Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Kevin O'Leary's conservatism challenged in Conservative leadership debate

Conservative leadership contestants turned on Kevin O'Leary in a testy debate on the West Island of Montreal, questioning his conservatism and claiming the businessman and television personality has no plan to back up his rhetoric.

But O'Leary, participating in his second debate after attending one in Halifax earlier this month, did not strike back at his rivals, focusing instead on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the need to grow the Conservative Party base.

You can read the rest of this article here.


  1. Which shows that O'Leary is defeat able !!

    1. O'Leary is not going to win. It will be Bernier, Blaney or Scheer, possibly Lisa Raitt if she can develop strong support in the Maritimes.

      O'Leary has been impressive insofar as his denunciation of Trudeau and his policies are concerned. It is probably enough for a respectable showing but, not enough to seal the deal. Having said that given the nature of the race with 14 candidates and preferential voting almost anything could happen.

      From my vantage point: I'd put money on Bernier and Scheer as favourites and Blaney and Raitt as underdogs.

    2. I'd say there will be two dominant factors in the CPC leadership race: geography and policy orientation. I'd break them into three groups: Progressive Conservatives (Chris Alexander, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong, Deepak Obhrai); Fiscal Conservatives (Andrew Scheer, Andrew Saxton, Kevin O'Leary, Erin O'Toole); and, Social Conservatives (Lisa Raitt, Kellie Leitch, Brad Trost, Rick Peterson, Steven Blaney, Pierre Lemieux).

      It will come down to which group can best consolidate their vote in a single strong candidate. I'd like it if Scheer won, but I'm thinking it'll be much more likely a three-horse race between Bernier, O'Leary, and Raitt.

    3. Mapleson,

      Raitt a Social Conservative? That's a shocker to me. Guess I wasn't paying attention enough.

    4. Ronald,

      Raitt is not a social conservative. Mapleson's division of the leadership candidates appears to be totally arbitrary.

      Maxime Bernier is not a "progressive conservative" either, as in, Red Tory. His father was a well known Progressive Conservative M.P. for the Beauce and I am sure Bernier was probably a member as well but, he is well know for his libertarian views that are quite different from the traditional policies of Red Toryism.

      Chris Alexander, who Mapleson has lists, as a "progressive conservative" is best known for introducing the "barbaric cultural practices hotline with Kellie Leitch who Mapleson lists as a social conservative.

      There appears to be no critieria or consistency for Mapleson's division.
      In short Maplson is writing for his own sake.

    5. Raitt's policy positions are: cutting taxes/less government; stronger military; investment in natural resource development and infrastructure projects; devolution of power. She's been agressive in Back-to-Work legislation against union action and if not a climate change denier at least doesn't support paying for change. She seems to avoid the whole area of social justice as a political third rail, so it's a bit hard to categorically classify her.

      I agree Bernier's libertarianism is a different flavor of conservatisms, but I believe he'll draw his support from more traditional Red Tory voters that believe he's their best option.

      Chris Alexander said "It's certainly not my policy" about the Canadian values test, and back pedaled on the hotline issue.

      How would you group the contestants differently?

    6. Of Raitt's policy positions listed none would be considered a "social conservative" policy position.

      A stronger military and infrastructure investment in natural resource development are closets to "progressive conservative" or Red Toryism and contradict less taxes/ smaller government, back-to-work-legislation/anti-unionism which are fiscal conservative policy positions. Her stance on environmental issues is difficult to unwind, but, as she is opposed to a carbon tax this generally aligns with a fiscal conservative/ libertarian position, although strictly speaking it may not conform to the overall fiscal conservative belief in balanced budgets, low taxes and small government at least in a time of BIG Liberal DEFICITS.

      Over all then even in your own evaluation of Lisa Raitt you find no evidence of her being a "social conservative". You should not classify Conservative leadership candidates based on your "beliefs" as you have done for Bernier- you are classifying your perception of M. Bernier not his political views or stated positions! You have positioned Bernier because of his hypothesized supporters' views-that simply does not make sense and demonstrates why your classification is arbitrary, subjective, personal!

      I would not group the contestants its arbitrary and pointless; people should read their platforms and make their own judgement.

      If I was to categorise I would use a construct that makes sense.
      Perhaps using a spectrum of libertarianism v. Red Toryism which is statist. Or a spectrum of social conservative v. socially liberal conservative or fiscally liberal v. fiscal conservative.

    7. There is always a trade-off between precision and simplicity in any classification. Of course people should read each platform and make their own judgements, which is what I've done here. As part of my own decision process, I try to determine not just how closely a candidate fits my own ideals, but their likelihood of winning. With a ranked ballot, your vote can get "stuck" with a lower ranked candidate if you don't correctly estimate where other votes will go.

      In multi-round voting, you have the choice to always vote for your prefered remaining contestant and/or the least-repungant alternative contestant. In single round, preferencial voting, you need to (or at least I prefer to) do some analysis if voting for Deepak Obhrai will make it more likely for Kevin O'Leary to win via divided opposition.

    8. Well, your classification of the leadership candidates is not precise because it is inaccurate. As for simplicity since, your categorisation is not accurate it is unfortunately not simple either as the reader must disentangle truth from fiction. As your categorisation is inaccurate I do not see how your "analysis" will be "correct" or useful, but, that is your problem. Good Luck.


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.