2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[mileslunn]

I've always thought CPC MPs with lots of real world experience not conducive to being strong political performers - like Rob Morrison - seem to get sidelined, when they might have the makings of decent ministers.

Oh sure.  There are quite a number of fairly impressive Conservative M.Ps. Just to name a few in the West: Todd Doherty, John Barlow, Ron Liepert, Tim Uppal, Randy Hoback, Kelly Block, Marty Morantz and Raquel Dancho (even though she was a career political staffer.)  

Yeah, there really is some talent within the CPC (far, far less than the LPC, but it's there). Harper himself had a pretty impressive history, having played a pretty big role in the early foundations of Reform (he left after disagreeing with Manning on the party's vision).

In 2017, Scheer really stuck out to me as an MP with very little to show for himself other than having been elected speaker, which of course is hardly an impressive role in the Canadian system. It was surprising to me at the time that he was the CPC's choice. O'Toole has a somewhat interesting background, but the new presumptive frontrunner is another career politician.

To be fair, Trudeau didn't exactly have an impressive resume either, apart from having the right father. Certainly nothing compared to what people like Freeland or even Champagne and Anand bring to the table. Nor does Singh have a particularly impressive resume, he was really a small-scale lawyer before becoming an NDP MPP. But it seems to be that in today's environment, "qualifications" beyond politics don't really matter all that much.

I think with how nasty politics is, a lot of top notch types just avoid it and find more rewarding careers in the private sector.  Frank McKenna said he wouldn't enter politics in today's environment.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I've always thought CPC MPs with lots of real world experience not conducive to being strong political performers - like Rob Morrison - seem to get sidelined, when they might have the makings of decent ministers.

Oh sure.  There are quite a number of fairly impressive Conservative M.Ps. Just to name a few in the West: Todd Doherty, John Barlow, Ron Liepert, Tim Uppal, Randy Hoback, Kelly Block, Marty Morantz and Raquel Dancho (even though she was a career political staffer.)  

Yeah, there really is some talent within the CPC (far, far less than the LPC, but it's there). Harper himself had a pretty impressive history, having played a pretty big role in the early foundations of Reform (he left after disagreeing with Manning on the party's vision).

In 2017, Scheer really stuck out to me as an MP with very little to show for himself other than having been elected speaker, which of course is hardly an impressive role in the Canadian system. It was surprising to me at the time that he was the CPC's choice. O'Toole has a somewhat interesting background, but the new presumptive frontrunner is another career politician.

To be fair, Trudeau didn't exactly have an impressive resume either, apart from having the right father. Certainly nothing compared to what people like Freeland or even Champagne and Anand bring to the table. Nor does Singh have a particularly impressive resume, he was really a small-scale lawyer before becoming an NDP MPP. But it seems to be that in today's environment, "qualifications" beyond politics don't really matter all that much.

I think with how nasty politics is, a lot of top notch types just avoid it and find more rewarding careers in the private sector.  Frank McKenna said he wouldn't enter politics in today's environment.

That wouldn't surprise me.

[Benjamin Frank]

B.C Liberal Premier Christy Clark patterned her government as an attempt to throwback to Social Credit.  She was primarily (or solely) concerned with natural gas development and more than infrequently invoked the Social Credit Premier from 1952-1972, WAC Bennett.  However, as has been discussed here before, the demographics of B.C are now heavily in favor of the urban areas, and her not only lack of interest in urban British Columbia, but her outright attempts to annoy urban British Columbians in order to, I guess, 'own the urbans' to curry favor with rural British Columbians, was not appreciated in the urban areas.

Most hilarious about that was that she (initially) represented the very urbane, culturally liberal "Brahmin" seat of Vancouver-Point Grey.  But she only took the seat by a hair in a 2011 by-election and then she lost it in the general election the Liberals won and she had to go to the interior to get a seat.  The 2013 election foreshadowed the breakdown of the old "free enterprise vs. socialists" polarization in BC.

Not to hijack this thread, but...
1.Yes, somewhat, but Christy Clark was first elected in the suburban Coquitlam area in 1996 and reelected in 2001 before quitting (basically after being appointed as Children and Families Minister which she thought would be a career killer.)  Vancouver-Point Grey was Gordon Campbell's riding.

2.I don't know that the free enterprise vs socialists has fully broken down, even if it's still in hibernation.  The NDP was able to get away with their 2017 tax increases I think due to the excesses of the Liberals previously, but being in a minority with the Green Party stopped the NDP from enacting some of their more union/socialist legislation in their first term.

3.Obviously much of their second term so far has been taken up with Covid. But, a good example I think is their forestry legislation.  They seem to be soft peddling it, publicly decrying the investments out of British Columbia that the B.C forest companies are making, but I think they clearly want to turn the forest sector over to Indigenous and local community groups who would engage in more selective forestry.

One of the reasons I think this isn't seen as the old fashioned 'free enterprise vs socialists' these days is that many on the right these days are populists who also generally prefer 'local community ownership' (however that works) over big business forest logging companies.  So, there seems to be this general agreement with those on the right and the left against big business.

It seems to be only economic centrists like me who think "nothing against this notion of community ownership and selective (old growth) logging, but can profit actually made from this?  Ultimately if the local community groups don't make money, they won't be able to invest in the upkeep of their operations.  And, can these groups sell these logs at low enough prices to secondary and tertiary operations so that those companies can remain competitive?"

So, it's kind of interesting and maybe even exciting to see this consensus on the left and the populist right, but ultimately reality will have the final say, and what happens then?

[Poirot]

Anyone want to take bets on which washed up politician from 15 years ago that the media will talk up before they inevitably don't run? AKA the Jean Charest option

What's Bernard Lord up to these days?

Some people are asking Charest to run.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/conservatives-eye-charest-as-potential-leader-again-1.6342373

I don't know if Peter Mackay wants to try a second run. A potential candidate is Tasha Kheiriddin who is thinking about it.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Anyone want to take bets on which washed up politician from 15 years ago that the media will talk up before they inevitably don't run? AKA the Jean Charest option

What's Bernard Lord up to these days?

Some people are asking Charest to run.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/conservatives-eye-charest-as-potential-leader-again-1.6342373

I don't know if Peter Mackay wants to try a second run. A potential candidate is Tasha Kheiriddin who is thinking about it.

Peter MacKay's still trying to pay off his 2020 run debt, and things seem pretty dire considering Harper recently came out urging Tories to donate to him. Maybe this is a 4D chess move by Steve to help his old pal Pete pay off his debt so he can take on Poilievre - what's more likely, is that MacKay is deep in the hole and in no position to take a second stab at the leadership, especially in a contest where he's not the favourite.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

As for some of the other names from the moderate wing of the party being thrown around - Jean Charest and Patrick Brown I've read about recently:

LOL. Not gonna happen. Charest might at least do well enough in Quebec to give Poilievre a good run for his money, but he's not winning. And if Patrick Brown runs for the leadership, he will win exactly five ridings - Brampton East, Brampton North, Brampton Centre, Brampton South, and Brampton West.

[xelas81]

Apparently Charest is/was a consultant for Huawei?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-charest-advising-huawei-in-meng-wanzhou-case-and-on-5g-networks/

[DC Al Fine]

As for some of the other names from the moderate wing of the party being thrown around - Jean Charest and Patrick Brown I've read about recently:

LOL. Not gonna happen. Charest might at least do well enough in Quebec to give Poilievre a good run for his money, but he's not winning.

Election Twitter seems to be casting about for a Red Tory saviour. I don't think they understand how dire the situation for the Reds is. I mean, Philippe Fournier was talking up Tasha Khedderin as a potential winner! Not a candidate, a winner!

Tory factions are messy, but for simplicity's sake, Blues + Populists + Socons is a substantial majority of the membership. Peter MacKay is far and away the most effective Red Tory candidate, in part because he was able to make some inroads with the first two groups, and even a little bit with the Socons before he threw that away. Charest, Chong, Khedderin, and Brown will all struggle to make those inroads.

If we want the race to be interesting, a better option would be Lewis, or a Westerner.

And if Patrick Brown runs for the leadership, he will win exactly five ridings - Brampton East, Brampton North, Brampton Centre, Brampton South, and Brampton West.

Patrick Brown stan logic: If the Tories just turfed their leader for flip-flopping, they must be ready for a Tory leader who flip flops AND has a sex scandal

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Tory factions are messy, but for simplicity's sake, Blues + Populists + Socons is a substantial majority of the membership.

I think part of the problem is that people don't really know what a "red" Tory is, or don't know how to define it properly. A lot of people think a red tory is simply a Tory who's moderate or liberal on social issues. I agree that a socially conservative leader won't win the Tories a general election, but you can be blue and not so-con - in fact, most blues aren't.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Here's how I see the different factions of today's CPC, anyway:

1. Red-Green Tories: The traditional Robert Stanfield/Bill Davis type red tories are dead. I think in today's context, a Red Tory is a Tory who has a fundamentally liberal worldview and assumption, but lands on more conservative positions. MacKay, Chong, Brown, John Tory, Tim Houston, etc. I added "Green" because this faction also tends to hold more concern about climate change.

2. Blue Tories: In today's context, the blues are the dominant faction. Unlike the Reds, they get their worldview from a more Reaganite/Thatcherite philosophy, but like the reds, steer clear of social issues. Poilievre is deep down a very blue Tory, although his rhetoric straddles the populist line.

3. Social Conservatives: Religious right. Their main focus is on Christian stuff. Leslyn Lewis is a good example.

4. Populists: Growing faction within the base, but I think CPC politicians really only represent them in rhetoric. Like Doug Ford who campaigned as a populist but has governed as a blue. I think Poilievre is the same. The populist right tends to have views all over the place, but are united in a distrust of government.

5. Liber-tory-ians: Maxime Bernier was one, but he went down the deep end of populism. This is a small group, but yeah, libertarian tories. They distrust government and institutions like populists, and prioritize right-wing economics like blues, and like the reds, their worldview comes from a fundamentally (classical) liberal place, not a traditionally conservative one.

This is just my analysis, I'm sure others would see things differently, but this is why I don't believe in the whole "moderate vs so-con" narrative of Canadian political commentators. The CPC has unusual ideological diversity for a Canadian political party, because anyone who identifies with the right finds their way into the CPC. In any leadership race, the winning candidate straddles the line between two factions, throws bones to two others, and ignores one. Scheer in 2017 straddled blue-socon, threw bones to populists and libertarians, and ditched the reds. O'Toole in 2020 straddled the blue-populist line, threw bones to reds and so-cons, and ditched the libertarians. It seems like Poilievre's strategy is to straddle blue-populist, throw bones to so-cons and libertarians, and ditch the reds.

In this sense, I think PP will run basically the same campaign that O'Toole did in 2020 in terms of who he focuses on, but he's simply a more genuine/authentic messenger to the right than O'Toole was.

[King of Kensington]

Interesting background on the Canadian Conservative movement:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/under-the-big-tent-conservative-division-in-canada-1.6342930

[mileslunn]

Here's how I see the different factions of today's CPC, anyway:

1. Red-Green Tories: The traditional Robert Stanfield/Bill Davis type red tories are dead. I think in today's context, a Red Tory is a Tory who has a fundamentally liberal worldview and assumption, but lands on more conservative positions. MacKay, Chong, Brown, John Tory, Tim Houston, etc. I added "Green" because this faction also tends to hold more concern about climate change.

2. Blue Tories: In today's context, the blues are the dominant faction. Unlike the Reds, they get their worldview from a more Reaganite/Thatcherite philosophy, but like the reds, steer clear of social issues. Poilievre is deep down a very blue Tory, although his rhetoric straddles the populist line.

3. Social Conservatives: Religious right. Their main focus is on Christian stuff. Leslyn Lewis is a good example.

4. Populists: Growing faction within the base, but I think CPC politicians really only represent them in rhetoric. Like Doug Ford who campaigned as a populist but has governed as a blue. I think Poilievre is the same. The populist right tends to have views all over the place, but are united in a distrust of government.

5. Liber-tory-ians: Maxime Bernier was one, but he went down the deep end of populism. This is a small group, but yeah, libertarian tories. They distrust government and institutions like populists, and prioritize right-wing economics like blues, and like the reds, their worldview comes from a fundamentally (classical) liberal place, not a traditionally conservative one.

This is just my analysis, I'm sure others would see things differently, but this is why I don't believe in the whole "moderate vs so-con" narrative of Canadian political commentators. The CPC has unusual ideological diversity for a Canadian political party, because anyone who identifies with the right finds their way into the CPC. In any leadership race, the winning candidate straddles the line between two factions, throws bones to two others, and ignores one. Scheer in 2017 straddled blue-socon, threw bones to populists and libertarians, and ditched the reds. O'Toole in 2020 straddled the blue-populist line, threw bones to reds and so-cons, and ditched the libertarians. It seems like Poilievre's strategy is to straddle blue-populist, throw bones to so-cons and libertarians, and ditch the reds.

In this sense, I think PP will run basically the same campaign that O'Toole did in 2020 in terms of who he focuses on, but he's simply a more genuine/authentic messenger to the right than O'Toole was.

I would largely agree but here is my thought on how this plays out

1.  Red Tories:  This group has two, traditional Red Tories in Bill Davis/Robert Stanfield mold which outside Atlantic Canada are pretty much non-existent in politics today.  Second is more your Michael Chong types who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive.  Latter still exists a fair bit, especially in metropolitan areas, but their influence in party is much less than past.  First one would lead to a radically different political environment.  Could win over many Liberals, but would ensure another split on right.  Second would probably do well in general election, but no chance at winning leadership race and if like O'Toole run as a Blue Tory in leadership race but Red in general, people will judge as inauthentic.  I think second could pull away many Liberals who fear Trudeau has moved too much to left, but would anger many in base.  At same time on seats which matters most probably would be best for Tories.  But has to win leadership race.

2.  Blue Tories:  Largely agree on and this is probably the path that is easiest to unite CPC membership.  Problem here is most in general electorate don't want to go here.  Winning general election is possible for such, but there needs to be a deep level of dissatisfaction with government.  Otherwise if government reaches Wynne like approval ratings, then yes can win.  But at current approval ratings wouldn't defeat Liberals. 

3.  Social Conservatives: Not majority of party but a huge chunk and impossible to win leadership race without getting support from this group.  Generally toxic in general election however and sure fire way to lose.  In membership though interesting coalition as do well in rural religious areas, but also get a lot of support in heavily ethnic suburbs.  Former goes massively Tory in general election, but latter party struggles in.  However, even if could gain such suburbs, they would lose the upper middle class suburbs badly who like lower taxes and balanced budgets, but don't want a whiff of social conservatism. 

4.  Populists:  This group is really not united and is sort of all over map.  Some like Ford can win, others like our own Trump style would not.  I think in Canada its a mix as most don't like elites who they feel are out of touch and look down on them.  But at same time many see full blown populism as dangerous.  Otherwise most want people who understand challenges average person has, but also offer practical solutions to improve things.  Not just fiery rhetoric with no real solutions.

5.  Libertarians: Again this is a very broad group.  It tends to imply want a much smaller state and I think all Tory members want a smaller state, but great variance in should it be cut around the edges or radical downsizing.  Former especially with Trudeau expanding government's reach is winnable in general election, but latter is not.  The latter type has actually very limited appeal, even less than social conservatism.  A pure libertarian would favour privatizing all highways, privatizing education & health care, no gun laws and those are very much fringe views in Canada.  If you say reduce government by 20%, devil is in details.  Lots on surface might find idea appealing, but once you start listing programs on chopping block, I think you would find a lot less support.  Many are fine cutting programs they never use, but few actually want programs they use cut and if you cut enough its almost guaranteed just about everyone in some way gets impacted.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Interesting background on the Canadian Conservative movement:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/under-the-big-tent-conservative-division-in-canada-1.6342930

Pretty good listen, I had it on the background while getting some work done - not really new information for nerds like us, but it seemed like a pretty fair and comprehensive history of the postwar Conservative movement in this country.

[Benjamin Frank]

Interesting background on the Canadian Conservative movement:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/under-the-big-tent-conservative-division-in-canada-1.6342930

It could have mentioned more that while John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney were both 'red Tories.'  Diefenbaker was especially in the 'progressive' wing until he embraced austerity to deal with the 1961 recession.

[King of Kensington]

The conflation of Red Toryism with the urbane and business wing was later.  In the 1950s Diefenbaker the rural populist was to the left of the Bay Street establishment types (George Drew etc.)

It was under Diefenbaker as well that the Prairies became a Conservative stronghold.

[RogueBeaver]

Le Devoir reports Charest will decide within a week and is confident of uniting moderates, so ideology isn't a factor in his decision this time.

[beesley]

Would Charest's Huawei links severely undermine his bid?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Would Charest's Huawei links severely undermine his bid?

I don't know much about his Huawei links, but boy, that is NOT the company to have ties to if you want to get elected to anything in Canada.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Saw a column by Chantal Hebert praising Jean Charest as the guy who can save the moderate wing of the party. Granted, I'm not super familiar with Charest (not from Quebec, and I was too young when he was a federal politician), and I don't doubt Chantal Hebert has a better feel for the guy. But it speaks to the weak state of the moderate wing that he's the biggest name being thrown around.

Let's just look at the fundamentals here. At 63, Jean Charest would be the oldest person to be elected as a major party leader since Louis Saint-Laurent. No doubt he's a very experienced and qualified person, but he's been out of the political arena for a decade. He will have to deal with a deeply divided caucus, of which he has never been part, and compete to become Prime Minister as he approaches retirement age. Yes that's a very superficial biography, but some people have the "feel" of a winner, and in the context of this leadership election, he distinctly does not have this "feel".

I think if Lisa Raitt had held her seat in Milton, she would have been a strong contender to challenge Poilievre, but her time has passed. Christine Elliott is another, but she's 66 now, and has lost the last three times she tried to become PCPO leader, no reason to think she would go for a chance to be a smaller fish in a bigger pond.

Unless something big happens, the question isn't if Poilievre will be the next leader, but by how much.

[Independents for Nihilism]

Probably just bloviation, but this idea of Charest accomplishing the mythical feat of uniting Red Tories and Blue Grits has me excited. I've always been more PC than C anyway, and seeing that return could either go surprisingly well, or condemn us to 20 years of Generalissimo Freeland, but I'm willing to roll the dice.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/analyse/2022-02-14/parti-conservateur-du-canada/un-realignement-politique-en-branle.php

[Хahar 🤔]

Probably just bloviation, but this idea of Charest accomplishing the mythical feat of uniting Red Tories and Blue Grits has me excited. I've always been more PC than C anyway, and seeing that return could either go surprisingly well, or condemn us to 20 years of Generalissimo Freeland, but I'm willing to roll the dice.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/analyse/2022-02-14/parti-conservateur-du-canada/un-realignement-politique-en-branle.php

It doesn't seem like there's much meat on the bone with this article, but this line stood out:

Pour contrer une victoire de Pierre Poilievre, des députés conservateurs du Québec courtisent avec ardeur l’ancien premier ministre du Québec Jean Charest.

I had imagined that the electoral appeal of Poilievre was that he's an Albertan with a French name. If he's an absolute non-starter in Quebec (which may or may not be true, but Quebec MPs clearly don't think that he'll help them keep their jobs), then it becomes a lot harder to envision a path to victory at a general election.

[MaxQue]

Probably just bloviation, but this idea of Charest accomplishing the mythical feat of uniting Red Tories and Blue Grits has me excited. I've always been more PC than C anyway, and seeing that return could either go surprisingly well, or condemn us to 20 years of Generalissimo Freeland, but I'm willing to roll the dice.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/analyse/2022-02-14/parti-conservateur-du-canada/un-realignement-politique-en-branle.php

It doesn't seem like there's much meat on the bone with this article, but this line stood out:

Pour contrer une victoire de Pierre Poilievre, des députés conservateurs du Québec courtisent avec ardeur l’ancien premier ministre du Québec Jean Charest.

I had imagined that the electoral appeal of Poilievre was that he's an Albertan with a French name. If he's an absolute non-starter in Quebec (which may or may not be true, but Quebec MPs clearly don't think that he'll help them keep their jobs), then it becomes a lot harder to envision a path to victory at a general election.

Despite their efforts to enlarge their base, the Conservative base in Québec is mostly affluent people in Quebec City suburbs who want lower taxes and are quite happy with the status quo on social questions.

[Philly D.]

I really don't know why there is such an obsession in the media with Charest -- the days of winning a convention by receiving overwhelming support in one region are over. And this certainly includes Charest -- he was never very popular during his government, and even his wins in Sherbrooke were very small. The CPC base in Quebec is small, but it IS right-wing, and it's not as if Charest ingratiated himself to it during his reign there. After all, the Conservative and ADQ vote concentrations were correlated...

And furthermore, Charest would not only be anathema to so-cons but also to populists. It's possible he can sign up a bunch of members but if the last couple of weeks are any indication as to the direction of the median CPC voter a sub 40% result in the final round is more likely than a Charest victory.

[Coldstream]

Can’t believe it took me until today to find out Jean Charest’s real name is John.

[Continential]

Despite the hype, I expect Charest to get a result in the thirties because MacKay got 43% in the final round and he was anointed by the powers that be in the Tories to be their next leader until he lost and Charest won't have that backing by the powers that be and he was unpopular at the end of his term as premier.