Monday, December 12, 2016

Poll suggests no Conservative leadership contestant has captured Canadians' attention yet

A new poll suggests no candidates for the Conservative Party leadership have been able to lift themselves out of the pack in the eyes of Canadians and Conservative supporters — a stark contrast to the last two races for the leadership of the New Democrats and Liberals, when clear front-runners had already emerged at this stage of the campaign.

The poll, conducted by Forum Research and published in Postmedia's Sun chain of newspapers, found that none of the contestants tested in the poll scored more than 9 per cent support among Conservative voters, while 49 per cent said they preferred "someone else."

You can read the rest of this article here.


  1. Why am I surprised not ?? A collection of non-entities for sure !!

  2. The large number of candidates and lack of a front runner is a testament to grass roots democracy inside the Conservative Party. Juxtaposed with the Top down approach of the NDP and Liberals. Mulcair was Jack's chosen successor and Justin Trudeau for all intents and purposes was Chretien anointed heir. Chretien sabotaged his successor's premiership-in hindsight it becomes clear why. The Liberal party has always acted this way; Mackenzie King picked St-Laurent to succeed him and Pearson to follow St-Laurent.PET sabotage the leadership of his successor so that his chosen successor Chretien could usurp the leadership and Chretien did the same for little Justin.

    Whoever wins the Conservative leadership is likely to have high "unknown" numbers until the next election. For example John Horgan has been leader of the BC NDP since 2014 and still holds a 30% undecided number on his approval rating. Lack of visibility may become a problem later on but, in the context of a leadership race where only party members are in play it is of little impact.

    1. That's highly revisionist history. After Chretien was Martin, then Dion, then Ignatieff. The weakness of Martin's leadership was seeded in the 2003 Liberal Leadership Convention and the Campaign Finance Reform.

      If there is a grass roots democracy inside the CPC, then why a $100K entrance fee, a 67% hike in membership fees, and a party vetting committee that can eliminate candidates as they see fit?

    2. Mapleson,

      I think it is you who is fond of revisionist history!

      "The weakness of Martin's leadership was seeded in the 2003 leadership convention"? What are you writing about? Martin's main competition, John Manley dropped out mid-campaign in July long before the convention. Leaving Martin unopposed-a nominal challenger, Sheila Copps remained but, she was never expected to have much of a chance. Martin won on the First Ballot garnering almost 94% of the Vote! A 94% result is weakness? What are you smoking? It must be strong stuff, so please be careful I wouldn't want it laced with illegal fentanyl.

      Chretien had promised the Martin camp he would only stay for two terms in the middle of his tenure as PM, then reneged and called the 2000 election a year early.

      Did Chretien not sabotage Martin's premiership? Of course he did. Chretien resigned just before Sheila Fraser released her report on the Sponsorship scandal in early 2004. He obviously knew what he was handing his successor. He did the deed then left and watched Martin pay for it!

      As for the entrance fee all parties have them. $100,000 does not appear to be much of a barrier as the Tories have 14 candidates. The NDP entrance fee is much lower and they have how many candidates running for the leadership? So, membership is now $15 dollars a year instead of 10$, So what? It's called inflation. It must have stayed at $10 dollars for a decade or more. It was $10 in 2003 I remember-Once again all parties have a membership fee. The theory being that to join a political party one must make some form of commitment-$15 per year is a very small commitment to make.

      Vetting committees are common practice, all parties have them, Hunter Tootoo proved their usefulness or rather would have had the Liberal vetting committee done their job.

      Parties are private institutions-clubs, private organisations have the right to restrict their membership and to choose their officers. No vetting committe I have ever heard of has the power to eliminate candidates once they have been chosen by the riding association. What they do is screen those who are running for the nomination. They usually do have the power to block but, more commonly if they find a serious "black spot" on a person's record they make it known to the potential nominee and suggest they re-consider their wish to run for the Party. The leader of the party has the ability to refuse a nominee's papers thereby, scuttling his or her candidacy before an election. I believe Chretien refused to sign a nominated candidates papers once because he wished Herb Dhailiwal to be the candidate in Vancouver South but, that is the only instance I have heard of it being used.

    3. The large number of candidates and lack of a front runner is a testament to the Conservatives being 20% behind in the polls. Potential candidates with a higher profile have determined that the chance of losing the election in 2020 is too high to make running for leadership worthwhile.

    4. It wasn’t Martin’s competition in the 2003 Liberal Leadership Convention that I was referring to, it was the waste of political capital between the two main Liberal factions. The Gomery Commission was the continuation of these two kicking sand in each other’s faces. Martin won the leadership and went about discrediting and expunging his opposition making the party as a whole weaker.
      However, by saying your Chretien sabotaged the Liberal party for his elected successor, Justin Trudeau, means that you believe Chretien sabotaged not one but three Liberal leaders.

      Actually, the CPC fees are now $25, not $10 or $15. That’s some inflation, some might even call it either a money grab or barrier to wider grass root involvement. So is the Conservative Party a “private club” or a “grassroots organization”? If you’re going to claim to be populists, you can’t exclude the Rob Fords and Donald Trumps of the world behind closed doors.

    5. Look at the facts Mapleson!

      Chretien did nothing to support the leadership of Dion or Iggy. Draw your own conclusions! Dion sabotaged his own leadership with his foolhardy attempt to create a coalition government with Socialists and separatists but, Chretien walked him down this path with Bon Jack and Ed Broadbent-was that not sabotage? Chretien had long experience and had served as a M.P. through three minority Parliaments, as a privy counsellor he would have known that a Government must first be defeated in the House before the Crown may appoint a new ministry. Chretien would have known too as Ignatiev makes plain in his political memoir "Fire and Ashes" the Liberal caucus was badly split and the planned coalition did not have the votes in Parliament due to dissenting Liberals-Yet, Chretien let Dion walk down this treacherous road, encouraged it-Was this not sabotage? Draw your own conclusions. Ignatiev was a flawed candidate who sadly had both too much and too little experience to be trusted by Canadians. Chretien didn't support Bob Rae either in his attempts to be Liberal leader. Draw your own conclusions. History shows a top-down approach often determines Liberal leadership campaigns. In many ways the last truly contested Liberal leadership race was 1984 and that was the first competitive race since 1920. Draw your own conclusions!

      All political parties are both private clubs and populist-it is not a contradiction. A professional hockey team holds a similar position. You have to pay to get in the stands and access to the team. The club itself: administration, players, coach etc.. is restricted and private but, cheering for the team is open to all. They are both private clubs and populist at the same time.

      25$ a year once again not much of a barrier. It certainly is not a money grab because the cost is voluntary! Was the rate increase above the rate of inflation? I don't know. In any case what do you care? Are you a Conservative? If not then, it is really none of your business!

      Goaltender Interference,

      That 20 point lead you spoke of is crumbling fast thanks to Trudeau's cash-for-access scandal for which Justin should resign! At the very least we need an investigation to determine whether the million dollar donation for the Trudeau Foundation was intended as a bribe. As the party of big business corruption is always close to the Liberal heart-treating taxpayer's money as their own common practice, stacking the deck in their favour through shady fund-raising routine. Now, however, we have something far more serious: Whether the prime minister was the intended recipient of a bribe, Whether the prime minister accepted the bribe as such and whether the bribe influenced the Cabinet's decisions? Never mind all the broken promises.

  3. I'd like to see Peter Mackay in there and we absolutely do not need Kevin O'Leary !!

    1. We certainly don't need O'Leary. MacKay will not run, he made his decision known, earlier this year. He has a young wife and a young family and I would imagine he is probably enjoying making money hand over fist in the world of corporate law.

  4. Peter,

    I would say that both MacKay and Moore would have a decent chance at knocking Justin off. But I would still give Justin the edge. As far as others are concerned, no actual candidate but Bernier have even a remote chance of winning. But he would have to catch on like a house on fire to do so. Not impossible, but somewhat unlikely.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.