2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[King of Kensington]

The Charest/Clark era PCs were a mix of managerial conservatives and Red Tories in the Maritimes.

[King of Kensington]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/whistleblower-says-patrick-brown-arranged-her-payment-by-third-party-company-1.5979115

[2952-0-0]

In all likelihood, his attempt to burn down the CPC will go about as well as his attempt to burn down the PCPO. You need friends on the inside to burn down a party, which he doesn't have

Perhaps Patrick Brown has no friends within the party. But, his hiring of Marie Henein indicates he thinks this will eventually become a criminal investigation - in which case, he intends to turn the tables and put the party on trial. She wouldn't work on this case, otherwise.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Brown endorses Charest!

Some have been saying that this might actually be a liability for Charest. Probably true to some extent, but if Brown really did sign up 100k+ members, his supporters going to Charest might actually make the race interesting. I still don't see Poilievre losing this, but on the whole, Brown's exit and endorsement should help the Charest camp make this race more competitive.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1549801909342666755?cxt=HHwWhoC86YKog...

[LabourJersey]

I'm kind of surprised the vote here isn't until Sep. 10.

Are Canadian leadership races typically this long?

This seems to be unusual compared to other parliamentary parties, even if it is far shorter than the US primaries.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm kind of surprised the vote here isn't until Sep. 10.

Are Canadian leadership races typically this long?

Yes. Just look at the other threads in this forum. The UCP race is in October and the ONDP race is not until March. And for an extreme case, the PEI Liberals haven't replaced their leader in 3 years.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I'm kind of surprised the vote here isn't until Sep. 10.

Are Canadian leadership races typically this long?

Yes. Just look at the other threads in this forum. The UCP race is in October and the ONDP race is not until March. And for an extreme case, the PEI Liberals haven't replaced their leader in 3 years.

What the actual eff is going on there ?

[warandwar]

I'm kind of surprised the vote here isn't until Sep. 10.

Are Canadian leadership races typically this long?

Yes. Just look at the other threads in this forum. The UCP race is in October and the ONDP race is not until March. And for an extreme case, the PEI Liberals haven't replaced their leader in 3 years.

What the actual eff is going on there ?

Look at the population of PEI. Not exactly high stakes politics out there.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/Steverukavina/status/1550141838392172544 Charest refuses to say he'll remain in the party when he loses. Yesterday La Presse reported that his team is considering creating a LREM or CAQ-style neo-PC party, fanned by Kheiriddin's book suggesting a "Liberal-Conservative Party" like Macdonald's.

https://twitter.com/Jenni_Byrne/status/1550199109629493249

[Independents for Nihilism]

Third debate is happening but I have to wonder how many ballots have already been filled out

[RogueBeaver]

Harper publicly endorses Poilievre.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/stephenharper/status/1551723480785121281



Harper just endorsed Pierre Poilievre

[Oryxslayer]

I mean barring some surprises, PP is going to win the round 1 ballot - or at least one of the early rounds where a nobody is kicked off. I'm therefore surprised he didn't endorse earlier, but perhaps he did in private and just wanted to time things right.

[RogueBeaver]

Harper was always Never Charest and it was clear months ago his protégé Poilievre was his candidate. 2 years ago Harper was allegedly prepared to resign from the Conservative Fund to openly campaign against Charest.

[Benjamin Frank]

Stephen Harper has always been as sleazy as Pierre Polievre, it's just that Harper is more extreme in his rhetoric and policy proposals now that he is no longer Prime Minister.

Both of them are wholly owned by the fossil fuel sector.

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

Stephen Harper has always been as sleazy as Pierre Polievre, it's just that Harper is more extreme in his rhetoric and policy proposals now that he is no longer Prime Minister.

Both of them are wholly owned by the fossil fuel sector.

People in the US tend to underestimate just how deeply captive to fossil fuel interests Canadian politics is. It's not as bad as, say, whaling in Japan where there's almost literally nobody in the country taking the position that the rest of the developed world thinks is the moral no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at what uncommon knowledge it is that the Tories are essentially a continuation of oil sands lobbying by other means and the Grits are only slightly if at all better.

[MaxQue]

Stephen Harper has always been as sleazy as Pierre Polievre, it's just that Harper is more extreme in his rhetoric and policy proposals now that he is no longer Prime Minister.

Both of them are wholly owned by the fossil fuel sector.

People in the US tend to underestimate just how deeply captive to fossil fuel interests Canadian politics is. It's not as bad as, say, whaling in Japan where there's almost literally nobody in the country taking the position that the rest of the developed world thinks is the moral no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at what uncommon knowledge it is that the Tories are essentially a continuation of oil sands lobbying by other means and the Grits are only slightly if at all better.

And it's not even the industrial group with the strongest pull on government (that would be telecoms).

[Benjamin Frank]

Stephen Harper has always been as sleazy as Pierre Polievre, it's just that Harper is more extreme in his rhetoric and policy proposals now that he is no longer Prime Minister.

Both of them are wholly owned by the fossil fuel sector.

People in the US tend to underestimate just how deeply captive to fossil fuel interests Canadian politics is. It's not as bad as, say, whaling in Japan where there's almost literally nobody in the country taking the position that the rest of the developed world thinks is the moral no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at what uncommon knowledge it is that the Tories are essentially a continuation of oil sands lobbying by other means and the Grits are only slightly if at all better.

Former Alberta provincial Liberal Party leader Kevin Taft wrote a book on this called "Oil’s Deep State: How the petroleum industry undermines democracy and stops action on global warming — in Alberta, and in Ottawa."  
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/insight/graham-thomson-oil-deep-state-controls-alberta-former-liberal-leader-kevin-tafts-new-book-says

This is similar to Australian economist Richard Denniss who has commented similarly on the coal and mining sector in Australia.  But, who has also added that, as in Canada -primarily in Alberta and Saskatchewan - the coal and mining sector actually employs no where near the number of workers that people think it does.

"According to the government’s own statistical agency, of the 12.9 million Australian workers in 2019 only 52,100 worked in coal mining with a further 28,100 employed in oil and gas extraction. When jobs in refining and energy supply are factored in, a generous estimate of employment in the fossil fuel industry is 133,100 people."

"Anyone providing such simple, truthful context to the Australian public is accused of hating working people, ignoring regional Australia, not understanding that fossil fuel exports somehow “fund” our way of life or – bizarrely, when coming from people with no training in economics – not understanding how the economy works. All of this messenger shooting is, of course, complete bullsh**t. But in a democracy, power is the ability to talk BS and get away with it. And no industry wields as much power in Australia as mining."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/23/stop-believing-in-fairy-tales-australias-coal-industry-doesnt-employ-many-people-or-pay-its-fair-share-of-tax

I argue as Richard Denniss does here, that this doesn't just occur with resource industries, but occurs anytime a society identifies itself with an industrial sector. For instance, in history, the United States Secretary of Defense under Eisenhower said  "because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."

I think this was clearly the situation in the U.S South as well pre Civil War.  

The modern debate over the economics of slavery was kicked off with the 1974 publication of the book "Time on the Cross" written by left wing economic historian and Nobel Prize winner Robert William Fogel and Stanley Engerman who argued that slavery was very profitable.

Since that time, many economic historians have looked at their data and new data and have generally reached a consensus that 'slavery was indeed very profitable for the wealthy plantation owners, but it was at the expense of everybody else, including the non wealthy plantation owning whites (some of whom owned slaves themselves.)

First, the southern states mandated slave patrol duty for free whites. "And, in some states, there were actually taxes to finance the patrols. Hummel estimated the sum of enforcement costs brought his estimates to between $64 and $210 million. This represents at most a fifth of the southern economy in terms of inefficiency. This remains a conservative estimate as there was also a deadweight loss from forcibly reallocating non-slave labor towards patrolling which is hard to measure."

https://www.aier.org/article/slavery-did-not-make-america-richer/

Fee.org is not my favorite website, but the above article covered the 'deadweight loss' from slavery. This article describes the opportunity cost.

"Economic historians have repeatedly emphasized that slavery delayed Southern industrialization, giving the North a tremendous advantage in the Civil War."

https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-rich/

A major reason for that, not mentioned in the article, is that few white Europeans immigrated to the Southern States, obviously realizing they could not compete for employment with the slaves.

So, why did so many Southern whites embrace slavery at the time, even though they were made poorer because of it and even though many Southern whites themselves did not even own slaves? I think there is no question that they had come to identify the south with slavery and with their way of life.  People are often irrational.

Finally, I don't think this is just a resource thing or an 'uneducated hick' thing at all.  I think it can also be easily argued that Californians identify themselves as a 'high tech' state in the same way as these other examples. The referendum in California on classifying Uber and other gig workers as contractors and not employees I think is an example of how Californians have been captured by 'big tech.'

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Stephen Harper has always been as sleazy as Pierre Polievre, it's just that Harper is more extreme in his rhetoric and policy proposals now that he is no longer Prime Minister.

Both of them are wholly owned by the fossil fuel sector.

People in the US tend to underestimate just how deeply captive to fossil fuel interests Canadian politics is. It's not as bad as, say, whaling in Japan where there's almost literally nobody in the country taking the position that the rest of the developed world thinks is the moral no-brainer, but you'd be surprised at what uncommon knowledge it is that the Tories are essentially a continuation of oil sands lobbying by other means and the Grits are only slightly if at all better.

As unserious as the Green Party and the (for lack of a better term) green-left wing of the NDP are for other reasons, it's not hard to see why they have an audience.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I'm kind of surprised the vote here isn't until Sep. 10.

Are Canadian leadership races typically this long?

This seems to be unusual compared to other parliamentary parties, even if it is far shorter than the US primaries.

Yeah, Canadian leadership races usually take at least 6 months. In the 2017 CPC leadership (the one where Scheer was chosen), it took well over a year.

You have to remember, Canada is freakin' massive, and the incentive structure is such that candidates tend to spend a lot of time travelling to as many ridings across the country as possible. But the downside of the prolonged leadership race is that things can get nasty and confrontational, especially in a party like the CPC which has a lot of internal factions and divides.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

A minor upside of how long Canadian leadership races tend to be is that it discourages, or at least ought to discourage politicos from obsessing too much over mid-term polling.

[Benjamin Frank]

Conservatives finalize membership list.
https://www.conservative.ca/conservative-party-of-canada-finalizes-voter-list-for-2022-leadership-race/

[Poirot]

Pierre Poilievre and Leslyn Lewis have decided to skip the August 3rd debate. This is an official party debate not something organized by an outside group. I don't know if it's part of the libertarian trend, having a problem with authority.

I don't know what Alain Rayes will do after the leadership vote. He wrote an open letter. He speaks of the anger and hatred spread by Poilievre during the leadership campaign, his style of doing politics like in the US and his Trump like attitude. What is Rayes future? After a couple months say it's not as bad as what I expected because right now it looks like he doesn't want to be part of it.

[MaxQue]

Pierre Poilievre and Leslyn Lewis have decided to skip the August 3rd debate. This is an official party debate not something organized by an outside group. I don't know if it's part of the libertarian trend, having a problem with authority.

I don't know what Alain Rayes will do after the leadership vote. He wrote an open letter. He speaks of the anger and hatred spread by Poilievre during the leadership campaign, his style of doing politics like in the US and his Trump like attitude. What is Rayes future? After a couple months say it's not as bad as what I expected because right now it looks like he doesn't want to be part of it.

Well, he is right. Poilievre style of politics will destroy the party in Quebec and Atlantic, there is no appetite for that kind of thing here.