Skip to main content

Canadian Conservative Leadership Race (well not really but it needed to sound exiting)

 For the past six months, Canadian have been following the leadership race for the conservative party of Canada (no they have not, no one really cares except the party members).  The race has been close (not even), and the leader presents a true conservative pedigree of achievements and boldness (not really more of the same pablum).

There are two wings to the party, the economically conservative "lassez faire" wing (classical blue Tories) and the Western socially conservative wing of the party (think of the GOP today);  Anti-abortion, anti-Kyoto, Pro gun, anti-vaccine, against marriage equality etc etc.  There are three candidates for the leadership that matter but we will focus on two which represent the two extremes of the party: The race is between a socially conservative junior minister under Harper and the ex-prime minister of Quebec who was also the leader of the Federal Conservative Party when things were very bad.  The big news: Poilievre recently got the endorsement of Steven Harper, who was until a decade ago the prime Minister of Canada in which Poilievre was a junior (the carrot to keep the unruly quiet) minister.

The stage is set:  Now these two players are not equal in the eye of the party members, insofar as "secret" polls show that Poilievre leads Charest by 20 to 25%.  That Poilievre has reportedly sold more than 360,000  membership cards, that he has the support of virtually all conservative members of parliament, and has for a long time.  The question is, therefore, why did Harper give his sudden support to Poiliever?  It's certainly not desperation on the part of Poilievre, it may help to sway some voters to Poiliever but he's already so far ahead -- what would be the point?  

In my opinion, there are two reasons:  (1) Steven Harper wants to stay relevant, his 90-second endorsement of Poiliever was really more about how he had discovered and promoted Poiliever, and (2) to drive a nail in the coffin of Jean Charest's leadership bid, it is well known in political circles that Charest and Harper hated each other.

The impact of Harper's announcement could be interesting, depending on the polling results that Charest has gotten in the past few weeks he could leave the party and form a new economically conservative one! This would cause a massive problem for the Conservative Party because if they are flanked on the "left" by a new Charest party and on the right by the People's Party of Canada -- its policy range will be limited, especially with the ultra socially conservative that are in the prairies.

In the end, I don't believe that Poiliever will matter.  He will not be the Prime Minister of Canada, he is too socially conservative for the Ontario electorate.  Ontario conservative voters will not vote for the Liberals they will simply abstain in the upcoming elections ( 20/10/25)




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Spray painting Taylor Swift G650 aircraft (updated)

 First, a bit of paint will not harm anyone.  These climate activities are going to learn two things in the next few days:  (1) Trespassing at an airport is a felony almost anywhere in the world.  That means criminal prosecution.   (2) removing paint from an aircraft is expensive.   So these climate activists are about to find out the reach of the British criminal system and it will not be pleasant, the UK has very strict laws about that, I would be surprised if cleaning the aircraft of all the paint will cost less than $100,000.     I am sure that when they planned (premeditation) this little show they had a very valid logic to doing this.  Tonight, they are probably realizing the depth of their troubles.   I understand that in the UK it's a minimum one-year jail sentence.    Also, good luck travelling with a criminal trespass charge against you.  I am relatively certain that the airline industry will ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Janet Yellen from China supporter to Hawk...

There is rarely serious news in the world these days, it seems that most newspapers are filled with headlines and little else, and then Ms Yellen went to China.  Secretary Yellen has long been known in the Biden administration as the voice of moderation when dealing with China, yet as her trip which concluded yesterday a hawk was born:  She warned the Chinese against dumping goods in the United States.    fighting words! The American administration is very concerned about the lack of Chinese domestic consumption.   Even before the COVID-19 epidemic, there were already the beginning signs of a slowdown, automobile sales were off.   China is facing domestic deflation (a clear sign of collapsing demand) China imports few consumer goods, they import raw materials and intermediary goods.   It seems that the American administration is concerned that the Chinese administration will dump consumer goods abroad to keep its manufacturing machinery ...
Post a Comment
Read more