Wednesday, March 4, 2015

A tale of two leadership races

The two largest opposition parties in Canada's two largest provinces will be choosing new leaders in May. The front runner in the campaign to replace Pauline Marois as leader of the Parti Québécois is clear, and all metrics agree on who it is. But the race to replace Tim Hudak as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives should be a much easier call than what it is turning out to be.

I wrote about some other leaders today in my column for the CBC, breaking down the approval ratings of Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair, and Justin Trudeau. Check it out here.

There are three candidates in the PC leadership contest. Christine Elliot is an MPP in the GTA and a former leadership contestant, the best known of the three in part because she is the widow to the late Jim Flaherty. Patrick Brown is an MP from Barrie, and before this contest very few people had ever heard of him. The same goes for Monte McNaughton, an MPP from southwestern Ontario.

Since the beginning of the race, I have been tracking endorsements. It is a way to determine who is the favourite of the party establishment, and more often than not it tracks the outcome relatively closely. By this measure, Christine Elliott is the consensus choice.

She has garnered 81% of the endorsement points my system awards, giving her an insurmountable lead. Her list of endorsers includes former premier Bill Davis, two leadership candidates who dropped out of the race (Lisa MacLeod and Vic Fedeli), and long-time MPPs like Ted Arnott, Ernie Hardeman, Norm Miller, Julia Munro, and Laurie Scott. She also has some of the higher profile Ontario MPs on her side, including Chris Alexander, John Baird, Peter Kent, Kellie Leitch, Rob Nicholson, and Lisa Raitt.

Running second in the endorsement rankings is Brown, with 14% of available points. He has only a few caucus endorsements, the longest serving being Toby Barrett. He has some Ontario MPs on board, including Mark Adler, Paul Calandra, Rick Dykstra, and Bal Gosal. Jean Charest, former Quebec Premier and, more importantly in terms of the endorsement system, former leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives, has also endorsed him. Brown boasts the endorsements of some famous hockey players, including Wayne Gretzky, but the endorsement system does not take those into account, as they have no role within the party.

In third is Monte McNaughton, with 5% of the endorsement points. His list of endorsements is quite short, the only other caucus member being Bob Bailey. McNaughton also has the endorsement of former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, though again that is not one considered by the system.

It would seem to be a very cut-and-dry race, then. Elliott is the candidate the party wants to win, and normally we would expect the membership to follow suit. This was the case when Justin Trudeau won the federal leadership of the Liberals in 2013.

But this marks out Elliott as the establishment candidate, and Brown is explicitly running an anti-establishment campaign.

And it appears to be a very successful one. The period for signing up new members just recently came to a close, and the Brown campaign claims to have signed up 40,000 new members. That is a huge number, considering that at the start of the campaign the PCs had just 10,000 paid-up members.

Reports of the number of members signed up by Elliott and McNaughton differ. One source told the media that Elliott signed up just 13,000 new members, though the Elliott campaign denies this and claims that number represents less than half of the total.

(Just speculating, but 13 and 30 sound a lot alike. Perhaps the source merely misheard?)

McNaughton claimed some 20,000 new members, though that same source put the number instead at around 6,000.

What does this mean for the leadership? Quite a bit. Let's assume that Brown has signed up 40,000 members, Elliott has signed up 30,000, and McNaughton about 6,000. Add to that the 7,000 signed up by Fedeli and MacLeod, as I saw reported in one column, and the 10,000 original members. That puts us at about 93,000. Let's round that up to 100,000 for good measure, assuming that another 7,000 signed up on their own.

If all of those members vote (or at least all vote in the same proportions), and if the 17,000 original and non-aligned members vote according to the breakdown of the endorsement rankings, we would end up with Elliot at 51% on the first ballot (assuming Fedeli's and MacLeod's members go with her), Brown at 42%, and McNaughton with 7%.

While that would point to a win by Elliott, there are a lot of assumptions being made to give her that razor-thin victory. If she falls short of the 50% mark, she and Brown would be in a near tie. It follows that McNaughton's supporters would go to Brown, who appears to be campaign to the right of Elliott (and McNaughton to the right of both).

There's the problem for Elliott. In a three-way race, she might have difficulty winning if she doesn't get to 50% on the first ballot, or at least very close. A lot depends on how effective Brown's campaign really is.

But numbers are not the only factor in this race. Members need to be distributed efficiently across the province, since each riding is awarded points according to how many members are in it. So, it all depends on how those members are spread out. It makes it a very difficult race to call.

That leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that the endorsement rankings system will not be a good reflection of the eventual outcome. All it can do, at this point, is give an indication of who the party establishment wants to win. If Brown pulls it off, he will have done so against the wishes of the party's elite.

A mercifully easier campaign to call in Quebec

The race in Quebec is much more straightforward.

There are five candidates in the PQ's contest. Topping the list is Pierre-Karl Péladeau, newly elected MNA in 2014 and a media mogul. Alexandre Cloutier, Bernard Drainville, and Martine Ouellet are all MNAs as well, and sat in Marois's short-lived cabinet. Pierre Céré is in the bottom tier. He ran for the PQ in the last election and was defeated.

In this race, the endorsement rankings follow nicely with the general perception of the campaign.

Péladeau leads with 56% of endorsement points. His list of endorsers includes caucus members like Claude Cousineau, Nicole Léger, Nicolas Marceau, and Pascal Bérubé. He has former premier Bernard Landry, as well as former MNAs like Daniel Turp, Serge Cardin, Diane De Courcy, and Scott McKay.

Second in the ranking is Cloutier with 22% of the endorsement points. His most important caucus support is François Gendron, who was first elected in 1976. Véronique Hivon, who was considered a potentially strong leadership candidate before the race started, is also with him. Well-known former MNAs like Louise Beaudoin, Léo Bureau-Blouin, and Louise Harel have endorsed Cloutier.

Not far behind with 17% is Drainville, who has a number of caucus members including Guy Leclair, Carole Poirier, and Mathieu Traversy.

Ouellet has 5% of the endorsement points, all coming from former MNAs. Céré has 1%, and all of his endorsers come from the Bloc Québécois.

But whereas the PC race's endorsements do not seem to reflect the reality on the ground, the rankings for the PQ contest do seem to be closer to the mark. Take, for example, fundraising.

Péladeau has so far raised about $114,000 (consider that fundraising rules in Quebec are far more restrictive than in Ontario, where Elliott apparently has raised over half-a-million dollars), roughly half of all of the money raised by the contestants still in the race.

Drainville and Cloutier form the second tier in fundraising with about $40,000 apiece, followed by Ouellet at $29,000 and Céré at $12,000.

If those totals represented votes, Péladeau would take about 49%, followed by Drainville and Cloutier at 17% each, Ouellet at 12%, and Céré at 5%. Those numbers are not too different from the current endorsement rankings, though it would suggest Ouellet is somewhat under-estimated.

There are still some two months left to go, but it would seem Péladeau will win. If he doesn't take more than 50% on the first ballot, he is likely to come close enough to get over the mark by the third ballot (Céré, dropping off first, would likely not have enough votes to get him over the mark on the second). That the party has not settled on the consensus alternative helps his case, but it could be a closer result than one would expect. Ouellet and Céré, campaigning on the left, are unlikely to see a lot of their supporters going to Péladeau, boosting either Drainville or (more likely) Cloutier. If Péladeau ends up with less than 45% on the first ballot, I could see it getting to a head-to-head finish.

In the end, the details of the outcome looks more like trivia. The real contest to watch will be in Ontario.


  1. Most political observers/junkies in Ontario knew that Patrick Brown has the ground game to win the leadership. Even before MacLeod and Fedeli dropped out the race was seen as Elliott vs Brown.

    Brown is simply at more events with a superior ground game than Elliott. He is cashing in on previous networking experiences. As GTA caucus chair he attended many South Asian events. These friendships play off.

    He organizes a "Hockey Night in Barrie" charity event, in which he befriended hockey players. These players vouch for Brown and got people to sign up for the PC party.

    Then of course he is a social conservative, so he gets support from that wing of the party.

    He can also distance himself from the lousy decisions the PCs have made under Hudak since he was not part of the caucus. Tying Elliott to the "100000 jobs cut" fiasco is good politics. Whether that is fair or not is a different question.

    And when the PC party is at the state it is right now, it is easy for an anti-establishment candidate to take over the party.

    It's interesting how the media is caught on for a surprise that Brown is competitive with Elliott. The same media was also surprised that Hudak lost both elections - when it was clear to political junkies that he did not have the chops to become premier.

  2. IMO I think it will be Elliot in Ontario. I'd never heard of Brown before this farce started

  3. The last thing the OPCs need is a social conservative at the helm. What they need is a libertarian who will force the debate into economic territory (something the Ontario Liberals should be vulnerable on). Electing a social conservative allows Kathleen Wynne to make it a values-based election rather than a competence-based one, and she can win on values.

    But not competence.

    The OPCs should not elect a social conservative.

    1. Libertarian politics do not work in Ontario where the vast majority are comfortable with government playing an active role in providing services.

      Tim Hudak ran as a staunch fiscal conservative. His platform was as close as one goes to being libertarian in Ontario. He also tried to make the election a referendum on the Liberal record on economics and ethics. He failed.

      The only exception is Mike Harris who was merely a result of a haphazard NDP government.

    2. I'm not talking a minarchist. I'm talking a fiscally sound platform that is supportive of diversity.

      In other provinces, the Liberals often provide good fiscal governance. But Ontario seems destined to have its finances ruined by its leaders. Starting with PC premier Ernie Eves, everything's been awful.

      Ontario needs a government that will cut spending sensibly to overcome the terrible financial hole Dalton McGuinty dug for them.

      Sensible spending cuts are not something most governments do well. Look at Alberta. Alberta talks a lot these days about needing to make cuts to staff, but all of their proposed staff reductions save less money than they're spending licensing Oracle for their DB needs. There's lots more money to save there than on staff cuts.

      Once we fix Ontario's finances, we can look at Quebec's, which are worse.

    3. I'd say Ontario's mess started in the early 1990s, a part of it is globalization and then a series of poor decisions by all three parties. The Tories left the Liberals with a hidden deficit, but of course the Liberals expanded that deficit to another level.

      I agree sensible spending cuts are easier said then done. I think what the province is rightly upset at is every Liberal experiment gone wrong has a billion dollar price tag on it.

      I think the problem is everybody wants their services to be intact while other people's services can be cut. For example, conservative columnist Tasha Kheiriddin withdrew her support for Hudak after his cuts would scale back programs for autistic children as her child was autistic. It did not matter to her when Hudak proposed other people's services will be cut. Some group, somewhere is going to be pissed at cuts.

      When the Liberals are booted out of office. I feel the replacing PC or NDP government would be a "Liberal-lite" government - at least initially.

    4. And actually so much of this money problems date back to the Mike Harris days. Before then we had a province with both Conservative and Liberal govts that ran pretty balanced budgets. Harris threw that all out !

    5. Well Rae gave Harris a pretty good head start and Chretien cut transfers so between the LIberals and NDP they have pretty much bankrupted Ontario.

    6. Ernie Eves threw that out. Let's give credit where credit is due.

      And I agree with Tasha Kheiriddin's position there (full disclosure: I used to work with Tasha). Hudak was right that Ontario needs dramatic spending cuts, but his were remarkably poorly targeted.

  4. "Once we fix Ontario's finances, we can look at Quebec's, which are worse."


    Maybe it's just government spin but Quebec is projected to have a balanced budget in a year or two at most.

    1. Once we're done with finances we can look at the Maple Laughs.

  5. Big Jay,

    Any government or corporation that is serious about cutting spending or costs must reduce staff costs. Wages and benefits account for 80% of Government and corporation budgets.

  6. Regardless of the political spin any of you have, Mike Harris paved the way for Dalton McGuinty and we now see the result. Extremes don't work !! What does work is pretty close to centre and vary to either side a bit.


COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.