O'Toole learned, MacKay didn't

 #cdnpoli #cpcldr

Erin O'Toole, the newly elected Conservative Party leader, learned from his last run that he needed to play more hardball.  In that previous race not long ago, O'Toole came across as a more progressive conservative and didn't get the support or attention compared initially to Kevin O'Leary, Maxime Bernier, or Andrew Scheer.  

What's perplexing is Peter MacKay used to play hardball. But that was when he won the Progressive Conservative leadership in 2003 when he signed a promise on a napkin to candidate David Orchard that he wouldn't merge the PCs with the newly-led Stephen Harper's Canadian Alliance.

PC leadership 2003

You'll recall that race 17 years ago, was one of the last convention-style leadership elections with delegates. The results:

1st ballot:  MacKay 41.1%, Orchard 24.3%, Jim Prentice 18.2%, Scott Brison 16.4%, Craig Chandler 0% (endorsed Prentice)

2nd ballot:  MacKay 39.7%, Orchard 24.1%, Jim Prentice 18.2%, Scott Brison 18.0%

3rd ballot:  MacKay 45.0%, Orchard 24.6%, Jim Prentice 30.4%, Scott Brison (endorsed Prentice)

4th ballot:  MacKay 64.8%, Orchard (endorsed MacKay), Jim Prentice 35.2%

The result was later that year, the two conservative parties merged with the Canadian Alliance members voting by mail with 96% in favour, and for the PCs, a quick riding by riding phone-in blitz.  A leadership race ensued, MacKay sat it out, and Harper won over MacKay's future girlfriend and then Liberal floor-crosser, Belinda Stronach.  Harper would go on to lose to Paul Martin's Liberals, albeit a minority government.  But then because of Adscam prominent in voters minds and a poor Liberal campaign run by strategists David Herle and Scott Reid, Harper won a couple minority governments, one against Stephane Dion.  He'd eventually win his "strong stable majority Conservative government" against Michael Ignatieff with a strong NDP showing as its first time as official opposition by the late great Jack Layton. About a decade of Harper as Prime Minister, until Justin Trudeau came along.

CPC 2020

For MacKay in 2020, there appeared to be an overconfidence in his campaign, almost passive in thinking it was an anointment, and shows that having the majority of caucus support doesn't always guarantee a win.  Stephen Harper never campaigned like that.

From the start this leadership race, pandemic aside, nearly out of the gate, when asked whether he'd march in pride parades, Erin O'Toole's answer was basically "if first-responders are allowed, then yes" where MacKay simply said yes.  That set the tone early-on and drew lines in the sand and sent a signal to the other candidate supporters that he's listening.

Did the pandemic affect Peter MacKay's chance of winning?  I don't think so. The candidates were already in full-swing and members had an idea who they're first choice was. It was the second and third choices that were really in play after that. Or were they?

On that, leadership candidate Dr. Leslyn Lewis made a strong impact on 2nd and 3rd ballot choices as there was more time for the membership to get to know her and what she stood for.  She ran a very reputable campaign that garnered much respect and attention. She actually had the most votes on the 2nd ballot but not points--meaning she didn't have enough broad national support (more on that).  She plans to run for MP again.  As a way to draw attention to a local candidacy, running for leadership certainly helps.

Social Conservatism

With O'Toole winning, people I know who are more liberal in their views said they were disappointed in the results as they would have voted for Peter MacKay's Conservatives.  They're tired of Trudeau's public and private ethics violations.  They see O'Toole's win as a unification, albeit a party take-over by social conservatives.  

Perhaps.  If you look at O'Toole's voting record in the House of Commons and what he's said, he's really not a true social conservative and the Campaign Life Coalition certainly does not support him.  But his campaign made it seem to the Sloan and Lewis social conservatives that there was no room for them in a Peter MacKay-led Conservative Party, but there was in his.  And that's all it really seemed to take.

Canadian conservatives are an enigma in politics. I've been following it intensely for 30 years and have been at some of its historical moments.  Some conservatives can't stand it when Liberals win, but some accept it.  But when they do win, it's only when they are united, despite the vast divisions socially, and that takes having an ear to both sides.

Wexit

Beyond the social ideology, there is an eminent threat from the Wexit Western Canada and Alberta separatists led by former Harper cabinet minister and government house leader, Jay Hill.  Will O'Toole be able to appease them or will they remain a small faction, as is usual with blurts of western separatism?  

I think if he doesn't fan the flames and ensures Wexit doesn't grow, they won't split votes with the Conservatives, there's nothing to worry about.  Peter MacKay's first ballot third place showing in Alberta may indicate that if he won, Wexit would have more teeth.  With Erin O'Toole winning, we haven't heard anything in the past few days from Wexit.

Quebec

Then there's Quebec--which, like Andrew Scheer did in pandering to the dairy industry, those ridings put O'Toole over the top. Conservative membership continues to wane in Quebec and membership numbers have dropped--likely because there wasn't a candidate from there and the four candidates in the race did not have their French-speaking up to snuff.   Further, with many ridings having fewer than 100 members, giving a single vote far more sway there than in every populated Alberta riding.  MacKay had the backing of most of the Quebec caucus, yet they just didn't deliver for him.

Uniting conservatives of different shades under a big blue tent is never an easy task.  You can't shun or not listen to Western alienation. You can't shun or not listen to social conservatives.  You can't shun or not listen to progressives.

Stephen Harper knew how to do just that and why he was so successful at the party-level, and nationally as well.  But he had unifying conservative policies that all stripes could get behind. 

It seems Erin O'Toole learned.  We'll see if this translates nationally.

Buying memberships in the Conservative party

 #cdnpoli #cpc

Peter Mackay and Stephen Harper merge parties back in 2003
http://media.commonsensecanadian.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Rafe-Can-the-Conservative-Party-come-back.gif

The Conservative Party quietly changed the rules on how folks can buy party memberships.  Or should I say, changed how a campaign can buy memberships.  No longer can people pay cash to buy a membership--it's credit card or cheque only, and that cost has gone up from $15 to $25.

Something I knew was afoot many years ago during riding nomination races and seeing bus-loads of supporters show up to the vote.  And after cross-referencing, many resided from the same business address--a definite no-no.

I just wonder about the hundreds of people, who, perhaps do not have a credit card, or even a chequing account, or for someone to buy memberships via credit card on behalf of others, say your parents or kids.  Will the party really be that stringent on cross-checking the name on the membership slip with the name on the Visa?

That said, this is a bold and smart move to prevent stacking a particular campaign with supposed supporters and then just paying their membership fee by cash.  It's an old dirty trick that was sometimes effective.  Ask what's his name... you know .. the guy who was premier of Alberta for a bit there.

However, with the $25 fee, the party may find fewer folks buying memberships on there own.  I guess they would have to be rather serious and a strong supporter to do so.  Maybe I'm just cynical over a $10 difference.

All that in mind, when the two sides of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives (i.e. Stephen Harper and Peter Mackay) originally got together to negotiate the merging of the parties, the last point of contention was on leadership selection.  Eventually the PC-side rightfully won on their point of each riding having an equal weighting based on 100 points if that riding had a least a certain number of party members.  As opposed to a one member-one vote scenario.  I was in favour of the PC system because like in a federal election, parliament is won by number of riding seats, not total vote and it best mimics how a federal campaign should be run--nationally.  Otherwise, a leadership candidate could spend most of their time in densely populated areas and win rather than a majority of the ridings.

My point is, even with preventing the buying of memberships, say, in a pile of ridings with 1000 members each, that pile is equal to another pile of ridings with 100 members each.

How this will affect leadership candidates is too early to tell, but it will change the strategy for many who relied on mass numbers and for those who had the cash to buy mass memberships.

Conservatives to pick new leader on May 27, 2017

 #cpc #cdnpoli #cpcldr2017 #cpcldr
 It has been a long time since the CPC membership elected a leader. You'll have to go back to 2004 when Stephen Harper won the race, making this particular election 13 years since.  No different, really, then when Paul Martin took the reigns from Jean Chretien.

During Harper's time, the Liberals had six leaders:

1. Paul Martin (elected) - Prime Minister
2. Bill Graham (interim)
3. Stephane Dion (elected)
4. Michael Ignatieff (elected)
5. Bob Rae (interim)
6. Justin Trudeau (elected) - Prime Minister

Again, no different, really, than what Chretien faced against six different conservative opposition leaders:

1. Preston Manning (Reform, elected)
2. Deborah Grey (Canadian Alliance, interim)
3. Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance, elected)
4. John Reynolds (Canadian Alliance, interim)
5. Stephen Harper (Canadian Alliance, elected)
6. Grant Hill (Canadian Alliance, interim)
   Stephen Harper (Conservative, elected) - Prime Minister

For this new race, the feelers have been sent out.  With 16 months, that gives any hopeful enough time to build interest and momentum, fundraise, organize a national campaign team in every major city and region, and campaign.

However, if we are to consider the above pattern of opposition leaders, we could surmise, whomever wins this race, would not become prime minister, but would lose the next election in four years, spurring a new race, then again that leader not winning.  It would theoretically be on the third elected leader who would have a chance at becoming prime minister.

That is not to say those who are interested should make a run for it now to get their name out there and the beginnings of a very long-term campaign organization.

But to think that Trudeau is a one-term prime minister, for a Conservative, is overly optimistic.  The NDP leadership is in a vacuum and Trudeau will continue to pull from the left.   Further, Chretien and Harper won three elections with their party remaining in power for about 13 years.  It is not unreasonable to think history won't repeat itself and we'll see the following.

2017:  Elected Leader 1
2019:  Election loss
2019:  Elected Leader 1 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2021:  Elected Leader 2
2023:  Election loss
2023:  Elected Leader 2 steps down.  Interim leader chosen.
2025:  Elected Leader 3
2027:  Election WIN

What would be telling, and different is if the 2019 and/or 2023 elections had a minority government.  Then it's difficult to say how the rest of the pattern works out, because remember, Harper lost his first election to Martin, although Martin won with a minority.  Harper then won a minority.  This was a long transition period for Canadians to move from Liberal dominance to a newly merged Conservative Party.

My point is, whoever is running to be leader now or later, has to play the long game, as Stephen Harper was so brilliant to achieve for his electoral success.

Conservative Leadership Race -- The Long Haul

#cdnpoli #cpc When is the last time this happened?

Well, you have to go back to December 2003 when the Conservative Party formed as a merger between the Progressive Conservatives led by Peter MacKay (remember Napkin Gate?) and the Canadian Alliance Party, taken over by Stephen Harper.  This merger was supposedly brokered by Belinda Stronach, daughter of Magna magnate, Frank Stronach, who later dated Peter MacKay, but then crossed the floor to the Martin Liberals.

(I won't get into the machinations of everything that led up to the formation of the party--that's a whole other story.)

Then in 2004, Harper, Stronach, and Tony Clement announced their candidacy.  Harper cleaned up on the first ballot with about 69% of the total vote (56% of the total points).

Soon after, Harper's Conservatives lost to Paul Martin's Liberals, but held them to a shocking minority, 134 to 99 seats.

Two years later in 2006, Harper's Conservatives beat Martin's Liberals 124 to 103, bringing an end to a 13 year Liberal reign.

Two years later again in 2008, Harper's Conservatives beat Stephane Dion's Liberals 147 to 77. 

Three years later in 2011, Harper's Conservatives finally won a majority with 166 seats and help from Jack Layton's NDP winning 103 seats and forming the official opposition for the first time. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff had their lowest showing in party history with 33 seats.

Harper's Conservatives were in government for almost 10 years, and Harper was leader of the Alliance for two years, plus two as Conservaitve opposition leader, plus 10 as Prime Minister. That's 14 years at the helm of a party.  Whomever the next Conservative leader is, he or she had better be prepared for the long-haul.  Unless Trudeau massively screws up, get used to at least 8 years of Trudeau Liberals.  Don't forget that Harper also spent time as an MP and Deputy Leader of the Reform Party from 1993 to 1997.

In examining the past elections, we can see that Conservative support has a solid base at about 30% of voters with softer supporters at 10% and maybe a few more.  As time goes on, and the baby boomer generation passes on, as a good chunk of the electorate, Conservatives can expect to lose base support and see little growth with millennials, who have tended to the NDP and Liberals.

What I'm saying here is the next Conservative leader needs to fully commit, understand the long-game, appeal to a younger base somehow in order to see any potential growth, and to promote the core conservative principles to entice the middle class base.  Most especially, the leader needs to sell proven fiscal domestic conservative policies as the best-approach to our society and future.  Further, how do you grow the base of women supporters, continue the ethnic support, and win seats back in BC, Ontario, and Nova Scotia?

As an exercise, let's look at the names of the potential candidates I've read and heard being touted thus far, and see if you can fit the descriptions as I've stated above to the names and reputations below.

Previous cabinet ministers and current MPs (in alphabetical order):

• Rona Ambrose - Alberta
• Michael Chong - Ontario
• Tony Clement - Ontario
• Jason Kenney - Alberta
• Kellie Leitch - Ontario
• Lisa Raitt - Ontario
• Michelle Rempel - Alberta

Past cabinet ministers and past MPs:

• John Baird - Ontario
• Maxime Bernier - Quebec
• Peter MacKay - Nova Scotia
• James Moore - British Columbia
• Brian Pallister - Manitoba

Past premiers / past federal leaders:

• Jean Charest - Quebec
• Bernard Lord - New Brunswick

Current premiers:

• Christy Clark - British Columbia
• Brad Wall - Saskatchewan

Others:

• Doug Ford - Toronto city councillor
• Ben Mulroney - son of former prime minister Brian Mulroney

There's a few names that stand out for me.  Who stands out for you?

It's going to be a long leadership race.  My guess is the vote won't happen next year, but in Spring of 2017.

Celebrating the demise of Sun News Network?

In watching the Sun News Network (SNN), Herbal Magic appeared to be one of the major sponsors--appealing to the stay-at-home parent considering a weight-loss program.  I hear that another popular herb gave actually gave you the munchies, so I'm not really sure how these herbs worked to make you lose weight.

I find myself, and perhaps you too, watching less and less TV news.  That is, unless some major calamity strikes, I am spending more time watching Netflix and PVR'd shows, including sports, for entertainment, skipping commercials.  My news gathering is primarily online from Google News and Twitter, including any video linked to a major news network.  Radio news is my medium for the morning and in the car.

Like newspapers, TV as we knew it, is kind of dying a slow death to the digital age.  And while the freedom of the Internet with net-neutrality is now being put into question by governments and big-corporations, it is more important than ever before to prevent them from taking it over.  Big mainstream media OWNS TV, newspapers, but are also the major Internet and phone providers in this country.  There are smaller outlets, but competing for sponsor dollars is difficult in a smaller market.  All that said, TV still dominates the living rooms and dinner tables and political campaigns live and die based on the live emotion of TV.

I've recently had chats and online discussions regarding SNN going off-air after about four years of production.  "Good riddance" was an exclamation I read often.  How selective are we, to celebrate the demise of a media outlet when opinion disagrees with our views.  Don't see me hoping for the demise of Evan Solomon's show on CBC although I often am at odds of things he's spouted when watching, wait, reading and viewing videos online.

Nay! What we should be celebrating IS the array of opposing views out in media-land, rather than a single state-run TV propaganda machine coupled with an increasing corporate monopolistic media conglomerate.  Celebrate independent thought--don't dismiss it, I say.  It is often the tactic to shut down discussion

It's funny. I often hear lefties saying we need to defend the little guy over government cutbacks and big corporate takeovers, all the while smiling when the CRTC prevents a start-up TV network from being included in the carriage packages offered by, you guessed it, the big corporate media outlets.

That event alone triggered the beginning of the demise of SNN as they were then unable to gain a wider audience to secure needed sponsorship for revenue.

I had friends at SNN--yes some former Conservative Party staffers--hard-working people who strongly believed in their views for a better Canada.

At the start, I visited their seemingly rag-tag offices in downtown East Toronto and stood in Ezra's bookshelf-strewn studio, which, I learned, had a TV camera that was controlled remotely from another room. Neat, I thought.  Now, these assets will have to be sold off.

Ezra Levant, host of The Source, and as shrewd as many think, he certainly grabbed the attention of the Canadian punditry from a vast array of ideologies, stirring controversy, with his brand of defending freedom.

He, along with Brian Lilley, and Charles Adler, all provided a flair in a media crusade against nanny-state bureaucrats, while flouting common-sense idealism and conservative-libertarianism.  David Akin, a respected journalist in his own right, gave the network legitimacy.  While Adler has his ongoing radio show, Levant and Lilley are currently searching and eyeing for new platforms to continue the battle--likely Internet-based.

At a time when Trudeau politicos believe that cozying-up to extreme global terrorists in our backyard with hugs and sunshine will provide rainbows and fluff-based security, at least there was a loud voice in media-land calling out and holding a potential PM to account on this topic while other outlets floundered.

Now that the Sun News Network is off-the-air, that's one less TV outlet in the Canadian media challenging the opinions of the mainstream media and leftorinos.

In fact, no one else was doing it on TV, and now that voice is gone from that powerful medium.

For you, the viewer, take note, whether you agreed with the approach or style or opinions or views of the cast on SNN is not the point of this debate.

The point is that at least you could decide to watch and listen, to change the channel, or turn off the TV and maybe try some of that "herbal magic".