October 25, 2015

Update on Conservative leadership race shows women at the fore, but no confirmed contenders yet

Brian LilleyArchive

Still plenty of speculation on who will try to replace Stephen Harper as leader of the Conservative Party but no confirmed contenders.

I continue to work my sources inside and outside of the party to get a sense of who is making moves, who is building a team and all the details you need to know. 


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Help TheRebel.media expose media bias once and for all:
DONATE HERE to give ordinary Canadians a chance to be heard!

"Don't blame me: I voted Conservative"
The t-shirt that says it all -- ONLY from TheRebel.media store!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-27 12:39:11 -0400
Re: the leadership race. The main reason conservatives bitch about Harper’s reign is that he was too centrist. The party needs a blue blue leader. Its crazy how the conservative party is now so full of people who hold stances which used to be considered liberal. I don’t know who it is going to be, but they have to be decisive to turn this ship around. There is going to be a lot to repair, and I think in four years people will be ready to look at the truth about Justine and failed leftist policies.
The European model is a perfect example of what does not and cannot work. Its so curious to me that the left can’t see it.
commented 2015-10-27 02:09:45 -0400
Jimmy please tell us why the public private model in Europe is better than ours while you are at it
commented 2015-10-27 02:09:19 -0400
Jimmy we already contribute more than what is needed, what part of that dont you get? left wing whining is not legitimate need.
commented 2015-10-27 01:28:24 -0400

I have had a great family doctor for many years now and I can see him whenever I want – without paying a dime. I think it’s important to have a doctor that knows you and understands you. Walk In Clinics are fine when you can’t see your doctor, but my experience with them is that they don’t really give a shit and just want to get you out the door as quickly as possible.

It’s a very silly argument in that it’s not how the world works and it couldn’t work that way. Nothing would get done if everyone thought like you. If you don’t want the area you live in to be a shit hole, then you have to contribute money through taxes to things that you will never use – be it parks, schools, libraries, infrastructure and yes subway and transit – so that people without cars can get to work and traffic isn’t more of a fucking mess than it already is. You know, make things better for everyone – since we are all in this together as opposed to being selfish fucks only looking out for ourselves.

Government funding for entertainment such as films has existed since 1967. Um, it’s important to support and promote Canadian arts and culture. Other countries do the same exact thing. I will let Telefilm explain why they do what they do:

As one of the Canadian government’s principal instruments for supporting Canada’s audiovisual industry, Telefilm Canada’s primary mandate is to finance and promote through its various funds and programs. Telefilm’s role is to foster the commercial, cultural and industrial success of Canadian productions and to stimulate demand for those productions both at home and abroad.

I see the value in that – too bad that you don’t and are just fine with Canadian art and culture dying, because as a country, we can’t compete with blockbuster Hollywood. Truth be told, I find that people who are against government funded arts and culture – which actually benefits Canadians, are people who wouldn’t know art or culture if it bit them on the ass. But they know hockey and football real well.

So if life deals you a really horrible hand that just takes everything from you, you are more than happy to just accept your fate without assistance from the government – you know, because you are an independent and responsible bad-ass?

The bottom line is that government assistance has saved millions of lives and I think it’s sad that you think society should have an every man for himself mentality. I don’t mind paying more in taxes, if it benefits everyone. What you want for Canada isn’t Canadian.
commented 2015-10-27 00:48:01 -0400
Didn’t say I don’t want a family doctor, Jimmy, I said I don’t have one. Where I live, there are too few doctors, and the ones we have are overloaded. So be it. When I need medical assistance (which I make extremely rarely), I go to a walk-in clinic. It’s not that I do without, I just use the medical profession extremely sparingly.

As for not paying for things I don’t use, it’s not a silly argument. It may not be an applicable one, but it’s entirely rational. I’d rather buy a European-style health insurance (yes, I said “insurance”, not “coverage”), where I pay a deductible for every time I use it… and the more frequently I use it, the higher the premiums go. “Universal” means people don’t take responsibility for their own care, and they abuse the system. (The bureaucrats don’t help the situation.)

Agreed. I don’t use a subway, so why should I fund one? But if I live in a city large enough to support one, then I suppose I’d use it occasionally. Ticket fare, maybe? Something like bus fare? I could live with that. A bare minimum tax to support the payment of a military, and to pay for the minimum bureaucrats necessary to run the government, that I can see. I already support three different local charities that assist street people and recovering drug addicts to get back into “society”. I’m involved with other charitable organizations. These groups don’t need the government to fund them; private people do nicely, and with less red tape. (Which is as it should be.)

As for the “arts”, there was a long, LONG time where government did not fund them. They either solicited donations, or had private sponsors. I have no issue with corporate sponsorship, with the corporation declaring a tax deduction for the sponsorship. Why should government fund this?

Our society has fallen into the mindset of “The government oughta do something…” Bad mindset. I’ve chosen to be weaned off government. I’m independent, I’m responsible. I don’t even want government assistance/interference.

But that’s not what we have, that’s not what is. So I choose the party platform that comes closest to how I believe things should be run. No, it’s not even close, but the others are even further away. The Liberal platform, boiled down, is, “Let us take care of you.” The NDP is even worse: “You don’t know how to take care of yourself. We have to.” (Bullshit.) The platform that comes the closest (though still misses by a St Lawrence River) is the Conservative platform, regardless of leader.
commented 2015-10-26 23:45:31 -0400

I understand perfectly what he means, but that doesn’t mean that Canada will ever work that way. We have gone over this a 100 times – Canada is a socialist country in many regards.
commented 2015-10-26 23:00:18 -0400
PK, I noticed from Jimmy’s response to your two comments that he truly does not understand what you mean. He truly cannot extracate himself from his socialist mindset.
commented 2015-10-26 22:28:11 -0400

Well that clarifies things further. You will for sure never have a political candidate who even remotely represents you or a society that supports your vision. You might as well just live off the grid.

We all pay for things that we don’t use, so that’s a silly argument. If we could all pick and choose the things that we use or support, a ton of shit to make Canada a better place for EVERYONE – would never get done or funded. Someone could say – why should I pay for subways – I haven’t been on a subway in 30 years.

Why would you not want to have a family doctor?
commented 2015-10-26 21:05:01 -0400
Government should be run like a business — for profit. That means efficiency, minimized expenses, and maximized profit, paying dividends to its stockholders (the population). In this capacity, I could approve government borrowing money for future profit. Middle management (bureaucrats) should be trimmed to the minimum necessary.

…and pigs might fly…

But as long as society wants government to give to them, as long as society doesn’t want to take responsibility, as long as society believes that government can do better for them than they can for themselves (there’s the biggest lie I ever heard!), we will never have a small, responsible government.
commented 2015-10-26 20:31:26 -0400
No, Jimmy, I don’t expect to have a politician accurately represent me. None of them are right-wing enough. Personally, I want my taxes lowered drastically, so that I pay for only the things I want. Does this mean no “safety nets”? Yep. My responsibility. This also means government should NOT provide for those who lack — I should. This also means that the government does NOT tell me what I can’t do. This also means that the government would be about 25% of what it is now… no, even that’s too big.

Personal responsibility, that’s what I want. Get the government out of my hair and out of my life. Let it do what I can’t (defend the nation, make trade agreements). The rest — health care, social assistance, retirement — should be completely up to me.

So no, I don’t expect to EVER have a politician accurately represent me. Hell, I don’t even have a “family doctor”, and haven’t had for decades. If I could opt out of provincial health care, I would. I’ve already opted out of EI and CPP. Why should I pay for what I don’t use?
commented 2015-10-26 20:23:10 -0400
Nathan Harper was not childish nor controlling idiot, try some reality. Justin is a pathetic dumb child.
commented 2015-10-26 20:22:04 -0400
Nathan Yousa is not a conservative you halfwit, funny how you lefties always act the bigot
commented 2015-10-26 16:33:34 -0400

Fair enough – but then you should expect that you will never really have a politician that speaks for you that can actually win.
commented 2015-10-26 16:32:13 -0400
Jimmy — Since I’m not running in politics, I don’t need to adapt. I have principles that I live by, and I’m not “adapting” them. Neither am I dying.

So sorry… (well, not really, but you get the gist…)
commented 2015-10-26 16:29:01 -0400
It’s also funny that people like you have complained about Harper losing because of the internet and social media among other reasons. I am not saying that you can’t learn from the past, but that won’t win elections today.
commented 2015-10-26 16:27:16 -0400
I had to look up ‘ideological hegemony’, it’s not the same as ideological, or hegemony.
And no, there is “…no middle ground for centrists who don’t want to get caught up in this silly posturing coming from both far Right and far Left…” Our ideological hegemony in Canada is Christian based and Western value centered. Period. Multicult and all the rest of the BS is new and imported, its also destructive and has to go.
Fence sitters, appeasers, those going along to get along, those who neither know nor care, middle of the roaders and all the rest; they are a large part of the problem, and history, and their own action/nonaction, have not been kind to them.
As for the need to stamp out cultural Marxism, did you read Smith’s ten solutions? The need to stamp out Cultural Marxism is self evident to any thinking person and obvious to anyone who is cognizant of history, it’s clearly enunciated in his assertions and solutions! What’s not to get – unless you support cultural Marxism or collectivism…
commented 2015-10-26 16:25:48 -0400

What middle ground would you like? This coming from an extreme conservative of course.
commented 2015-10-26 16:21:35 -0400
Jimmy’s extreme one way or the other attitude is poking it’s ugly head out again. No middle ground. Jimmy’s way or no way.

One can always learn from the past and still adapt to today’s methodology for communicating your political ideology. Why do the two have to be opposed to one another?
commented 2015-10-26 16:16:12 -0400
Jimmy you are stating the obvious. How long did it take to figure that out homer?
commented 2015-10-26 16:13:07 -0400
Jimmy you are still an asshole regardless of social media.
commented 2015-10-26 13:48:53 -0400

Nope. We have seen politics change incredibly worldwide since the internet and social media has existed. Something that happened in politics in 1982, means fuck all now.

It’s a whole new ballgame now and if you can’t recognize that or if the Conservative Party can’t recognize, then you and they will be doomed to fail.

Adapt or die.
commented 2015-10-26 13:41:01 -0400
Jimmy — History is important. It gives us the bigger picture and patterns as to why things are happening the way they are happening. And don’t forget: “Those who ignore [do not learn from] history are doomed to repeat it.”

So you only screw yourself when you say, “Fuck history.”
commented 2015-10-26 13:38:26 -0400
Jimmie that is some of the best writing I have seen from you. You aren’t attacking you are making a statement with thought. Please keep that up.

Has for what Jimmie just stated he is so correct. The new youth of today are more interested in ( how they good in a selfie) they are not much on politics
commented 2015-10-26 13:13:21 -0400
Let’s be honest – politicians just want to win and the Conservative Party will pick someone – who they think can beat Justin and when I say that, I don’t mean the best person for the job. I mean the most attractive person for the job that can appeal to young voters and the like. It may still be the best person for the job nonetheless, but probably not.

As I said before – they want to find their own Obama/Trudeau or just someone that will bring some passion and excitement into The Conservative Party again. Just tossing Jason Kenney in there as leader would be suicide for The Conservative Party.
commented 2015-10-26 13:01:17 -0400

Fuck history. Politics now is a whole new world since the Internet and politicians will live or die by the Internet.

Many conservatives hated Harped, so at the very least – you need to be likeable and not viewed as a tyrannical dictator by the people you hope will vote for you.

The fact of the matter is that most Canadians are center left. They may be fiscally conservative, but they are socially liberal. So if the Conservative Party wants to succeed in the society and culture that we live in today, they will have to play ball with liberals/conservative. Your dream candidate or a far right conservative is absolutely unelectable.

I do think that Trudeau will work with The Conservative Party – time will tell. I disagree with your view about liberals/progressives and the fact remains that Pierre Trudeau is STILL considered the greatest and most popular Prime Minister in Canadian history – despite your blather.
commented 2015-10-26 12:57:00 -0400

That sounds like you’re trying to use one ideological hegemony to “stamp out” another ideological hegemony. Why must we “stamp” anything out? Is there no middle ground for centrists who don’t want to get caught up in this silly posturing coming from both far Right and far Left?
commented 2015-10-26 12:42:05 -0400
Kenny gets my support.
commented 2015-10-26 12:31:35 -0400
Kim Campbell was an embarrassment.
Seems women in other parties aren’t much better. Don’t know if it is hormonal or what.
commented 2015-10-26 12:26:48 -0400
We had a woman leader. What was her name again? She was awful .Kim what’s her Name!
commented 2015-10-26 11:47:21 -0400
Nathan W. , I disagree that the opposition leaders should be attending conferences over seas with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the leader of the country and it is his duty to represent the country. If the prime minister feels he is not up for the challenge to lead and make decisions on his own, then why is he the PM? Also as tax payers, it is bad enough we will be flipping the bill for all these politician’s and bureaucrat’s Paris vacation, because that’s what these conferences are all about.