John Ivison claims CPC would split if PCr won Conservative leadership

I missed this John Ivison column on April 5th (H/T Jack’s Newswatch).  He talks about there going to be a split in the Conservative Party of Canada unless Brad Wall decides to run (even though Wall has repeatedly said he is not interested), or if any former PC wins the race — like Peter MacKay. I sure hope Ivison is wrong.

Updated & shortened April 24th, 2016.

7 thoughts on “John Ivison claims CPC would split if PCr won Conservative leadership

  1. If the NDP adopts some form of the Leap Manifesto, or even discusses it seriously, then they will have abandoned any hope of ever forming a federal government. Whatever Mulcairs’s faults, he did have cabinet experience (Liberal), and had some understanding of fiscal realities, more than the current cabinet in fact. He ran on a balanced budget program.
    The push for the fanatical Leap comes from the Lewis family and people like Libby Davies, the ultra left fringe of the party. There is no credible leader ready to replace Mulcair, if they reject him, than they are embracing fringe party status.

    I don’t buy most of Ivison’s arguments about splits in the CPC. As I said before, the merger 2003 should have combined all facets of conservative philosophy. For outside voters, particularly young voters old squabbles do not interest them, and most have no idea who was a Reform member, PC, Red Tory whatever. By 2019, this will be buried even further in the past.

    By 2015, I suggest that in comparison to Trudeau’s government, Stephen Harper will look pretty good. Actually he already looks that way. I don’t think it is necessary for candidates to try and distance themselves from Harper, cabinet experience, and executive ability will make a stark contrast to on the job training by that time. Stephen harper’s genuine accomplishments, the ones not undone by Trudeau, should be obvious to most voters.

    As for bilingualism, it probably is a necessity now. Only Brad Wall might get away with marginal French, and he isn’t interested, now at least. For others learning some French at mid age, forget it. Stephen Harper set the goal of fluent French and Quebeckers got very accustomed to it, probably no going back now. That doesn’t bode well for most candidates, but is a big plus for Maxime Bernier.

    Like

  2. All three levels of government are already too progressive, as it is. We can’t afford the “progressivity” we have, never mind adding more.

    The leadership candidates should be talking about their “governing philosophy”–what principles and (yes even that scary “ideology”) will guide them when setting federal policies. And try to be fairly specific, on each of the major files–foreign affairs, criminal justice, defense, immigration.

    That’s the kind of narrative I want to hear. Let the usual suspects blather on about how much they care–about non-issues like climate change–or wanting to do things that are better done by other levels of government, or even the private sector. Let’s educate the public about sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.

    I want to know what you will try to accomplish if given a 4 year mandate.
    Hint: look at Harper’s campaign in 2006–that should be the template for
    a Conservative opposition leader.

    Sadly, I’m not holding my breath for any of the above, from any of our current crop of candidates

    Like

  3. “The reality is that Canada is mostly a liberal/progressive country .. ” No. The reality is that Canadians are overwhelmingly conservative in their views and their lives. Two factors result in liberal hegemony: unrefuted leftist propaganda; and CINOs who corroborate the leftist propaganda. Conservatives are at a natural disadvantage because it is not our way to wage cultural war in the manner of the left. There is a truth in politics, on display in the US wrt Trump, that when instincts bid you go one way and “everybody knows” that you should go another, you tend to question your instincts and either follow the PC-approved path or stay home. The CPC doesn’t need a leader even more cautious than Harper; it needs a visionary like Dief but without the progressive garbage. If the CPC intentions for Canada are “Liberal-Lite” government, then there most certainly will be another split because the fence you would be sitting on was built by leftists.

    [Edited by admin to remove condemnatory personal comment.]

    Like

  4. Sandy, I think Eric is largely correct. In my own family there are numerous individuals who proudly claim they are Liberal, but then go about their everyday lives espouse views that would be more oriented toward knuckle dragging conservative ideology (sarc).

    They cannot articulate why they are pro Liberal, only that they are anti-Harper, anti Conservative.

    I believe this viewpoint has been achieved through indoctrination largely at the hands of our national media.

    Most Canadians who passively receive their “news” via the TV or in the newspaper – and never bother to seek out if the information that is being provided is true, balanced, or accurate, are prone to anti conservative viewpoints and cast their vote this way.

    What we need is not more progressivism, but someone who can articulate conservatism and how that relates to people in their everyday lives.

    for example – Multiculturalism as a policy of government. This IMHO is one of the most divisive policies ever contrived by government. It does not unite people along a common front, it seeks to divide them into special interest groups which then requires placation of special interest groups for their vote. I would like to see multiculturalism as a policy of government ended.

    Canada has always been a nation that is made up of people who came from elsewhere (or whose ancestors did). The difference is that it was expected that you came here and were expected to integrate into the broad culture.

    Instead now that Multi culti is government policy, cultures are now encouraged to not assimilate and in fact place their own culture atop of the host culture.

    Elections are now fought over who can deliver more to each sub group rather than major policy issues that are critical to the future health of Canada.

    I do not believe for a minute that progressives have a bigger heart than I do, but I do believe that the progressive factions in any political party are dedicated to ruling the populace rather than govern for them.

    I also believe the majority of the media are progressive and their desired outcome is for progressive control of the Conservative party, or the death of it, and the will do anything to achieve that.

    Like

  5. Sure would be nice if a conservative was the leader. there have been very few conservatives in Canada in my lifetime and that is getting quite long now.

    Like

  6. Weird. I wrote a short response to old white guy’s April 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm comment about an hour or so ago and clicked on “post comment” as usual but my comment disappeared, without the customary “Your comment is awaiting moderation” notice.

    Like

  7. I think the risk of splitting if the next leader is from the PC side is not nearly as high as some think. In BC, when Christy Clark was chosen as leader of the centre-right BC Liberals (who are a coalition of Blue Liberals and Conservatives), the fact she was a federal Liberal led many to believe it would split the right since many would bolt to the BC Conservatives, yet that never materialized. Much of the talk about CINOs is largely imported from the US where the term RINOs is used and unlike the US, there isn’t the strong right wing base north of the border. Besides for those further right complaining about the party being insufficiently conservative, I ask the question; which do you prefer, a moderate conservative leader who is maybe more centrist than your liking but still better than Trudeau and can win or a more right wing one who will ensure Trudeau remains in power for a long time. Otherwise it’s about being realistic in our expectations on what can and cannot be done. I agree with Martin in that former labels won’t matter but I do think one from the Reform wing would probably make winning more difficult in the sense regardless of previous affiliation Canadians tend to like politicians who are moderate not too ideological.

    On the NDP, I actually think it was moving to the centre that hurt them as I do think with all the talk on income inequality about the need for bigger government, there was a strong left wing swing, but now that the left controls almost all levels of government, people will look for results and this will have likely blown over by 2019. Otherwise you get swings heavily on one direction from time to time, but usually they self-correct. I think it is fine to have the next leader from Harper’s cabinet although they will have to differentiate themselves to some degree, but since Harper was often portrayed as a control freak I think it won’t be too hard to argue they would have done things differently. I am not suggesting Harper was a bad PM, but it will probably take a decade or so before his public image improves. The reason I say this is that is how long it took Mulroney so I think Harper will probably follow a similar trajectory although I will admit predicting what people will think in 4 years is anyone’s guess.

    Anyways in sum I think it is best to have a new leader with well thought out policies that deliver positive results and worry less about whether they are left or right wing. Most successful leaders take the best from both sides although lean more in one direction or another. In fact with the Liberals swinging leftward there is lots of space for the Tories.

    Like

Comments are closed.