More from Poilievre on Plain Language

 

A winning issue with me.

Aitchison Attacks Lewis

 

The race for the Tory leadership is coming down to the wire. Today, I received an urgent email from Scott Aitchison warning me not to vote for Leslyn Lewis.

It seems an odd thing to waste time on, since Pierre Poilievre has lapped the field, Lewis is probably running third, and Aitchison fifth. Why this fight?

Which makes it less forgivable. It violates Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, to speak no ill of another Conservative (Republican). Criticism of a fellow Conservative feeds the Liberals sound bites for future election ads.

Donald Trump seems to violate this rule. Most recently he called for Mitch McConnell to be removed as Senate leader. But Trump only fires back: McConnell was running down Republican candidates.

Pierre Poilievre has also been harsh towards rivals in this race; but, again, it seems to me that Charest and Brown went after him first, and he was returning fire. Since he has been ahead from the beginning, why would he draw attention to another candidate by criticizing them?

Aitchison does this although to all outward appearances he has little personally to gain; he is not going to win the race. Does he have some overriding moral reason?

Aitchison’s specific concern is that Lewis has said in an email that vaccine mandates violate the Nuremberg Code.

Since I am a party member, I get Lewis’s campaign emails, just as I get Aitchison’s. I cannot find any such email in my inbox, and Aitchison, for good reason, does not link to it in his condemnation. She never said it.

The closest is an email from Lewis on August 19 outlining the Nuremberg Code and historical violations of it in the US, Canada and elsewhere, notably against blacks and natives. She warns that we must remain on the alert. 

She does not mention vaccine mandates.

So Aitchison is not running down a fellow Conservative out of principle. He is lying about them, out of pure partisanship.

He goes on “Leslyn Lewis is comparing the horrors of the Holocaust to the challenges we face today.” 

The Nuremberg Code is not about the Holocaust. It protects human rights from unscrupulous medical experimentation. To object to applying the Nuremberg Code to anything outside Nazi Germany is to object to the Nuremberg Code. 

Aitchison: “A small but growing number of people opposed to various COVID response measures have been making the bogus claim that mandates or policies enacted over the past two years are like what took place in Nazi Germany.”

Really? Rather, some, not Leslyn Lewis, are saying the vaccine mandates are in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

At least, I heard this claim from Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. That’s the only place I have heard it, other than from Aitchison, although I keep close tabs on right-wing media. Erskine-Smith was citing it as a reason for imposing the Emergencies Act—to silence such unacceptable opinions.

Making Aitchison look like a fifth columnist waving a false flag.

Why is it so important to silence this view? If it is clearly false, one ought to be able to refute it easily. If, instead, you want to silence it, and so urgently want to silence it, there can be only one reason: because it is true. If you want to falsify it, it is because you cannot argue against it.

Aitchison sums up: “Let me be clear — being offered a vaccine that prevents serious illness and our governments’ responses to this pandemic are not the same as being tortured in a Nazi concentration camp.”

The issue is not being offered a vaccine, but being forced to take one. And Aitchison is the one equating a medical experiment with a Nazi concentration camp. He, with Erskine-Smith, is the one who ought to be condemned for incendiary rhetoric.

Aitcheson links to the argument that the vaccine is not experimental, because it has been approved by the Canadian government. 

This is circular. That is saying a government can never be held to have violated human rights, because they are following their own rules.

Whether the vaccines were or are experimental must be objectively determined. The argument is that they necessarily are. They use new technology, which without a time machine cannot have been evaluated as to its long term effects. 

It was always a mystery why Aitchison ran for the leadership, and where he found the financial support necessary. He was a political unknown with no visible ideological or regional constituency.

I think we can conclude now that he is bought and paid for by someone who does not have the best interests of the Conservative Party or the Canadian people at heart. Some special interest. 

Signed, Sealed, Delivered

 

Stephen Harper has just come out and endorsed Pierre Poilievre.

This should end it. Harper never endorsed anyone in the last two leadership contests. 

And this should make it easy for Poiliever to achieve party unity once he officially wins.

Brownout

 

I have to admit to a sense of satisfaction about Patrick Brown being tossed out of the CPC leadership race by the party. It feels as though justice has been served.

There is a danger of the leadership race being manipulated by the party brass; this seems to have happened in the last race, which selected Erin O’Toole. On the other hand, candidates cannot be allowed to flout the rules, either; as seemed to happen when Patrick Brown won the Ontario leadership, or when Mulroney beat Clark for the federal job. And in Brown’s campaign, something smelled wrong. Why and how would a mere small-city mayor get so many new party members signed up, when his platform was indistinguishable from that of a much higher-profile candidate, Jean Charest? Not to mention Brown’s prior history of political jiggery-pokery. 

It feels like a much cleaner Conservative party with Brown out of the running.

Charest can hope to get the lion’s share of Brown’s support, if we count only votes that were not bought. This will allow him to mount a stronger challenge on the first ballot. But he was always likely to be a Brown voter’s second choice, and get those votes on a later ballot; or vice versa, had Brown outpolled him on the first. And the bought or fraudulent votes from the Brown campaign will probably just evaporate; improving Poilievre’s chances. If he does not take it on the first ballot, Baber’s and Lewis’s voters are likely to have him listed as a later choice. All Charest can still hope for is some of Aitcheson’s supporters. And there is no way Charest is going to lead on the first ballot.

Barring some upset, that looks like a wrap for Pierre P.

Timber

 

I saw a reasonably balanced account of the Ottawa July 1 protesters on CBC. They ended, fairly enough, by noting that, although the parade of ‘freedom fighters” looked large, they really represented only a small proportion of Canadians.

This seems to be true enough, according to the polls, according to the last federal election, according to the recent Ontario election. Even the spring surge in CPC membership does not prove anything. It makes the Conservatives the largest party in Canadian history, but its membership is still a tiny proportion of the general population, perhaps 2%.

However, I recall a university class back in 1974, which hosted a guest speaker from the PLO. I pointed out after her talk that polls showed the great majority of Palestinian Arabs actually supported Israel. 

“Wait ten years,” she said. She was right.

It takes time for any very new message to percolate through the population. 

The priority now is to get the message out. The leftist elite knows this, because they are doing everything they can to prevent the message from getting out. 

I retain a visceral dislike of Erin O’Toole, because he took the opposite path, declaring the conservative message wrong and promising no change. It was a betrayal; all the more so since he ran for the leadership as a “true blue” conservative. Had the party faithful wanted to run centre-left, they would have done better with Peter MacKay. O’Toole sold them and the Canadian people out for personal ambition.

Pierre Poilievre, by contrast, is a brilliant communicator; and he knows how to use social media. This allows him to bypass the media control and speak directly to the people. He has long reminded me of John Diefenbaker with his inquisitorial fire in question period. His latest video reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

He speaks in clear and simple terms of things we all know in our hearts.

We need is to get the message out, and Canada will quickly tip to the side of freedom. Poilievre looks like our best chance yet to get that message out.

A Sinking Ship

 

Garner

One more sign that the Patrick Brown campaign is in trouble: Maclean’s magazine reports that Michelle Rempel Garner is considering running for the provincial Conservative leadership. Having supported Brown, and given his unprecedentedly sharp attacks on Poilievre, I suspect she realizes she has no future now in the federal party. Whether or not she runs provincially, she says she is no longer actively supporting any leadership campaign. This leaves Brown with the support of only one sitting MP. 

Meantime, the Poilievre campaign is accusing Brown’s campaign of buying votes, and calls for an investigation. I don't know whether they have a smoking gun, but I bet they’re right. Brown has a shady reputation, and I doubt there has been any groundswell of popular support for him, a relatively obscure candidate. More likely there has been some deal-making with ethnic voting blocs.

Erin, We Hardly Knew Ye

 

Erin O’Toole is out as Conservative leader. Watching the CBC speaking about the event, one would think the Conservatives were in disarray, in danger of splitting, losing their direction and losing the voters. 

I don’t buy that spin. It is just media partisanship. I think this vote was how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work. Kudos to Michael Chen, who designed this system and got it passed into law. Kudos to the Conservatives, who have now proven themselves Canada’s most responsive and democratic party.

The general public do not elect the Prime Minister. We vote for our local member. The Prime Minister is then whoever has the support of most of these members. Democracy demands that the Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of his members; not vice versa.

This system has been perverted in Canada by the legal requirement, introduced by the Liberals, that the party leader sign the nomination papers for local candidates. This gave the leader power to choose his own electorate, reversing the equation, and to punish or cashier anyone who did not do as he willed. The result has been an elected dictatorship. Debates and votes in parliament have become irrelevant to the nation’s business. Question period has become no more than rhetoric, a battle for the best sound bites.

Chen’s reform bill restored that balance. The Conservative Party embraced it, and deserves credit. O’Toole got voted out in part at least because he was being authoritarian with his own caucus.

Chen’s reform/restoration gives the Canadian or British system a significant advantage over the American system. A failing or disastrous or corrupt leader can be removed within days, if not hours, without tying up t6he nation’s business, without bitter recriminations, without requiring any particular reason or finding of fault. As Theresa May was; as Neville Chamberlain was. O’Toole was able to leave with dignity. The US, currently saddled with a declining Joe Biden in the midst of crisis, should envy us.

Nor is the Conservative Party divided by this. To the contrary, the vote was quick and decisive, so that it should be easy to come together now under a new leader. Had they been obliged to continue under O’Toole, divisions might have festered.

Conservative Leadership--Last Minute Prediction

The Favourite.

None of the candidates is what the times call for. What we need is a Canadian Trump, which means a Ralph Klein, a Jean Chretien, or a John Crosbie, a “common man” who comes across as a blunt straight shooter. And who speaks French as well as English. I don’t see anyone like that in the current race, or even in the wider party.

It is impossible to predict what is going to happen, because the balloting system makes polling meaningless. I think MacKay, O’Toole, and Lewis all have a chance of winning.

If MacKay wins, he probably wins on the first count. As the front-runner, he probably has all his natural support already. Anyone not voting for him first likely has some specific reason not to back him.

If he falls short, Sloan’s second-place votes probably go mostly to Lewis.

If this is not enough to give Lewis a win on the second count, and it seems unlikely to be, it’s a roll of the dice who will be in third place. Whoever is will be dropped from the next count.

If MacKay is in third, I expect his votes to go mostly to O’Toole, on electability. O’Toole wins.

If Lewis is in third, I expect most of her votes to go to O’Toole, and O’Toole wins.

If O’Toole is in third, his support might split evenly between MacKay and Lewis. He is ideologically between the two, and MacKay will get some support on electability. Tossup then between MacKay and Lewis.

Based on this simple calculation, I think O’Toole has, by a slim margin, the best chance to win.

We will see—perhaps before you get to read this.

The plucky challenger.

Gay Pride and the CPC

Saw a disturbing CBC “Power and Politics” panel on the issue of Tory leadership candidates marching in gay parades. Four panelists; with only Stockwell Day to speak for the Tories. The position one panelist kept repeating, to apparent general agreement, is that this was obligatory or else the politicians were declaring themselves “homophobic.” A more or less direct quote: “it is not enough to show tolerance. You must show that you support and celebrate Gay Pride.”

An odd standard, as Day observed, to apply in other circumstances. Do we really consider politicians who do not regularly attend Yom Kippur celebrations anti-Semitic? Are we now going to?

This new conflation of tolerance with approval is alarming in many ways. If tolerance has no value, and only celebration and support counts, we will only tolerate what we celebrate. This is the most extreme form of intolerance. All views with which you disagree would be silenced.

In the present case, what is not being tolerated is Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, religion, or ethical codes in general—a lot of targets. Celebration, as opposed to tolerance, of “gay pride” is intolerance of all these groups.

Essentially all religious and moral traditions teach that homosexual acts are sinful; but that is even beside the point. All teach that pride and lust are sinful. “Gay Pride” parades are celebrations of pride and lust, at least as explicitly as they are celebrations of homosexual attraction.

Any believing member of any of these religions, or of any other established moral code, cannot in good conscience march in a gay pride parade. Requiring this is excluding them from public life.

It is, perhaps more alarmingly, excluding anyone who sincerely follows any established morality from public life. This is a guarantee of the worst government available.

In sadly only too related news, we see a general furor over obscure leadership candidate Richard Decarie, and demands, including by prominent Conservatives, that he be barred from the race. Because he stated publicly that being gay is a choice.

He said some other things, as well, all perfectly unobjectionable, but this is the one the headlines have fixed upon.

Yet “being gay” self-evidently is a choice, in the most basic sense. While I may and may not have a choice concerning who sexually attracts me, I obviously have a choice as to whether or not to have sex with them. Otherwise, there could be no objection to rape.

Being “gay” is obviously a choice in another sense as well. If not, why do gays themselves speak of a “gay lifestyle”? There is an element of choice in being “gay,” in the minds of “gays” themselves. “Gay” does not equate to “being attracted to members of the same sex.”

As to whether one chooses to be attracted to those of the same sex—that too is unclear. We do not know, and it is deceitful to insist that we do. As recently discussed in this space, the traditional view, right up to Freud, is that we can control and are therefore fully responsible for our lusts.

We live in an increasingly intolerant age.

Pardon My French

We have a problem.

The Quebec press is already making noise about Peter MacKay’s weak French. It is immediately a big issue in Quebec. He has been in public life forever, they say. Why has he never made the effort to learn French?

He took no questions after his kickoff announcement. Perhaps to avoid any questions in French. He cannot do that for long.

This seems to me a fatal flaw. Never mind losing any competitiveness in Quebec. It matters almost as much in Ontario, because Ontario considers itself profoundly vested in preserving Canadian unity.

At this point, MacKay’s only credible opponent is Erin O’Toole. Erin O’Toole’s French is apparently not much better.

So it is not just that the Tories are going to end up with a unilingual leader; there will not even be a prominent candidate who speaks good French. At best, Quebec is likely to tune out. At worst, it begins to look as though they don’t think about Quebec, have no sense of Quebec. Quebec tends to nurse grievances over this sort of thing that can last for many years.

What an epic disaster it turns out to have been that the Conservatives did not choose Max Bernier last time. He was their most prominent Quebec politician. At the time, he was running on a libertarian platform, economic conservatism with social liberalism, which might have overcome the current party divisions.

Sorry to repeat myself, but the best hope for the Conservatives now is the second coming of Stephen Harper.

Failing that, the best hope for small-c conservatives may be Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party. He has more natural support in Quebec, being both bilingual and a native son, and to top that, as a libertarian Tory, he has more natural support in the West than MacKay as well.

The official Tories may soon be reduced to what they were the last time MacKay was leader.

Poilievre and the Bottom Drop Out

Something has to be going on behind the scenes in the Tory leadership race.

It was not so surprising that Jean Charest took a pass, after earlier reports from Tom Mulcair that he was definitely in. But then Rona Ambrose dropped out right after him. Weird; Charest dropping out gave her a clearer field. And now Pierre Poilievre—who had already put together a powerful campaign team, and booked the hall for his kickoff in just a day or two. Obviously a sudden change of heart. Yet he must have seen his own chances boosted in turn by the other two not running.

These were, other than Peter MacKay, the three candidates with the best chance of winning the leadership.

Are they really all dropping out to hand it to MacKay?

That does not seem right. Politicians crave power.

MacKay has obvious vulnerabilities. His French is weak; Quebec and Ontario consider this critical. That’s most of the country. He is from the Red Tory wing, the smaller wing of the party ideologically. The party split in the past over that distinction. He is not from Western Canada, where most Tories live and where separatist sentiments are growing. These are natural bases from which to mount a challenge. His own regional base, in Atlantic Canada, is relatively small.

One would expect other politicians to see a strong opportunity here, as the standard-bearer of Quebec, of the West, of the libertarian wing, of the social conservative wing. Yet the big guns are not interested.

At the same time, the Tory leadership at this moment should look highly desirable: there is every chance of winning the next election against a weak and wounded incumbent.

So some vital piece of information has to be missing. Something that Poilievre, and Ambrose, and perhaps Charest, know, that we do not know.

Another surprising and unexplained thing happened just before all this: the sudden resignation of Stephen Harper from the party fund. Harper made a sudden move; and then all these other sudden moves in his wake. Perhaps that is out clue.

The obvious reason why Harper resigned was in order to become involved in the leadership contest. He could not do that from his official post. Rumours were that this was to block Charest. But it seems uncharacteristic of such a cool, self-controlled man as Harper if this was personal.

More probably the problem was not with Charest specifically, but with what he seemed to represent: a reverse takeover of the party by its old Progressive Conservative wing. But on these grounds, Peter MacKay should look about as concerning. He too, like Charest, is a former PC leader.

So why then wouldn’t Harper throw his support behind Ambrose or Poilievre, either of whom look like they have a good shot at defeating MacKay? And why, if such support was pledged, would they immediately drop out of the race?

Because, perhaps, none of these are adequate alternatives.

As a practical matter, all these candidates have their flaws. While Poilievre is more likely to appeal, say, to the right wing of the party, that just gets us back, it seems, to where we were with Scheer.

So Harper, and now Ambrose and Poilievre, are perhaps holding off for another anticipated candidate, someone of greater stature, someone better positioned to unite the party and win the next election.

Who might that be?

Only one name comes to mind.

Stephen Harper.

Don't hold me to it--but it looks like the simplest explanation.

Charest Out

I’m disappointed that Jean Charest is not going to run for the Conservative leadership.

On the other hand, I can understand why he decided to stay out. There was obviously fierce opposition to his bid. So, even if he did take the post, he would have to deal with a disunited party.

He Who Pays the Harper Picks the Tune

Stephen Harper has resigned from his Conservative Party post in order to fight against Jean Charest getting the Conservative leadership.

And if Harper does not like Charest, it seems unlikely that MacKay would be his choice either. Both are “Red Tories.”

Tom Mulcair brings up another rap against MacKay. Rona Ambrose is sitting out it seems in part because her French is weak. She caught flak for that during her interim leadership. But MacKay’s French is weaker still.

Which, Tom Mulcair points out, raises an interesting possibility. What happens if no one else looks like they can beat Charest? Might Harper himself run?

Lean to the Left, Lean to the Right, Stand Up...

The face of Canada's most leftist province...

The talking heads remain relentless in insisting that the Canadian Conservatives must move left to be electable.

This is demonstrably false.

Where in Canada is the electorate supposedly most left-wing? Quebec? Quebec just elected a right-of-centre party provincially.

Ontario? Ontario twice elected Mike Harris, whose government was about as far right as Canada has seen. They just elected Doug Ford on a right-wing platform.

Okay, not Ontario as a whole, but Toronto specifically? The 416?

They elected Rob Ford mayor. And Mel Lastman before him.

When the Conservative Party chose Stephen Harper, he was from the right wing of that party, long in opposition. He was supposed to be too far right to be electable.

So, of course, was Ronald Reagan in the US. He’s the last candidate to have won a presidential election in a landslide—took every state but Minnesota.

Boris Johnson just won such a landslide in Britain. And who was the last candidate to win a landslide of similar proportions in the UK? Margaret Thatcher. Unambiguously right-wing Margaret Thatcher.

The evidence could hardly be clearer. Taking a strong right-wing position is an electoral winner, not a loser. Pose “right-wing” positions as individual issues in a survey, and most people agree with them.

The issue is sincerity. People want someone who will do as they say. Someone who will lead. Someone who is not conning them for votes, and who will only end up doing whatever is in the interests of the existing bureaucracy.

All this said, I see no candidate, nor obvious potential candidate, who could embody this in the current Conservative leadership contest.

Could have been Max.

Jean Charest Is In

Tom Mulcair has said unequivocally that Jean Charest will seek the Conservative leadership. He also claims he hears that Charest’s bid will keep Peter MacKay out.

Frankly, simply in terms of his resume, nobody else looks like a better choice. Charest has actually served previously as Tory leader. He has been deputy prime minister; served for nine years as premier of the second-largest province. He is perfectly bilingual.

Ought to take the leadership easily.

Charest also contrasts well with Trudeau. Trudeau looks callow, lightweight, underqualified and inexperienced. Charest is the opposite: he’s been around forever, and has an almost surreally strong resume. Looks like a man against a boy.

The only problem is that he is an old-line Progressive Conservative. He will look too leftist to many in the party. This may be an incentive for someone prominent on the right to enter. Mulcair thought Rona Ambrose, although early indications are that she is not running. Brad Wall? Who else has the stature to compete?

Having been out of federal politics for a while, Charest may have maneuvering room to adopt some policies to soothe the right wing.

The Kinsella Tapes

CBC has apparently gotten hold of tapes of Warren Kinsella discussing his work on a backdoor social media campaign to smear Maxime Bernier,

Aside from any moral issues, this strikes me as evidence of gross political malpractice by Scheer's team.

First question: where do you suppose the CBC got the tapes?

Almost necessarily, from someone at Kinsella's firm, hoping to discredit the Conservatives.

It is as though the Scheer team handed a loaded revolver to a known enemy, and painted a target on their t-shirt. What did they expect?

Even apart from this, it makes dubious political sense to try to character assassinate the smaller party over to their right. Granted, the PPC might cause some vote splitting. At the same time, their presence forces the debate rightward, presenting the argument for policies near Scheer's on the spectrum, and making his own look more moderate. Slandering their views as "racist" risks tarring the Conservatives as well, by association. Just in case the adversary missed with that loaded pistol, Scheer's men had a loaded shotgun ready, pointed at their foot.

After all, Bernier a couple of years ago came within a few votes of becoming the Tory leader.

It's all so dumb it almost seems easier to believe Scheer is secretly a Liberal himself.

Scheer as Tory Leader

I cannot tell a lie. I did not expect to be, but I was really disappointed when Andrew Scheer won the Tory leadership. For a time, I had to mourn Mad Max, even though Scheer had been my own second choice.

Bernier was the exciting candidate. I hope he does not go away.

But it may be that Scheer was the wiser choice. He does a better job of representing the Conservative party as a whole, all factions. That may be more important. He is a smart guy, a good speaker in the Commons, popular with MPs.

It is interesting to analyze the vote to figure out how strong each of the factions are within the party. It gives a good idea of what the new leader has to work with, and who needs to have a place at the table.

SoCons – 40%. This is roughly Scheer’s tenth ballot total. This is the point at which Brad Trost dropped out, leaving Scheer the only social conservative candidate. For the hard-core SoCon vote, see Trost’s final total: 14.3%. But some hard core SoCons may already have been with Scheer at this point, on winnability.

Libertarians - 30% This, I think, can be assumed from Bernier’s first ballot total. He was THE libertarian/classic liberal candidate in the race, and I can see no reason for a liberal to vote for anyone else.

Red Tories – 20%. O'Toole final ballot. At this point, I think Red Tories had nowhere else to go. For hard core Red Tories, 7.5% – Michael Chong first ballot results. This may well include some non-Tories who signed up to vote in the leadership, but who would never vote Conservative in an actual election. Grits just hedging their bets.

Populists – 10%. Kellie Leitch’s final vote total. These are the Trumpists. Evidently only a minor faction in the Canadian Conservative party.

One thing that really struck me was how dignified, polite, and friendly it all was, in comparison to recent politics in the US. This despite the fact that ideological differences were really quite strong.

Civil political discourse still holds among Canadian Conservatives. Andrew Scheer is an exceptionally good model of that.

And maybe that is what Canada most wants, and most needs, at this historical moment: a leader and a party that will preserve our best traditions of peace, order, general amity, politeness, and good government. We do not want to happen here what has been happening in the US.

Some are saying, as if it is a criticism, that Scheer is too much like Harper.

Recently, I was invited to participate in a poll on who had been the best prime minister of Canada ever.

Look at the candidates. Look at the record.

It is hard not to conclude that it was Harper.

Last Call: Canadian Conservative Leadership

I follow politics more or less as others might follow sports: Go Sens! The strategy and mechanics of it fascinate me.

As the votes begin to be counted, here are my favourites for the Canadian Conservative leadership: the best candidates in order. I also expect them to finish in about the same order.

Maxime Bernier
Andrew Scheer
Erin O'Toole
Lisa Raitt

At this point, I think my preferences depart from what is actually likely to happen. I expect the next finishing candidate to be

Kellie Leitch

-- but she would not be so high as my fifth choice.

I actually like her "values test" idea. However, I fear the effect would be trivial. It is a gimmick, and her whole campaign seems gimmicky. This is not why I would not support her. It is more a problem with her public persona. It is vitally important for a leader to be likeable. Max Bernier leads in that category, and the other three listed are very good on it. Leitch is not likeable. She gives the constant impression that she is trying to put something over on you.

Next in actual vote, but not in my support, would be

Michael Chong

I like him, but I fear he would be divisive as leader. He supports a carbon tax, and M-103. I like him for leader of the Liberal Party. I think he will do about this well on the strength of non-Conservatives buying memberships in order to vote for him.

Next up, I predict, will be

Pierre Lemieux

I think Lemieux will do this well on the strength of being the favourite of the serious social conservatives. He is also personally attractive and bilingual. He would be doing better had he not lost his own riding.

All others are also-rans. Probably next in finish order will be

Steven Blaney

thanks to support in Quebec.

Rick Peterson might surprise. He has sounded good in debates.

There is a lot of love for Deepak Obhrai, but I do not think it translates into votes. Brad Trost gets squeezed out by Scheer as a Saskatchewan native son, and by Lemieux as the voice of social conservatism. Saxton and Alexander are too boring. Saxton actually makes this part of his campaign.

He has a point, but I do not think this is a message that will work in these times. As the election of Trump and Brexit show, the general public is mad as hell and not interested in "stay the course."

Canadian Conservative Leadership :Picks

My main problem with the current Canadian Conservative leadership race is that there are too many candidates whom I would like to see as leader. It is a shame that all but one must lose.

For what it is worth, which is very little, here are my picks, ranked as on the prescribed ballot:

Maxime Bernier – I especially like the courage of his position on supply-side management, coming as he does from rural Quebec. Trump’s recent complains about it in relation to NAFTA make Bernier’s position look even better. Bernier seems to be a likeable guy; and his bilingualism is important. His libertarianism should play well in Alberta and the West. His cabinet experience is heavyweight, preparing him for the job.

Andrew Scheer -- I am impressed by his recent demand that federal funding for universities be tied to their commitment to free speech on campus. We need something like this urgently. Scheer too seems likeable, and a witty speaker. He could be fun in the Commons. He is popular among colleagues, and would probably be a good choice for the sake of party unity. He is young; he would represent a new generation.

Erin O’Toole – Also likeable—I think likeability is the most valuable trait in a politician. Admirable military record. I like his support of the CANZUK concept.

Lisa Raitt—Hard not to love her for her intervention to rescue Elizabeth May from embarrassment. It is evidence that she is a decent person. She has the cabinet experience to qualify her for the job.

You may note that neither Kelly Leitch nor Kevin O'Leary are on my list. Both would be bad for party unity.