PC Leadership Race Predictions

[crazy_eoj]

It would be very interesting to see Nenshi aligned into a party structure. I'm not so sure he would be welcomed within the PC ranks? Then again, what exactly does the PC brand stand for now anyways.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

twice this morning the name Nenshi came up from different people. Bunk would know more than this speculation, but the name came up from different people here in Edmonton.

I wouldn't have thought the timeline would work. Doesn't he have 2+ more years in his mayoral term?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It would be very interesting to see Nenshi aligned into a party structure. I'm not so sure he would be welcomed within the PC ranks? Then again, what exactly does the PC brand stand for now anyways.

If the PC Party does not feel it is important to be fiscally responsible and conservative then Nenshi would fit right in.

I don't think the PC Party and Nenshi could strike an appropriate alliance though. Obviously I have no idea what the thoughts and inner workings of the PC "Illuminati" are but there have been many negative comments about Nenshi from various PC members and obviously the Manning Centre has been against Nenshi.

Nenshi would obviously win an easy majority to the PC Party if he was in a leadership role because the general public has been smitten by him.

[Jacks]

On what planet is Nenshi a conservative?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Jacks

On what planet is Nenshi a conservative?

Funny post. Like that ever stopped Klein...

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

On what planet is Nenshi a conservative?

Isn't the complaint against the PC party that they aren't conservative anyway? I mean, isn't hat what everyone was saying about Alison?

I don't get this comment.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Isn't the complaint against the PC party that they aren't conservative anyway? I mean, isn't hat what everyone was saying about Alison?

The PC Party needs to evaluate their policy right now and decide where they want to go. If they want to continue down their current path they should adjust to become the Progressive Party where Nenshi would probably be an excellent Supreme Leader. If they want to focus on being conservative they need to dig deep and focus on finding a leader that will guide them through a rebuilding phase.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

McIver is a good man - honest, kind, straightforward and non–sleazy. This is why he will never be a successful politician on a grand scale. I've known Rick for many years and I speak from utmost respect for the guy.

Hi Rick!

[Flacker]

Mar would be my first choice, his financial background may help get this province back on track to a balanced budget.

Always presented himself in a very professional manner during his time in the legislature, and is a former finance minister.


Correction: He was never finance minister, my mistake.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Isn't the complaint against the PC party that they aren't conservative anyway? I mean, isn't hat what everyone was saying about Alison?

I don't get this comment.

Yes and they need to elect a conservative to run the conservative party if they want to win back the conservative voters who have moved on to the Wildrose because the PC party was run by a Liberal. Tough concept I know.

[Kjesse]

Many of the fiscal conservatives already departed the PCs and have joined the WR. But perhaps even more so, many of the social conservatives also switched allegiance, and you can see that the WR probably lost the last election solely because two of its candidates vocally confirmed what many are afraid of, namely, the WR being comprised of a redneck, socially right wing, gun-toting, religious-to-a-fault based membership. Those two candidates did so right before the ballots were cast and probably cost the WR a victory. At least in my case, I can say hearing those comments and knowing that those candidates made it through the screening process turned me off the WR in a major way.

Regardless, now you have a PC party where fiscal conservatives exist but they're not the majority they used to be. Many of those former PC members are in the WR, as the WR continues to try to soften its right-wing perception. Smith has been instrumental in telling the membership that if they continue on their old ways they'll never govern.

The PCs aren't the big tent they were in the past. There are more Lougheed types than conservative types. I'd go as far to say that without the fiscal conservatives such as Denis in the cabinet, the place looks more like what a Liberal Party should look like.

The PCs have to decide what kind of party they will be as they certainly aren't able to roll over the opposition like they have in the past. Before the challenge was from the left, even though they weren't that far apart. Now the challenge is from the right, and again they aren't that far apart.

If they would even entertain Nenshi as leader I'd be shocked. His politics would make Redford look tory blue.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Yes and they need to elect a conservative to run the conservative party if they want to win back the conservative voters who have moved on to the Wildrose because the PC party was run by a Liberal. Tough concept I know.

So we should have two conservative parties?

And keep the personal attacks down eh?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Jacks

On what planet is Nenshi a conservative?

On what planet are any current incarnations of conservative parties conservative. All parties have shown that they just spend and don't raise taxes. No one ever cuts. It took the provinces to be on the verge of bankruptcy before any cutting was done and even by the end of Kliens era he was a spender. Alberta spends the most on everything compared to the rest of Canada.

What I think Nenshi would do would be a balancer, this is far more important then being either conservative or liberal. Develop a tax structure that supports the spending that you are doing. Beyond that I don't care anymore.

The problem with the last two premiers is that they are reeds in the wind. Not willing to make any decision that might offend people and just spend there way out and hope the economy bails them out. So regardless of who wins I hope it is someone who has a plan and will implement it even if I disagree with it.

[Daradon]

Exactly, there have been many conservative governments on both sides of the border that have preached fiscal conservatism, but have been far from it. The problem is a lot of the base doesn't pay attention to this and still equates what they learned in grade eight social studies on the right left scale.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So we should have two conservative parties?

And keep the personal attacks down eh?

I point out that a conservative party should have a conservative leader and you call that a personal attack?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I point out that a conservative party should have a conservative leader and you call that a personal attack?

No, when you said, 'tough concept, I know'. Not sure if you're playing dumb on purpose, or just missed that.

What I didn't understand about the comment was why it would matter to you? If your a WRP supporter, which I'm thinking it's pretty safe to assume based on your previous posts, than why would you care who is the leader of the PC's and where they would be on the spectrum? Moreover, if the WRP is the new conservative party, or the one the conservative voters are flocking to, wouldn't it make more sense to have the PC's slide a little over? Both for the voters and the province and the sake of debate. Why split the vote? Why have two parties that are nearly identical? Why have two ultra conservative leaders, and a dead Liberal party?

So why ask your question? That's all I meant. It doesn't really make a lot of sense nor does it add to the discussion.

[Jacks]

Don't worry, I won't attack you anymore.

Back on topic.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fede...ship-1.2580658

Sources say some high-profile federal politicians have already been contacted to gauge their interest, including Commons finance committee chairman James Rajotte, whose riding is in Edmonton. Rajotte told The Canadian Press on Thursday that it's "too early" to start talking about the party's leadership race, which has not yet officially begun. Longtime Alberta cabinet minister Dave Hancock has been named interim leader and premier and the party's board of directors is to meet Monday to decide the process for the leadership race.
Feelers are also going out to top Conservative women such as Health Minister Rona Ambrose and Western Economic Development Minister Michelle Rempel — both from Alberta. The next Tory boss will go up against Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, who currently heads the Opposition.
"I think that Michelle Rempel is very interesting because she's everybody's favourite MP," said Stephen Carter, a former chief of staff to Redford. "It doesn't matter if you're on the far right or the far left of the spectrum, everyone has a tonne of time and respect for her. She kind of is representing that post-partisan nature that I like to talk about a lot."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Exactly, there have been many conservative governments on both sides of the border that have preached fiscal conservatism, but have been far from it. The problem is a lot of the base doesn't pay attention to this and still equates what they learned in grade eight social studies on the right left scale.

'Fiscal conservatism' is a term that is not universally defined and it typically gets bent to fit convinently with the ideology of the person using the term.

Some believe 'fiscal conservatism' is only about aligning government revenue with operating and capital expenses and the process of budgeting in prudent ways. They leave out of their definition considerations of the size and scope of government in the economy and the extent of services the government provides and how the level of taxation effects the overall economy. The inherent vice of this view is that costs typically are not kept that well in check because on the margin it fits this ideology better to just go into red ink or increase taxes/user fees to meet their growing expenses.

On the other side of the coin, Wildrose and other right wing party supporters consider the term to mean more than the inherant position of government finances in balanced terms. They view 'fiscal conservatism' as spending the least amount of taxpayers money so that they can keep taxation and the role of government to a minumum. The focus is exclusively on spending the least so they can tax the least. The inherent vice of this viewpoint is that in pursuit of reducing the tax burden they cut both expenses and taxes too much to keep the budget balanced and it fits the ideology better to on the margin go into the red ink or hack away at what most deem essential services than demand more money from the taxpayers.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

'Fiscal conservatism' is a term that is not universally defined and it typically gets bent to fit convinently with the ideology of the person using the term.

Some believe 'fiscal conservatism' is only about aligning government revenue with operating and capital expenses and the process of budgeting in prudent ways. They leave out of their definition considerations of the size and scope of government in the economy and the extent of services the government provides and how the level of taxation effects the overall economy. The inherent vice of this view is that costs typically are not kept that well in check because on the margin it fits this ideology better to just go into red ink or increase taxes/user fees to meet their growing expenses.

On the other side of the coin, Wildrose and other right wing party supporters consider the term to mean more than the inherant position of government finances in balanced terms. They view 'fiscal conservatism' as spending the least amount of taxpayers money so that they can keep taxation and the role of government to a minumum. The focus is exclusively on spending the least so they can tax the least. The inherent vice of this viewpoint is that in pursuit of reducing the tax burden they cut both expenses and taxes too much to keep the budget balanced and it fits the ideology better to on the margin go into the red ink or hack away at what most deem essential services than demand more money from the taxpayers.

Fair enough, some good points. The initial point kinda goes with the theme of what I've been saying here and other threads though. A lot of these terms are moving targets. Right left, conservative liberal, etc. They mean different things in different areas, cultures, periods of time, and even between different party leaders of the same party, as we are talking about here. Yet a lot of the voters get focused on the scale and what the name of the party (or supposed position of the party) would mean on that static scale, rather than actually looking at the platforms or track records. Also, because of that incorrect viewpoint, fiscal conservatism will generally get placed, correctly or incorrectly, with the party that appears most conservative (or traditional might be a better word, since I am saying conservative can mean different things) at the time. Which I think you agree with, if I'm reading your post correctly.

[Rathji]

I don't know these personalities other than vague generalities, so I won't make any specific comments on who would make a good leader at this point, but my call is that whoever wins Calgary in the next election will take it. Edmonton won't likely be voting for a slate of WRP candidates and the rural areas won't be voting exclusively for the PC party.

If the PCs elect a leader who can't win in Calgary against a growing WRP base, then they don't stand a chance. For example, someone from Edmonton with even a slight left lean and it is game over for the PC party. They pick a fiscal conservative, and/or someone with a strong base in Calgary and they might stand a chance.

What do I know though, last election I was so torn that I originally decided who not to vote for based on who lied to me when I emailed them about sign laws. Only at the last moment did I change my mind, in the face of what the WRP was looking like.