CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

[Remius]

Where did I say they did?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So, my forecast was off, but it is interesting to note that in round 2 Dr Lewis got the plurality of votes, but the system-so-weird-only-a-polisci-student-could-like-or-understand-it somehow gave her the least points.  Erin and Peter barely budged in their vote totals from round 1 to round 2, while Dr Lewis' count spiked, taking ~70% of Derek Sloan's votes.

This suggests that the current CPC still lies to the right of the old PCs.  The new leader will have to figure out how to expand the appeal of the party without alienating core constituencies (although this time it wasn't dairy farmers taking him over the top, so perhpas Canada could still end up with a rational, coherent agriculture policy).

I would be much happier if all political parties in Canada went back to a system of caucuses electing leaders. I think it would result in much better leadership and much less chance of political parties being hijacked by well funded, single interests.

 

[Haggis]

I'll suggest that Scheer's refusal to participate or signal that the CPC was open to the LGBTQ likely cost them 10-20 seats in the GTA, and another dozen or so in QC - take the first bunch of seats fro mthe LPC, and the second bunch from the Bloc, and we could be under a minority CPC government right now.

A big part of leadership is just showing up.

My CPC MP is openly gay and I couldn't care less about his orientation. He's doing a damn good job as my MP.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Where did I say they did?

In the quoted bit above, my read of it Was that you implied that the Conservatives are driven by religious dogma. I disagreed, as the record from 2005-2015 implies otherwise. If that is not what you meant, then I apologize.

 

[Remius]

My CPC MP is openly gay and I couldn't care less about his orientation. He's doing a damn good job as my MP.

Not everyone shares that opinion though.  But having O’Toole as the leader lessens that sort of attack against the CPC.  The LPC will need a fresh line of attack. The CPC will need to make sure O’Toole resonates.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-convention-saturday-votes-1.3604990

Note O’Toole’s comments back then.

 

[dapaterson]

I would be much happier if all political parties in Canada went back to a system of caucuses electing leaders. I think it would result in much better leadership and much less chance of political parties being hijacked by well funded, single interests.

Can I get a hallelujah?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can I get a hallelujah?

Selecting Party leaders by popular ballot in a Westminster style democracy perversely leads to much less democratic outcomes, as the caucus feels that they cannot hold the party leader to account (hello Liberals, I am looking at you) and power gets centralized in the PMO.

 

[dapaterson]

Selecting Party leaders by popular ballot in a Westminster style democracy perversely leads to much less democratic outcomes, as the caucus feels that they cannot hold the party leader to account (hello Liberals, I am looking at you) and power gets centralized in the PMO.

Centralization of power in the PMO is not unique to any one party; the current PM's predecessor was equally guilty of that.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Are you talking about gun rights groups or some other groups whose rights Trudeau has disrespected?

Off the top of my head, anyone who disagrees with the LPC on the question of abortion would be another group, which would cover a large percentage of Christians (cf. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/pro-life-group-says-liberals-violating-rights-by-forcing-it-to-endorse-abortion-for-summer-grant). This is "disrespecting rights" because it is treating people unequally solely because of their lack of adherence to an ideology the ruling party espouses.

It is also compelled speech, which, "is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada" in the words of Mr. Justice Beetz in National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerks’ International Union et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 269 at p. 296. He went on to note that the Charter "guarantees to every person the right to express the opinions he may have: a fortiori they must prohibit compelling anyone to utter opinions that are not his own." As such, I would argue that compelling speech is a serious "disrespect" of the rights of people you disagree with.

Also, unlike the CPC, the LPC has as a requirement that you be pro-abortion to be a member. Whereas the CPC respects the rights of people to have different opinions on things.

isn’t on par with women’s rights and gay rights if that is what you are getting at.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it suggests that imposing views on others is okay so long as you agree with it. This is frankly the mistake that many SoCons make as well ... they are in favour of using government power to force their own views, but then don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

I would argue that Canadians should be treated equally, period. That includes Christians even, or perhaps especially, if their views are not popular these days.

Especially when religious dogma drives it .

Why is religious dogma more egregious as a driving force than secular/political ideology? I would argue that just because the word "god" isn't used, that doesn't mean that something isn't a religious dogma. I would argue that Justin Trudeau, at least, is as dogmatic and committed to his beliefs on feminism and abortion as any "fundamentalist Christian" is to their god. I see both as religious convictions because of their dogmatic approach that brooks no contradiction.

That is what people are wary of.

And it's a completely unfounded concern. As others have noted in this thread, CPC has NEVER walked-back LGBTQ rights or abortion rights etc. not even when the "evil" Harper had a majority government. Whereas the LPC actually do infringe peoples' rights.

  O’Toole can present something good to Canadians that will present a viable alternative.

Well, he's prepared to make the necessary public act of piety and walk in the Pride Parade and I've never heard him mention God, so there's that.

 

[ballz]

Whose rights have they disrespected?  Ok, firearms owners, but that's personally less important to me than same-sex marriage and abortions.

Firearms owners, anybody that drives (re: mandatory breathalyzer), anybody that can talk (re: compelled speech law B C-16), anybody who's rights are dependent on an independent judiciary (all of us... re: SNC), anybody who wanted to be part of the summer job program but didn't align with Trudeau's opinion on abortion (re: anti-abortion tests).

I am not happy about the Liberals firearms policies but am even less happy about Andrew Scheer and the SoCons not accepting that abortion and same-sex marriage is a right in this Country.

I'd be curious to see a recent example where any Conservative MP has expressed their desire to role back same-sex marriage.

Regarding abortion, it is not a right in this country. There was no majority opinion in R v Morgentaler, so the decision is not a binding precedent.

I will never vote for someone that shows any inkling that they may allow the debate on same-sex marriage and abortion to be reopened.

I'm curious to know, now that I've corrected you on the fact that abortion is not a right, what if the reason they wanted to "debate" same-sex marriage was to make it an actual legal right. You see, I have this dream that some day a real "small government" conservative will argue that it should be a legal right based on the Justice Bertha Williams interpretation (bless her soul), and also like any topic, there is no "off-topic" topics in a free society. Much like we look back in hindsight at some of the stuff that was "normal" 500 years ago that we view as barbaric now, it's quite possible 1000 years from now humans will realize that abortions are barbaric (I'm not saying they are.... I am very much on the fence which is why I defer to Bertha Wilson).

 

[ballz]

Centralization of power in the PMO is not unique to any one party; the current PM's predecessor was equally guilty of that.

If anything I'd say it's like a natural pareto distribution, on which can only be restrained by a well-written constitution.... which we don't have.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'll suggest that Scheer's refusal to participate or signal that the CPC was open to the LGBTQ likely cost them 10-20 seats in the GTA, and another dozen or so in QC - take the first bunch of seats fro mthe LPC, and the second bunch from the Bloc, and we could be under a minority CPC government right now.

A big part of leadership is just showing up.

I believe it.  When I hear gay rights I wonder what I'm missing. As far as I'm aware gays in Canada have the same rights as heterosexuals and it's a human rights issue (violation) to discriminate on sexual orientation.

The idea that conservatives will physically take away gay rights seems ridiculous to me. What are people taking about when they reference gay rights?

 

[Remius]

Thanks for the reply LBD.

So from what I can see no rights as you list them are being disrespected.  Freedom of expression can still happen.  The LPC has decided that their sitting members cannot be anti abortion.  That does not mean their rights are being violated.  They are free to be a an MP, just not with their team.  No different than most organisations. 

Not sure how you read my saying that gun rights are not at the same level as women or gay rights turned into imposing views.  Society imposes all sorts of things.  But property rights are not at the same level as human rights.  I am willing to hear if there is an argument to counter that though.

Religious dogma has very little rationale in a lot of cases and amounts to “Jesus says so” and “God says so”.  Why can’t gay people get married?  Because God.  Right.  Unfortunately political dogma stems a lot from religious dogma so it can be hard to separate the two.  So when you say, women should have a right to choose about anything involving your body as opposed to god says this is bad so there.  That’s the difference.

Unfounded sure.  But people don’t trust a bunch of thieves to guard money even if they swear they will never steal and have proven they won’t over time. People will still not trust them.  The CPC only recently removed their definition of marriage (4 years ago).  Even though they swore not to revisit it, the voters didn’t trust them because they have quite a few people, that given the chance would. 

That’s the challenge O’Toole has.  I think he’s better placed than Scheer ever was to do that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

He can broaden the Blue Tent all he likes, but he's facing an electorate drunk on unlimited spending, due mainly to COVID but also their usual platforms, by a twice elected Federal Liberal Party.

There's a rabbit and hat trick that needs to be mastered....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-results-1.5695925

 

[Remius]

He can broaden the Blue Tent all he likes, but he's facing an electorate drunk on unlimited spending, due mainly to COVID but also their usual platforms, by a twice elected Federal Liberal Party.

There's a rabbit and hat trick that needs to be mastered....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-leadership-results-1.5695925

No doubt.  I hope he doesn’t fizzle out.  I really want to give him a chance and see what he can do.

 

[FJAG]

In the quoted bit above, my read of it Was that you implied that the Conservatives are driven by religious dogma. I disagreed, as the record from 2005-2015 implies otherwise. If that is not what you meant, then I apologize.

In general the party isn't driven by religious dogma, but it has become the home for a significant faction that uses religious dogma to govern the policies that they want the party to stand for. Currently the party is in a position where it is trying to push and pull at the same time. It's Policy Statement contains the following:

The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy
basis by the following principles:
...
• A belief in the value and dignity of all human life.

But also:

70. Abortion Legislation
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

But note that at the 2018 biennial convention:

The abortion resolution, put forward by delegates from Newfoundland, would have deleted a line in the Conservative policy playbook that said a Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. Doing so would leave the possibility of such legislation open in the future.

It was defeated by a margin of 53 to 47 per cent.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-great-thing-for-conservative-party-that-abortion-proposal-failed/

That's a razor thin margin and when you look at it, the policy statement itself leaves a hole in that "the government will not support" however, Scheer and MacKay and O'Toole both agreed that they would allow a free vote on a private members bill.

The 2016 convention voted to end opposition to gay marriage by 1,036 to 462 and voted to retain opposition to assisted suicide by 990 to 496. Around a third of the delegates espouse Socon objectives.

The bottom line conclusion (and one that stands out like a giant warning light to the public at large) is that there is a significant percentage of Socons within the CPC that will continue to influence the party's stand on these issues. CPC candidates running for positions in the party have to address these issues by either agreeing with Socons openly or alternatively, courting Socons behind closed doors until elected. As a Socons within the CPC are too large a group to be ignored. We know what happens when they are; the party splits in two.

The trouble that many of us long-time conservatives have is that we support much of the social progressive agenda of the LPC while being disgusted by their fiscal irresponsibility and their back-room, bush-league palm greasing. The CPC on the other hand makes itself appear socially regressive to the general public (or at the very least makes itself vulnerable of accusations of such) with the result that it never garners a sufficiently large enough socially progressive base that will allow it to shed itself of the Socon activists in its midst.

:cold:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>they have quite a few people, that given the chance would.

Yes.  Those people are going to be there for quite a while, but not forever - the vectors of historical social change are easy enough to see.  But they will never control a majority of MPs in any conservative party which is still a fusion of "old" PC and Reform, and never control a majority of MPs in Parliament.  There is no realistic scenario under which they will ever be able to roll back any of the key things some moderates claim to be worried about.

A person votes for the LPC, or NDP, or CPC, if he wants the things the LPC, or NDP, or CPC can and will deliver.  But the CPC never will be able to deliver a rollback of social advances.  The so-con threat is a bogeyman some people use to scare others, or maybe just themselves.  Those who wish to cut off their noses are free to do so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=FJAG]

The trouble that many of us long-time conservatives have is that we support much of the social progressive agenda of the LPC while being disgusted by their fiscal irresponsibility and their back-room, bush-league palm greasing.
[/quote]

Absolutely.

 

[Donald H]

Social conservative means what in Canada? That part of the conservative agenda appears to have vanished into thin air. Or at least it's become unspeakable.

How about taking the abortion issue as an example? In Canada the socially acceptable position on abortion is to allow abortions but to attempt to discourage it by government taking a sociallly responsible position of attempting to eliminate a woman's need for an abortion. That could mean government provided health care support for pregnant women who are victims of rape, for instance.

The only problem being, the Liberals and NDP have already claimed that position, leaving the social conservatives nothing but something similar to the US conservative position.

This can be applied to more issues than just abortion!

What to do for Canada's social Conservatives? Just lay their social issues aside?

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Thanks for the reply LBD.

So from what I can see no rights as you list them are being disrespected.  Freedom of expression can still happen.

Turn it around. Suppose a CPC government required Canada Summer Jobs applicants to check off a box attesting that the organization's core mandate is to limit abortions or support only one-man-one-woman relationships in order to get funding. I find it hard to believe that anyone would say that this is not disrespecting anyone's rights.

Not sure how you read my saying that gun rights are not at the same level as women or gay rights turned into imposing views.  Society imposes all sorts of things.  But property rights are not at the same level as human rights.  I am willing to hear if there is an argument to counter that though.

I would argue that property rights are human rights. I would also argue that the right to self defence is a human right as well, although whether Canadians can actually own firearms for the purpose of self defence is another issue and potential can of worms.

Religious dogma has very little rationale in a lot of cases and amounts to “Jesus says so” and “God says so”.  Why can’t gay people get married?  Because God.  Right.  Unfortunately political dogma stems a lot from religious dogma so it can be hard to separate the two.  So when you say, women should have a right to choose about anything involving your body as opposed to god says this is bad so there.  That’s the difference.

I would argue similar happens in secular religion. The cabinet must be 50/50 men/women regardless of who's more qualified "because it's 2020" (i.e. because feminism).

I don't think this is the place to discuss the rationale between certain religious beliefs. It's an unfortunate fact that many people are incapable to coherent discussion/debate so they fall back on "because God". But for the reasonable Christian, the reasons they oppose same-sex marriage or abortion is not merely "because god". For example, many/most pro-life people believe that abortion is wrong because they believe killing people is wrong, and they consider unborn babies to be people.
 

That’s the challenge O’Toole has.  I think he’s better placed than Scheer ever was to do that.

I think a ham sandwich would be better placed than Scheer to do that. I was never impressed with Scheer at all and I thought he ran an awful campaign. I'm sure O'Toole can do much better and I believe we would have won last year if O'Toole had been the leader then rather than Scheer.