said, I understand that she can be a genuinely compassionate and warm person in private, so, she's far from all bad.

Anyway, she's not running for Conservative Party leader, so she's not really relevant to this thread and hopefully she won't be relevant to British Columbia in about 16 months.

[136or142]

I gather you don't live in British Columbia.  

<<<YAK YAK YAK BLA BLA BLA YAK YAK YAK>>>

Anyway, she's not running for Conservative Party leader, so she's not really relevant to this thread and hopefully she won't be relevant to British Columbia in about 16 months.

Listen--You.  Don't.  Have.  To.  Explain.  Anything.  To.  Me.  Whether I live in BC or not is totally immaterial.  And I'm not even *denying* any of what you're offering--mainly because it's tedious and redundant under the circumstance.

However, let me explain the seed through which this thread got derailed: it's when the discussion got into the potential jockeying-into position of the current-and-pending "conservative premiers".  And maybe out of the accident of *my own* respecting the thread's subject matter, I misconstrued that particular tangent by thinking in terms of Brian Pallister or Christy Clark themselves as hypothetical "federal Con leadership material" relative to Brad Wall.  And as I said, Pallister's too old, and Christy Clark's too historically Liberal.  But then *you* get into this whole "what Christy Clark is all about" jag, and you've *continued* to do so.  Look: I'm not necessarily in disagreement; that she leads a "right-wing" government is kinda "duh" given the nature of BC politics--indeed, I'm likely more in your camp than Lotuslander's (and my acknowledgment of the "slipperiness" of the Liberal brand, even now federally under Justin, can stand as its own implicit critique of "what Christy's all about")--***but that belongs in a different kind of political discussion forum, to say nothing of a different kind of thread.***.  And all it's showing me is that you're gallingly *incapable* of viewing *any* of these matters from a disinterested-third-party perspective.

Though it's funny, because you and Lotuslander have something in common: you both go by that "you don't live in British Columbia, do you" stance re opinionating outsiders..  Yet what I'm witnessing from the two of you re BC politics is, metaphorically speaking, a whole tedious lot of "he said, she said" blabber--next to which, I'm like the proverbial kid rolling his eyes at his bickering parents.  Which also leaves me wondering if, esp. relative to a message board like this which *ought* to be a godsend to the disinterested-third-party psephologist sort, this bickering-parent state of BC political being is a logical outcome of how the provincial electoral scene has almost always defaulted t/w dumb, dull, nuance-free US-style binarydom, i.e. you're overcompensating for the fact that your elections suck, so to speak.  (And that's nothing to do with *who* gets elected.)

1.There were other people besides you,  though maybe not here, who brought up Christy Clark's name for Federal Conservative Leader.

2.So, you made a flip and juvenile post about me and whether Christy Clark could be a serious candidate for leader and I replied with what I thought was a completely sober and factual reply of why I and about 75% of British Columbians (meaning nearly half of people who voted for the B.C Liberals in the last election) strongly dislike her and think that she is a flip, juvenile and rather unserious  leader herself, and then you responded to that with another rather flip and juvenile response, and yet,  according to you, I'm in the wrong?

I already said that there was no further need to mention Christy Clark in this thread in my last post, so, if that's was the reason for your last post, there was no need for you to reply at all.

If you want to delete your last post, I'll delete this post and we'll just forget this ever happened.

[136or142]

Canada has had just a few experiences with business tycoons in politics. Ironically, right now its most prevalent in Quebec where both PKP and Legault are big business tycoons - and both doing quite badly politically.

The only real political success story of a multimillionaire coming out of no where in Canada would be Danny Williams (aka "Danny Millions") in Newfoundland.

Not quite out of nowhere, and he wasn't a business tycoon, but Brian Mulroney was a successful corporate executive.  He ended up as extremely unpopular, of course, but his government actually had a rather large number of accomplishments.

[136or142]

Why are people comparing him to TRUMP? The Fords are a better comparison. They represent anti-establishment populism. O'Leary may not be establishment, but he is the embodiment of Bay Street fat cats. No way he gets the same kind of support as TRUMP.

The Fords though were both long time city councillors before seeking higher office (and does even mayor of Toronto really compare to Prime Minister of Canada?) whereas Kevin O'Leary, like Trump, has no prior experience in electoral politics, and didn't even seem to be much involved politically, beyond attempting to buy politicians (or lobbying politicians if you prefer.)