2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre's pry back the PPC vote strategy only exacerbates the map problem.  The Conservatives need to be much more competitive in Liberal-dominated metropolitan Canada to form government. 

I don't think Poilievre or his inside circle are naive enough to genuinely believe that this is all they need to do.

I don't think Poilievre exhibited thinking at any in his House career, through.

He's a shameless hack, yes, but that isn't to say that he's not politically astute.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre's pry back the PPC vote strategy only exacerbates the map problem.  The Conservatives need to be much more competitive in Liberal-dominated metropolitan Canada to form government.  

I don't think Poilievre or his inside circle are naive enough to genuinely believe that this is all they need to do.

Again, I dispute these bizarre characterizations of Poillievre's campaign strategy.

The big message he's been pushing the past several days is basically "progressive gatekeepers are stopping homes from being built. I will remove the gatekeepers blocking new supply"

Heck a few days ago he tweeted:

"Highly skilled new Canadians want to earn bigger paycheques & do the jobs they're trained for. Remove gatekeepers that block them. Give Canada more doctors, engineers & skilled professionals."

Put it wherever you want on the political spectrum, but it's definitely not targeted at Bernier's voters in Portage-Lisgar or Timmins-James Bay.

Poilievre just might be the Conservative Trudeau, insofar as how he inspires white-hot rage from his opponents that blinds the ability to look at him objectively. The campaign Poilievre is trying to run, at least when it comes to first impressions, resonates with a large group of people, and not just far-right PPC supporters or hicks from rural Alberta or whatever. His basic message, overly simplistic as it may be, goes beyond the standard fare of Conservative politicians in this country.

People have long argued that the Tories need to shut up about niche issues that nobody outside the CPC base cares about, and start talking about pocketbook issues that expand the base. That's exactly what Poilievre is doing, but he's taking a different route than the consensus of our commentariat that Canadians will only vote for Blue Grits and Red Tories

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

his vibes/personality are harmonious with the base that usually forces CPC candidate to make all sorts of stupid promises.

This is an excellent point, and an underrated strength of Poilievre. O'Toole had to prove his conservative chops by parading himself as a "true blue conservative", something that in hindsight he really wasn't. By the end of his tenure, it seemed like O'Toole and his team were in a state of internal turmoil over what to stand for. Poilievre doesn't have to do this, because he already has credibility with the base. He doesn't have to prove himself. This gives him the political capital to campaign on issues with a broader appeal, like cost of living and inflation, in addition to micro-targetting groups outside the base like Bitcoin bros. The base already trusts him, and he's trying to bring new people amenable to his views into the party.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-on-scott-aitchison

Not sure how much one John Ivison column helps Aitchison, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed him. Not quite ready to lead a federal party, but I hope he makes it on the ballot, if to no end other than to increase his profile.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I went to Leslyn Lewis's speech in Halifax tonight. She got a better turnout than I expected (and much better than Charest did when he came here). Was quite impressed.

Not at all related to her politics, but she's also much taller than I expected

It's pretty impressive that she's a rookie MP and was a complete nobody until about two years ago, and has now basically asserted herself as the de facto leader of the CPC's so-con wing.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

We're getting pretty close to April 29, the deadline to submit the $300k in donations and get verified as candidates. So far, only three have been verified. I'd be pretty surprised if Brown fails to make it, but as things stand right now, only Poilievre, Charest and Lewis are verified candidates.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Tomorrow is the deadline to pay the registration fee and the candidates on the ballot are Baber, Brown, Charest, Lewis, and Poillievre.

Is anyone else close to getting on the ballot?

If anyone else makes it, it's probably Aitchison. As of April 15, he was $100k from meeting the cut-off. This means he raised $200k in a month (he announced on March 16), so really if he's been able to keep up that pace of raising $50k/week, he should be able to make it. Although it could be the case that he raised big bucks early on from loyal supporters/locals/Northern Ontarians, but struggled to keep up beyond that. We'll find out tomorrow.

Other than Aitchison, my guess is no. Dalton is at least an MP but nobody knows who he is, Alleslev is more well-known but lost her seat, is a floor-crosser, and announced late. As for Grant Abraham, Joseph Bourgault, Joel Etienne and Bobby Singh...I mean, did anyone ever think they had a shot at raising $300k?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Tomorrow is the deadline to pay the registration fee and the candidates on the ballot are Baber, Brown, Charest, Lewis, and Poillievre.

Is anyone else close to getting on the ballot?

If anyone else makes it, it's probably Aitchison. As of April 15, he was $100k from meeting the cut-off. This means he raised $200k in a month (he announced on March 16), so really if he's been able to keep up that pace of raising $50k/week, he should be able to make it. Although it could be the case that he raised big bucks early on from loyal supporters/locals/Northern Ontarians, but struggled to keep up beyond that. We'll find out tomorrow.

Other than Aitchison, my guess is no. Dalton is at least an MP but nobody knows who he is, Alleslev is more well-known but lost her seat, is a floor-crosser, and announced late. As for Grant Abraham, Joseph Bourgault, Joel Etienne and Bobby Singh...I mean, did anyone ever think they had a shot at raising $300k?

I recall seeing on Twitter yesterday that Aitchison's campaign was telling supporters that they were only $25,000 away from being able to pay the fee. On Tuesday, they were saying that they were $50,000 away, so it seems as though they were able to cut that in half over a 24-hour period. Based on that, I'd imagine that he'll narrowly make the cut.

Oof yeah, those are very narrow margins though. Imagine he misses the cut by like $100 lol.

I really hope Aitchison gets in...maybe I should donate to him then, but I'm not sure I want to get a CPC membership or donate to candidates. Aitchison is a no-hope candidate, but I like that he's a moderate who understands that you can't win the leadership of a party by telling the supporters that they're wrong and dumb and should shut up. Plus he has good ideas on increasing housing supply, ending supply management (unelectable but good IMO), etc

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

It seems like Brown and Lewis are going for the "directly target niche groups" strategy rather than going for the broader public. Lewis was the first to reach that $300k threshold, but she's made basically no media appearances (which I guess makes sense for her, the so-con base is probably better reached through mailing lists and church groups than mainstream media).

Brown has been completely invisible. Like, not a single media appearance. The articles I've read are mostly something to do with him networking with some South Asian group or another (the most recent was him promising to open a consulate in Nepal...I don't imagine Nepalese-Canadians are that big of a voting bloc). I'm not dismissing that strategy at all, getting in with tight-knit communities can be a major boost in an environment like this, but surely at some point you have to get out of this bubble and appeal to a bigger tent.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I went to Leslyn Lewis's speech in Halifax tonight. She got a better turnout than I expected (and much better than Charest did when he came here). Was quite impressed.

Not at all related to her politics, but she's also much taller than I expected

It's pretty impressive that she's a rookie MP and was a complete nobody until about two years ago, and has now basically asserted herself as the de facto leader of the CPC's so-con wing.

As a counterargument, she was the standard-bearer of that wing of the CPC when she ran in the last leadership election, at which point she was not an MP. Her being a first-term MP seems irrelevant here; her prominence has nothing to do with her parliamentary standing.

True, but it was never clear that she would be the standard-bearer until about the end of the 2020 CPC leadership. She emerged as a stronger candidate than Sloan, but that wasn't a high bar to cross. But this time around, she's emerged very early on as a serious candidate - maybe not to actually win the leadership, but to play a leading role within caucus.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Conservative leadership fundraising info is out. Bryan Bregeut has released rough projections based on it.



It's a 75/25 weighted average of # of donors/total raised. If you think total donors is all that matters, bump Lewis up and Charest down. If you value total fundraised do the opposite.

Either way if fundraising data is at all predictive, Poillievre should have an easy win.

Also as a noted Patrick Brown hater: LOL!

Good god, Patrick Brown at 2%?? He's a guy I'd expect to underperform in polls but overperform when extrapolating from donors/memberships, not the opposite

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The Roe v Wade fallout in the US is bad news for the CPC. Any time abortion enters the headlines, the Conservative brand suffers. Most leadership candidates had the foresight to address it immediately to make their position clear:

Brown and Aitchison put out the most firmly pro-choice messages, saying they would guarantee access to abortion. Poilievre says he wouldn't introduce or pass laws restricting abortion, but unclear on private member's bills. Charest interestingly seems to have landed to the right of Poilievre here - also wouldn't restrict abortion, but specifically says he would allow PMB's. Baber took essentially the same stance as Charest, but more forceful about the right of MPs to introduce bills. Lewis refused to comment on Roe but stuck to her line about "banning coerced abortions, sex-selective abortions", etc.

It seems that the abortion debate in this race will be more about tone than policy, with the exception of Lewis who is of course taking a distinctly pro-life stance (but even then, much more watered down than the so-con views on abortion in the Reform days).

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Charest interestingly seems to have landed to the right of Poilievre here - also wouldn't restrict abortion, but specifically says he would allow PMB's. Baber took essentially the same stance as Charest, but more forceful about the right of MPs to introduce bills.

We probably won't find out the answer, but I wonder if this is a pragmatic move to reach out to the radical wing of the party, or a reflection of a genuinely held opinion. For all the stereotypes, Quebec can be a pretty socon place: after Henry Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada, 7 other recipients returned it in protest, 5 of which were francophone Quebecers.

I don't think that's a representative sample size though. Quebec in general is not a socon place at all (in the Anglo-American sense, of course they can be very socially conservative in other ways). Something like abortion though, not at all. The Quebec Conservative caucus is unanimously pro-choice, and "religious right" obsessions like abortion don't play well to a province that sees secularism as its defining characteristic.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

What's interesting about Quebec secularism is that it's still a society that overwhelmingly identifies with Catholicism, yet frowns upon religious expression. In terms of self-identification, Alberta has more irreligious people than Quebec, yet Alberta's political culture is far more friendly to explicit religious expression than Quebec's. In other words, Quebec Christians are mostly lapsed Catholics, and Alberta Christians, while smaller in proportion, are more vocally religious.

One example of Quebec's secularism is its relatively low rate of marriage. 34% of Quebecers are married, the lowest of any province, while 22% live as common-law couples, the highest of any province. Nunavut has an even lower rate of marriage and higher rate of common-law than Quebec, interestingly. Many Quebecers see marriage as an old religious obsession that has no real benefits over living common-law. This is basically true anywhere, but outside of Quebec it's still a social norm that long-term relationships eventually lead to marriage.

So it's kind of interesting, Quebec is the most Christian province after NL and PEI in terms of self-identification, and by far the most Catholic - yet their social attitudes are probably the least "Christian" of anywhere in Canada.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I managed to catch bits of the debate, and yes it was ridiculous. The weird sad trombone sound effect, in a political debate, seriously? And some of the personal questions, I mean, they might have well have asked candidates what their favourite ice cream topping is. God, why are we as a country so bad at political debates?

Anyway, the verdict seems to be that Aitchison and Baber did well. They're both getting a lot more traction than expected, because they seem like real humans. Poilievre is good at his shtick, but he's way too stiff on the debate stage. Brown's thing seems pretty much limited to his mayoralty of Brampton. Lewis stumbled a lot, and Charest is a good speaker but has a way of opening himself up to being Pierre's punching bag.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I wonder how it makes Poilievre look that he has been promoting crypto-currencies like Bitcoin and claiming they are a "hedge against inflation"...at a time when all these crypto currencies are collapsing in value and people are calling this week "crypto crash week"?

Well it doesn't make him look great. Crypto is a perfectly fine speculative investment if you know what you're doing, but the "hedge against inflation" thing was always a bit nonsensical, because crypto is far more volatile than fiat. I suspect he'll start taking it easier on the bitcoin bro strategy.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I was just thinking about this - is there any major politician in Canada who jumps around the political spectrum as much as Brown does? In the 90's, he starts out as a young PC activist who disapproved of Reform's social conservatism. Then from 2006-2015, he serves as a so-con CPC MP. He runs for the PCPO leadership as a soft so-con...and after winning, almost immediately becomes a progressive who has no time for so-cons. Then he gets me-too'd, goes into hiding for a few months, becomes the mayor of Brampton, and now he's an ethnoburban brokerage politician. Who knew he had such quaint views about the Tamil Tigers, or the desperate need for the Canadian government to build more cricket fields?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Lol Scott Aitchison is so weirdly endearing: https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottAAitchison/status/1525826062743007232

I'm very partial to boring, middle-aged, folksy, somewhat self-deprecating politicians. Though after trying that with O'Toole, who blew a lead to Trudeau who could not be more different from the character I described, that personality may not be what it takes to win a federal election. Everyone seems to love a boring uncle who just wants to grill a steak and knock back a couple Bud Lights, but not enough to actually vote for them I guess. The scrappy ones tend to do better in the federal level - see: Chretien, Harper, Trudeau. Though provincially, boring uncles can do well too, like John Horgan.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

I think he has some family connection to Brampton, like one side of his family is from there or something, I don't know. But from a quick wikipedia search, it sounds like he never lived in Brampton until he became mayor.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How did Brown become mayor of Brampton in the first place since he has no connections to the area and he was the MP for Barrie?

He's always had the knack for politicking with ethnic minorities. He burned the bridge with the religous right portion of his base but kept the Toronto ethnoburbia portion.

And to his credit, the guy's a machine. I'm sure we've all heard about how he barely sleeps and campaigns from early morning to late night. In a non-partisan, low-turnout election, that counts for a lot

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The organizational culture of slinging mud and eating their own is one of the CPC's greatest internal weaknesses. Now we're in the "calling other candidates white supremacists" phase of the campaign.

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

Was it a dogwhistle? I've come to really hate that term because it's literally impossible to qualify if something is or isn't a dogwhistle, because by definition, "normal people" aren't supposed to hear it. But no, it's more likely that Poilievre was trying to be overly verbose (which is what his normal posture is). I'm sure he's done speech training, and using "Anglo-saxon" words instead of "Latinic" ones is a way to sound more relatable and down-to-earth. For example, "we will fight the carbon tax" vs "we will combat the carbon levy". But then Patrick Brown (who else, right?) uses that opportunity to call him a white supremacist.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

The Poilievre "anglo-saxon" scandal is the dumbest thing ever. First of all, saying "I believe in communicating in plain, simple, anglo-saxon words" is really dumb on Poilievre's part, because who uses the term "anglo-saxon" on a daily basis? It sounded like he was trying to sound overly intellectual/pretentious.

It's particularly odd since I've only ever heard words described as Anglo-Saxon in comparison to, like you said, words of Latin/Greek origin. Using that kind of terminology makes him come accross as pseudo-intellectual which evidently he was trying to avoid that and describe himself as down-to-earth, but I mean, he was on Jordan Peterson's podcast and that man is the king of using academic jargon to say nothing in particular so maybe it came with the territory.

Or maybe it is a dog whistle, I don't know, I'm not a dog. I'm no fan of Poilievre to begin with but I'm also a little reluctant to accept Brown's description of it as well, hot on the heels of that weird thing about Nazis emailing him and Michelle Rempel that I'm not quite sure of the details on. I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

Like DC Al Fine said, apparently it's a Churchill thing. He once wrote that the key to effective political messaging is to use short words of Anglo-Saxon origin, rather than Latin/French origins.

The English language is mostly a mix of Old English/Anglo-Saxon and Old French, but the different roots are clear to see. Words with anglo-saxon roots are usually seen as "simpler" than their synonyms with Norman French roots.

Chicken is a big part of Portuguese food

vs

Poultry is a major element of the Portuguese cuisine

Both mean the same thing, but they come off differently. Note that the second sentence is almost identical to French, while the first one sticks to Germanic rootwords.

But that's enough linguistic nerdiness. I think there are four plausible explanations:

1. Poilievre was talking about this linguistic trick of using Anglo-Saxon root words to sound more relatable
2. He was being pretentious and trying to sound overly intellectual (which would be pretty ironic and stupid because that's the opposite of what he was trying to claim)
3. A man of Irish and French origin who married a Venezuelan is sending a message that he wants to assert Anglo-Saxon supremacy in Canada.

I think I've made it pretty clear which of those three I do not find likely.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I might need a little more context in order to relax my hackles - for example, was "Old Stock Canadians" a phrase that was in use before Harper? Because these days I tend to see it only from white spremacist-adjacent places. Despite having always floated around the margins of Tory circles I never really heard it elsewhere.

If it hadn't been a dogwhistle before, the way the phrase was pounced upon by the media (including social media) sort of fueled its dogwhistle-ism henceforth.  (Though again, when I use the phrase, I sort of fold the dogwhistle stigma against itself.  After all, one might argue that in Ontario in 2018, Kathleen Wynne had more "Old Stock" appeal than the polyglot of Ford Nation.)

This is the old-stock Canadian clip. He used it in conjuction with "new Canadian", but in the context, his claim was that both "new" and "old-stock" Canadians agreed with his refugee policy. In that context, I don't see how it's any more divisive than saying "new Canadians" or "indigenous Canadians" or "Canadians of colour".

In any case, I agree that "old stock Canadian" does have some explanatory value when discussing political demographics and patterns. I wouldn't call it an inherently racist or dogwhistling term, it's more a matter of how it's used.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Poilievre panders to WEF conspiracists:

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1528743024229949440

See now this is completely unnecessary on Poilievre's part. By all accounts, his basic pocketbook campaign was leading to high support among CPC supporters, with some polling suggesting he had a shot at a first-ballot victory. And this was a message he could stick to until 2025 and take to the voting public, because "I will make your life more affordable and less burdensome" is a message that works anywhere. Going down the deep end of WEF conspiracy theories and the like is handcuffing himself and the party in a general election - unless of course he pivots away from it, but O'Toole and more recently Kenney have shown, once you unleash the beast, don't just assume you can tame it.

I don't understand how any conservative voter could be against this policy. Even giving the WEF the benefit of the doubt they are not the type of organization that advocates policies that are compatible with either fiscal or social conservatism. Why should MP's who claim to be conservative attend their events?

Oops, forgot to respond to this.

My issue isn't that I like the WEF (I don't). Like Bilingual Bipartisan said, WEF just seems like a collection of Eurotrash champagne socialists who like to wine and dine in Davos and talk about policies that don't affect people like them. I would have no qualms about the Canadian government not participating in the WEF. My argument is more strategic.

Firstly, banning your caucus from in any way being involved with the WEF? That seems like huge overkill. If the idea is you don't want the WEF influencing your government, I mean, it's not that hard to just reject their proposals, most of which Poilievre would probably reject regardless. Of course, there are people who think the WEF is a cabal of billionaires secretly controlling the world. Not everyone who dislikes the WEF, to be sure, but coming out with a message like this, it's pretty clear who he's trying to court. It also plays into the Charest/Brown strategy of calling Poilievre a crazed nutjob.

There is also a strategic risk with courting conspiracists. People who are wired to distrust any and all authority, often with some very out-there views, they're more than happy to stab you in the back when you do something, anything that doesn't please them. I know Poilievre is against mandates and lockdowns now, but I bet if he was the PM in March 2020, he would have bit the bullet and done what anyone else would have, and anti-mandate/vax people would have been enraged regardless of who was in power. But when your base turns on you, that's a much harder political challenge than when pre-existing opponents get mad at you. Just look what happened to Jason Kenney.