David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @alllibertynews and 49 others
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2020/02/eyes-off-prize-why-is-conservative.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-mackay-otoole-scheer-harper-1.5467251
Eyes off the prize: Why is the Conservative leadership field so small?
Is it the entrance fee? Or has something changed with the job itself?
· CBC News · Posted: Feb 19, 2020 4:00 AM ET
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer acknowledges supporters following a speech at party campaign headquarters in Regina Oct. 22, 2019. The party is arguably in better shape now than it was after the 2015 election - so why aren't more Conservatives looking to lead it? (Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press)
Back in 2017, it seemed like everyone wanted to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.
It's a curious place the Conservative Party finds itself in right now. In 2017, the party was trying to move past a bruising election defeat and the resignation of Stephen Harper, the modern party's co-founder — arguably a low point. But Conservatives still had 14 names on the ballot to choose from when voting began May 29.
Today, the party objectively is in far better shape. While it failed to defeat the Trudeau Liberals last year, it gained 20 seats and (as current leader Andrew Scheer likes to remind us) won the popular vote. It still tends to crush rival parties when it comes to fundraising.
And if electoral history offers any guide, after two terms the Liberals will be ripe for replacement in the next election. Which means the next Conservative leader has an awfully good chance of becoming the next prime minister as well.
So what is it about the job that seems to make it so unappealing for so many prominent, capable candidates?
Former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose was one of several party luminaries to take a pass on a leadership run, citing personal reasons. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Personal circumstances don't make a trend, and in several cases, the people stepping back from the race this time seemed to be doing it for personal reasons. Rona Ambrose considered a run for weeks before finally deciding that she loves her private sector job and would much rather live in Alberta.
Jean Charest toyed with the idea long enough to record videos announcing his candidacy — only to finally conclude that the party had changed too much in his absence and that, perhaps, his chances weren't what he'd hoped they would be.
Pierre Poilievre was widely expected to declare right up until the moment he ruled himself out, citing a wish to spend more time with his young family. John Baird was organizing for Poilievre; when Poilievre dropped out, Baird started thinking about seeking the job himself.
He spoke to his allies and friends and had put together all the campaign organization he was going to need. Then, quite suddenly, he didn't need it: he issued a statement online thanking his supporters and saying he was "enjoying his post-political life" too much.
The price to play
Part of the gap between the interest shown in the leadership in 2017 and what we're seeing now probably can be explained by the party's own rules for the 2020 contest — which seem meant to discourage outside challengers and lower-profile candidates. (My colleague Éric Grenier did an excellent job of laying out some of those factors here.)
In 2017, candidates had nearly a year to collect 300 party member signatures and raise the $100,000 entrance fee. This time, they have to raise $300,000 (including a $100,000 refundable deposit) and gather 3,000 member signatures by March 25 in order to secure a spot on the ballot for the June 27 vote.
That's a very high bar and an extremely tight deadline; it probably would have blocked most of the people running in 2017. Unless you're a known entity in the party, someone with an existing network of support, you're probably not going to get past it.
Former cabinet minister Peter MacKay is widely seen as the frontrunner in a very small field of candidates. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)
The initial entry deadline is next Thursday; by that point, candidates must pony up $25,000 and the signatures of 1,000 members from 30 different ridings in seven provinces or territories to qualify. As of publication, only three candidates had met those conditions: Peter MacKay, Erin O'Toole and Toronto lawyer Leslyn Lewis. O'Toole and MacKay have each reached "authorized contestant" status by collecting $50,000 toward the entrance fee, plus the $100,000 compliance deposit and 2,000 member signatures.
But this is still the Conservative Party of Canada we're talking about here. Things like steep entrance fees and the pull of private lives are going to factor into personal decisions, but something else must be going on — something that is keeping qualified people away.
Strangely, this situation is not unlike what we saw with the party's very first leadership race.
In 2004, just after the merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, many high-profile people were getting their elbows bent to jump into the race — Mike Harris, Bernard Lord, Ralph Klein, Chuck Strahl and Peter MacKay, to name a few. None of them did, which left the door wide open for Stephen Harper to walk through.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper throws a balloon in the air following his speech to supporters on election night in 2004. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
But the comparison breaks down after that point. Back then, the party had no electoral track record, no history of contesting and winning elections over a decade. To leave a successful career to run for the Conservative leadership in 2004 was to run a substantial personal risk.
There are always risks in politics. So what are the risks this time?
Before the leadership speculation started building up, Baird was tasked by the party with conducting a comprehensive post-mortem of its performance in 2019. We still don't have a clear idea of what his conclusions were; we've heard people say that his report cites "centralized control" of the campaign as one of the problems, but that's not a particularly detailed or helpful observation if you're trying to get a party ready to fight an election. One assumes the report has more to say about why the party lost, and that it will be the task of the next leader to act on that analysis.
Beyond tactical matters, the next leader also will have to decide how Conservatives present themselves to Canadians in the next campaign. The party needs a serious climate change policy; coming up with one could prove controversial within the party itself. So could efforts to move the party beyond socially conservative positions to make it more appealing in urban ridings. The current leading candidates seem content to march in Pride parades and don't seem to have a problem with same-sex marriage — but the conversation isn't likely to end there.
Keeping the coalition together
To win, the Conservative Party needs to reach out beyond its base in Western Canada to build support in and around Toronto and in Quebec. But the plight of Canada's energy sector is ramping up voter rage in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which might make it harder for the next leader to reconcile those voters' wishes with those of Canadians elsewhere who hate pipelines.
Stephen Harper's success was based on his ability to get those camps working together — to build and maintain a coalition of traditional Progressive Conservatives, Western populists, social conservatives and (eventually) ethnic communities who identified with the party's values.
In short, leading the modern Conservative Party is a tough job — tougher even than it looks from the outside. Setting aside for a moment the high bar set for the leadership race, it's not something everyone's going to be willing to take on.
What Conservatives need right now is a leader who understands how important it is to keep that coalition alive and has a plan to do it. Maybe there's someone like that running already. If not, the party might end up going through another leadership race that doesn't quite prepare it for the election to come.
About the Author
3218 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.Gorden Feist
Conservatives have courted the far-right vote for so long they can now only win in Alberta and Saskatchewan. If they try to appeal to anyone else they lose their base, who refuse to accept science as legitimate. They've created their own populist monster that they now cannot control. Oops.
Show 60 older replies
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @Gorden Feist: Methinks Peter MacKay needs to review all his records with my name on them since 2003 N'esy Pas?
David Amos
Content disabled
Reply to @David Amos:
The last document I got from MacKay was a Motion to Dismiss falsely
claiming that I had sued him in September of 2O15.
Kevin Delaney
Reply to @Gorden Feist:
Not a fan of... Any Political Leader... in Canada these days. JT continues to underwhelm. Andy offers nothing. Peter is silent on what Andy is offering.
We are in our own unique political mess. With no relief in sight.
Not a fan of... Any Political Leader... in Canada these days. JT continues to underwhelm. Andy offers nothing. Peter is silent on what Andy is offering.
We are in our own unique political mess. With no relief in sight.
David Allan
Reply to @Jamie Gillis:
"At a time when everyone was debating it in the House. Everyone."
You're the one trying to say it's just his personal opinion to infer it's not related to his political actions.
Scheer can't separate his devotion to his god from his duty to the people of Canada. QED
"At a time when everyone was debating it in the House. Everyone."
You're the one trying to say it's just his personal opinion to infer it's not related to his political actions.
Scheer can't separate his devotion to his god from his duty to the people of Canada. QED
David Allan
Reply to @David Amos:
Dude.
It's on your blog.
federal court file no t-1557-15
Dude.
It's on your blog.
federal court file no t-1557-15
Penelope Pittstop
Most Canadians see the reform party as a regional party, the party of alberta. reformers, wexiters, wild rose, all built around the big oil industry.
Show 10 older replies
Martin Schulte
Reply to @Perry Best: "As if that's the issue that was on their minds when they voted."
It may not have been, as Scheer managed to make some very big mistakes, just one week before the election and was basically scuttled by his own people reporting on his use of party funds for private school. But as the entire conservative platform consisted of "We Hate Trudeau and the Carbon tax" I have to think you are mistaken and Canadians had that very much on their minds. 2/3's is a clear majority over the Conservatives regional 1/3. And until the Conservatives accept peer reviewed science and the facts of fossil fuel induced climate change, they will probably fall to a regional oil state party and will have trouble appealing to the average Canadian.
Perry Best
Reply to @Martin Schulte: "peer reviewed science and the facts of fossil fuel induced climate change"
Peers are not allowed to review the science unless they follow "party lines".
More and more peers are trying to get their voices heard.
Peers are not allowed to review the science unless they follow "party lines".
More and more peers are trying to get their voices heard.
Bill Mickey
Reply to @Penelope
Pittstop: Most Canadians see the Liberal party as a regional party, the
party of Ontario and Quebec, all built around the freebies.
Jamie Gillis
Reply to @Penelope Pittstop:
No...I don't think "most Canadians" think the *Conservative* party is that at all.
No...I don't think "most Canadians" think the *Conservative* party is that at all.
Perry Best
Reply to @Penelope Pittstop: "Most Canadians see the reform party as a regional party"
Over half of the Liberals seats are in Ontario. This is how most Canadians see the Trudeau party.
Over half of the Liberals seats are in Ontario. This is how most Canadians see the Trudeau party.
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
"take away Toronto votes and where does that leave Liberals?"
Engaging in voter suppression?
It's the Conservative way.
FYI, Alberta has more ridings than Toronto.
Welcome to Canada.
Learn how your country works.
"take away Toronto votes and where does that leave Liberals?"
Engaging in voter suppression?
It's the Conservative way.
FYI, Alberta has more ridings than Toronto.
Welcome to Canada.
Learn how your country works.
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
"As if that's the issue that was on their minds when they voted."
Demonstrated true by exit polls and policy polls.
"As if that's the issue that was on their minds when they voted."
Demonstrated true by exit polls and policy polls.
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
"Peers are not allowed to review the science unless they follow "party lines".
More and more peers are trying to get their voices heard."
Peer review is anonymous.
There are no party lines, you just made that up.
"Peers are not allowed to review the science unless they follow "party lines".
More and more peers are trying to get their voices heard."
Peer review is anonymous.
There are no party lines, you just made that up.
David Allan
Reply to @Jamie Gillis:
"No...I don't think "most Canadians" think the *Conservative* party is that at all."
You should check the election results.
Conservatives keep claiming they won the popular vote (not true) while the vast majority of those votes came from AB & SK.
"No...I don't think "most Canadians" think the *Conservative* party is that at all."
You should check the election results.
Conservatives keep claiming they won the popular vote (not true) while the vast majority of those votes came from AB & SK.
Karen King
Reply to @David Allan:
2 provinces voted PC everyone else is liberal (small l)
2 provinces voted PC everyone else is liberal (small l)
Perry Best
Reply to @David Allan: "There are no party lines, you just made that up."
If a scientist comes out against the norm... poof goes the funding!!
If a scientist comes out against the norm... poof goes the funding!!
Perry Best
Reply to @David Allan: "Our governments exist for the people, not the dirt."
Comparing people to dirt if they don't agree with you?!!!
Comparing people to dirt if they don't agree with you?!!!
David Amos
Reply to @Penelope Pittstop: Trust that I know who they are
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
"Over half of the Liberals seats are in Ontario. This is how most Canadians see the Trudeau party."
Most Canadians don't understand Canada, then.
Representation by Population.
Our governments exist for the people, not the dirt.
"Over half of the Liberals seats are in Ontario. This is how most Canadians see the Trudeau party."
Most Canadians don't understand Canada, then.
Representation by Population.
Our governments exist for the people, not the dirt.
David Allan
Reply to @Karen King:
"2 provinces voted PC everyone else is liberal (small l)"
"2 provinces voted PC everyone else is liberal (small l)"
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
"If a scientist comes out against the norm... poof goes the funding!!"
Nope.
You just made that up.
Funding comes before the study.
If you're talking about the norm of scientific investigation and that process, well yeah. Bad science and pseudo-science shouldn't be funded. Science is a process.
"If a scientist comes out against the norm... poof goes the funding!!"
Nope.
You just made that up.
Funding comes before the study.
If you're talking about the norm of scientific investigation and that process, well yeah. Bad science and pseudo-science shouldn't be funded. Science is a process.
David Allan
Reply to @Perry Best:
""Our governments exist for the people, not the dirt."
Comparing people to dirt if they don't agree with you?!!!"
It's those who think democracy belongs to provinces instead of people who have made that false equivalence.
I'm the guy standing up for your humanity and your equality.
That you refute my position is just something I'll have to accept. You are neither.
""Our governments exist for the people, not the dirt."
Comparing people to dirt if they don't agree with you?!!!"
It's those who think democracy belongs to provinces instead of people who have made that false equivalence.
I'm the guy standing up for your humanity and your equality.
That you refute my position is just something I'll have to accept. You are neither.
Keith Slater
"Mr. Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today,"
David Amos
Reply to @Keith Slater: Say it ain't so
David Allan
Reply to @Michael Furmaniak:
"Do you mean those on strike in France? They got significant support from French people."
Moving the goalposts.
You said, ""s I said so many times, it will not be tolerated by any other society, I know (and I lived in a few other countries)"
You are proved wrong.
"Do you mean those on strike in France? They got significant support from French people."
Moving the goalposts.
You said, ""s I said so many times, it will not be tolerated by any other society, I know (and I lived in a few other countries)"
You are proved wrong.
David Allan
Reply to @Mark Thomas:
"I believe Ipsos polling on the blockades indicates that a solid majority wants stronger action taken."
Populism is not democracy.
A solid majority want all sorts of things.
Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
"I believe Ipsos polling on the blockades indicates that a solid majority wants stronger action taken."
Populism is not democracy.
A solid majority want all sorts of things.
Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment