2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

[DC Al Fine]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

I can forgive the kids on Canadian Election Twitter for not remembering the 1990's, but a Tory who ran for re-election in 1993 should be aware of what can happen when the base gets pissed.

[mileslunn]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

[Don Vito Corleone]

It's interesting that Poilievre seems intent on a scorched earth strategy, despite seemingly being such a clear frontrunner.

Truth be told, I'm not sure he knows how to run any other sort of campaign.

[Central Lake]

There aren't enough Francophone ridings outside of Quebec to really make a big difference.  But on balance they lean Liberal but they are not monolithic. 

In New Brunswick, Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst are solidly Liberal but Madawaska-Restigouche can go Conservative under right leader but more often than not goes Liberal.  Latter two have a lot of seasonal workers and high unemployment so probably why Tories did poorly there, but considering how strong a second place Scheer and O'Toole had in Cape Breton Island and Rural Newfoundland which are similar economically, maybe there is some potential, but probably not worth wasting a lot of resources on those two.

In Ontario, its a mix.  Ottawa-Vanier is pretty solidly Liberal but NDP has some pockets of support.  Orleans did go Liberal under Harper, but I believe since then has swung hard towards Liberals as more civil servants living there so probably out of reach.  Northern Ontario is Liberal/NDP mix, but Tories did do better than normal so may have some potential with a blue collar strategy.

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tends to go Tory win they win as its largely rural but Liberals do much better there than in other rural ridings in Ontario so yes is winnable but much tougher than most rural ridings which they usually have a lock on.  Since 2000, both federally and provincially, its always backed the winner and last time it went for losing candidate at either level was 1999 provincial and back then urban/rural divide wasn't as strong as it is today as PCs won many GTA seats now out of reach and likewise Liberals were still strong in rural Southwestern Ontario, which is now their worst region. 

Which two ridings are you referring to here?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

UK Tories and Aussie Liberals aren't really relevant in this context. A lot of gun owners support the Conservatives, they won't appreciate a leadership candidate who supports the Liberal policy on this file.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1505197405666426881

[DC Al Fine]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

UK Tories and Aussie Liberals aren't really relevant in this context. A lot of gun owners support the Conservatives, they won't appreciate a leadership candidate who supports the Liberal policy on this file.

Further to that point, Miles characterization of the base as "enamoured with the GOP" obscures the situation on the ground more than it clarifies it. Canada has the highest gun owership rate of any first world country besides America. It has four times as many civilian firearms per capita as Australia and nearly eight times as many as England and Wales!

Gun owners are a much larger constituency in Canada than Australia or Britain, so of course the Canadian Conservatives are going to be more anti-gun control than their Australian and British counterparts.

[mileslunn]

There aren't enough Francophone ridings outside of Quebec to really make a big difference.  But on balance they lean Liberal but they are not monolithic. 

In New Brunswick, Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst are solidly Liberal but Madawaska-Restigouche can go Conservative under right leader but more often than not goes Liberal.  Latter two have a lot of seasonal workers and high unemployment so probably why Tories did poorly there, but considering how strong a second place Scheer and O'Toole had in Cape Breton Island and Rural Newfoundland which are similar economically, maybe there is some potential, but probably not worth wasting a lot of resources on those two.

In Ontario, its a mix.  Ottawa-Vanier is pretty solidly Liberal but NDP has some pockets of support.  Orleans did go Liberal under Harper, but I believe since then has swung hard towards Liberals as more civil servants living there so probably out of reach.  Northern Ontario is Liberal/NDP mix, but Tories did do better than normal so may have some potential with a blue collar strategy.

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tends to go Tory win they win as its largely rural but Liberals do much better there than in other rural ridings in Ontario so yes is winnable but much tougher than most rural ridings which they usually have a lock on.  Since 2000, both federally and provincially, its always backed the winner and last time it went for losing candidate at either level was 1999 provincial and back then urban/rural divide wasn't as strong as it is today as PCs won many GTA seats now out of reach and likewise Liberals were still strong in rural Southwestern Ontario, which is now their worst region. 

Which two ridings are you referring to here?

Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst

[mileslunn]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

UK Tories and Aussie Liberals aren't really relevant in this context. A lot of gun owners support the Conservatives, they won't appreciate a leadership candidate who supports the Liberal policy on this file.

Further to that point, Miles characterization of the base as "enamoured with the GOP" obscures the situation on the ground more than it clarifies it. Canada has the highest gun owership rate of any first world country besides America. It has four times as many civilian firearms per capita as Australia and nearly eight times as many as England and Wales!

Gun owners are a much larger constituency in Canada than Australia or Britain, so of course the Canadian Conservatives are going to be more anti-gun control than their Australian and British counterparts.

True although New Zealand I think is fairly close to Canada, may be a bit less but not much.  And in US there were some Republicans in past who supported banning these.  Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan both endorsed Clinton's assault weapons ban.  Guns banned largely mimics New York and California and while those are solid blue states, they still have lots of gun owners and in both states Trump got similar percentage to what Tories get nationally despite the fact lots of Tories in Canada would have voted for Biden.

But yeah for base, I agree its a vote loser.  Just saying one can be a conservative and support gun bans.  I think problem for Tories, is much of base is based in rural Canada where bans unpopular while for urban and suburban Tory members, its not a major issue they care strongly about either way.  Could even be that those who support ban are less passionate than those who oppose it so those who support it vote on other issues while for those opposing it, its top issue.

My guess is keeping this though may work in Quebec where it seems population more united on gun control and then hope in urban Canada most who vote don't care so win them on other issues.  I suspect Charest more or less knows rural Southern Ontario, Prairies, and BC Interior are lost causes for him.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/patrickbrownont/status/1505197405666426881

Rempel Garner is very in-tune with western interests/alienation/O&G politics, but socially liberal and not into conspiracy theories. Pretty strong ally to have, this is a good move by Brown.

[King of Kensington]

Calgary Conservatives are more similar to GTA Conservatives than rural Alberta Conservatives.

[Benjamin Frank]

British Columbia M.P Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge) withdrew his endorsement of Pierre Polievre and announced on Twitter he is running for the leadership himself.

https://twitter.com/marcdalton/status/1505593852106846211

[Continential]

How many Tories will run? I would have been surprised to hear that the number of candidates is like 2017's amount and not like 2020.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How many Tories will run? I would have been surprised to hear that the number of candidates is like 2017's amount and not like 2020.

Keep in mind that, even in 2020, the initial count of candidates was larger than the final four. There was a strict fundraising threshold some of the smaller candidates weren't able to meet and were forced to drop out (in Poilievre's case, I'm sure he could have made the threshold, he just chose to withdraw his short-lived run). And at least one candidate, Richard Décarie, was barred from running due to homophobic remarks.

In other words, I don't think all of the eight contenders will be able to raise the $100,000 (?) to get on the ballot in time. In the end, it could very well winnow down to Poilievre, Charest, Brown and Lewis.

[Benjamin Frank]

How many Tories will run? I would have been surprised to hear that the number of candidates is like 2017's amount and not like 2020.

Keep in mind that, even in 2020, the initial count of candidates was larger than the final four. There was a strict fundraising threshold some of the smaller candidates weren't able to meet and were forced to drop out (in Poilievre's case, I'm sure he could have made the threshold, he just chose to withdraw his short-lived run). And at least one candidate, Richard Décarie, was barred from running due to homophobic remarks.

In other words, I don't think all of the eight contenders will be able to raise the $100,000 (?) to get on the ballot in time. In the end, it could very well winnow down to Poilievre, Charest, Brown and Lewis.

It will probably be more than that.  Keep in mind that the Conservatives suspended the leadership race last time when Covid struck and the candidates abided by that, and then when the put the race back on, they didn't really give any of the candidates any more time to raise the money to meet the entry fee. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Just catching up on this. Jean Charest?! Really?! ayy lmao.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Just catching up on this. Jean Charest?! Really?! ayy lmao.

He also dipped his toes into the water in 2020, but decided against it at the time. It's not surprising that he would try again, although the most likely outcome is defeat at the hands of someone far younger and less statesman-like than him.

[Vosem]

Just catching up on this. Jean Charest?! Really?! ayy lmao.

Yes, of course, but some of us also remember why Patrick Brown stopped being the leader of the Ontario PC Party. Ayy lmao indeed.

[mileslunn]

With it looking like a supply and confidence agreement between Liberals and NDP, wonder how that impacts Conservative leadership race?  Does mean they could push date back but doubt they will.  Probably just enrages base more so helps Poilievre, but also means by next election will have been 10 years of Liberals in office.  At same time I don't think Trudeau runs again and usually junior partners in coalitions tend to take a hit so that might hurt Tories since if NDP drops and much goes Liberal means need higher threshold to win.  At same time probably easier to win back many PPC voters.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

With it looking like a supply and confidence agreement between Liberals and NDP, wonder how that impacts Conservative leadership race?  Does mean they could push date back but doubt they will.  Probably just enrages base more so helps Poilievre, but also means by next election will have been 10 years of Liberals in office.  At same time I don't think Trudeau runs again and usually junior partners in coalitions tend to take a hit so that might hurt Tories since if NDP drops and much goes Liberal means need higher threshold to win.  At same time probably easier to win back many PPC voters.

I think the most significant effect that we can be sure of is time. Should the supply-and-confidence agreement hold for the whole term, the next leader will have three whole years to prepare for an election - the longest that any CPC leader has had.

My hunch is that this is good for the CPC in a roundabout way. Regardless of whether Poilievre or Charest/Brown win the leadership, a significant portion of the party will be bitterly unhappy. Three years gives time to either heal wounds and get those people back in the fold, sign up new members and appeal to new voters to make up for the ones lost, or both.

[DC Al Fine]

With it looking like a supply and confidence agreement between Liberals and NDP, wonder how that impacts Conservative leadership race?  Does mean they could push date back but doubt they will.  Probably just enrages base more so helps Poilievre, but also means by next election will have been 10 years of Liberals in office.  At same time I don't think Trudeau runs again and usually junior partners in coalitions tend to take a hit so that might hurt Tories since if NDP drops and much goes Liberal means need higher threshold to win.  At same time probably easier to win back many PPC voters.

I think the most significant effect that we can be sure of is time. Should the supply-and-confidence agreement hold for the whole term, the next leader will have three whole years to prepare for an election - the longest that any CPC leader has had.

My hunch is that this is good for the CPC in a roundabout way. Regardless of whether Poilievre or Charest/Brown win the leadership, a significant portion of the party will be bitterly unhappy. Three years gives time to either heal wounds and get those people back in the fold, sign up new members and appeal to new voters to make up for the ones lost, or both.

Honestly, I think everyone gets something out of this except the PPC and maybe the Bloc Quebecois.

[mileslunn]

Agreed, gives Conservatives time to put together a platform and actually look like governing in waiting, not just an anger machine as now.  For Liberals, it really depends how things go.  Go well they benefit, go badly do not.  NDP I think is probably biggest loser as if goes well, Liberals get credit while go poorly they get blamed for enabling.

At same time with Liberals moving left and it being obvious, party would be wise to find way to appeal to Blue Liberals.  Yes they are much less numerous than in 90s, but still exist.  Also probably should work on appealing to blue collar NDP types as I get impression this will be more appealing to your urban progressives which is where NDP base is not your traditional blue collar private sector union types.

[Oryxslayer]

If there is a loser from this deal, its the Bloc who no longer have an opening to do their wheeling and dealing. Which may be another long-term point in the Conservative's favor since it would push the Bloc into opposition and therefore short-term allies of convenience with the Conservatives. Given the present Quebec polls I have no doubt that Legault wants/believes he can to push his federal liaison into a more friendlier arrangement to the federal CCP now that separatism is DOA - which may be possible, we don't know what the future will hold.

[DL]

Agreed, gives Conservatives time to put together a platform and actually look like governing in waiting, not just an anger machine as now.  For Liberals, it really depends how things go.  Go well they benefit, go badly do not.  NDP I think is probably biggest loser as if goes well, Liberals get credit while go poorly they get blamed for enabling.

Its a bit of a myth that parties that are junior partners to governing parties in minority parliaments always do badly in the subsequent election. In fact its a very mixed bag. Everyone points to what happened to the Lib Dems in the UK under Nick Clegg in 2015 after 5 years of being in coalition with the Tories. But the fact is the Lib Dems and the Tories were never a good fit. The Lib Dems see themselves as a party of the left and as an "anti-Tory" party, so what Clegg did in 2010 was always seen as a bit of a deal with the devil. Plus Cameron brought in brutal austerity measures that were EXTREMELY unpopular with the people who had voted Lib Dem. It was the equivalent of what would likely happen if the NDP ever made a deal to put the Tories led by Poilievre into power. That would be political suicide.

This is a very different situation and polling has shown that the VAST majority of NDP voters are supportive of a deal with the Liberals - especially one where the NDP gets so many of its policy objectives addressed. Keep in mind that in Ontario in 1985 the NDP signed an accord that put the Ontario Liberals in power. It did not work out so badly for the NDP. In the subsequent 1987 election the Liberals won a majority but the NDP also gained ground and became the official opposition and then in 1990 when Ontarians wanted to throw out the Ontario Liberals - they gave the NDP under Bob Rae a majority!

For the NDP the enemy is invisibility and irrelevance and this deal makes Singh the centre of attention and he can point to how even with just 25 seats he was able to deliver a lot to his voters.