Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,852

    The Conservatives should perform a clean, quick coup to replace Scheer. Here's how

    I don't like Coyne. I think he pretends to be a conservative but truly isn't and leans more centre-left and whatever he writes about Conservatives is with his own agenda attached. Regardless, he raises some interesting points about the new Reform Act that I'd forgotten about.

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/and...heer-heres-how

    The Conservatives should perform a clean, quick coup to replace Scheer. Here's how

    Here is what the next six months might look like for the Conservatives. Their leader, Andrew Scheer, having stumbled through an election campaign he might have won with a platform that was sure to lose, ignores widespread calls to quit in favour of hanging on until the April leadership review.

    Unable to dislodge him before then, his critics in the party focus on ensuring he does not survive the vote. The months pass, filled with anonymous sniping in the media, and punctuated by increasingly strident calls for his dismissal from riding executives and party grandees.

    At the convention, he neither does so well (more than 90 per cent support) as to clearly confirm his leadership, nor so poorly (less than 50 per cent) as to clearly end it, but something in between. Without consensus on what level of support (70 per cent? 75? 80?) would be sufficient, the leader might attempt to carry on — but in such a weakened state that he could do little but invite further attacks on his leadership.

    Alternatively, he might step down, leaving the party leaderless for another six to nine months while it elects a replacement, by the same dirty, gameable system of mass membership sales that elected him. Either way, consumed with its own internal struggles, the party offers no serious opposition to the governing Liberals, probably for the life of this Parliament.

    So that’s one way the party can deal with its leadership problem. The other is to get it over with: a clean, quick coup that, however brutal, leaves a lot less blood on the floor than the alternative. Until now the party has lacked the means to such a swift and certain end. This week, the opportunity has arrived to arm itself with it.

    That opportunity is Wednesday’s meeting of the Conservative caucus — the first since the election. Among the items caucus is required to take up at that meeting, by law, is whether it will accept the four powers provisionally conferred upon it and the other “recognized” party caucuses (those with at last 12 members) by the Reform Act 2014. These are: the power to elect or remove the caucus chair, the power to expel or readmit a member of caucus, and, crucially, the powers to remove the leader and to choose his replacement pro tem, pending election of a new leader by the party at large.

    Leaving it to caucuses to decide whether to so empower themselves was one of the compromises Conservative MP Michael Chong, the act’s sponsor, was obliged to accept as the price of party leaders’ support, without which it would not have passed. The leaders calculated their caucuses were so cowed that they would continue to obey them in all things, including an order not to assume any powers the leaders would rather they not have — especially not the power to remove them.

    For the most part, this judgment proved correct. Indeed, in its first test, after the 2015 election, the law was largely a bust. Not only did the Liberals and NDP not vote to give themselves the powers envisaged by the Reform Act, they did not even obey the act, either failing to hold the votes required or holding them long after that first meeting.

    The exception was the Conservatives, whose caucus voted to assume three of the four powers, including a modified version of the power to elect an interim leader (the act stipulates only members of Parliament are to vote on this; the Tories broadened the definition of “caucus” to include senators). The sticking point, naturally, was the power to remove the leader.

    It will be interesting to see whether the Liberals and the NDP, now joined by the Bloc, obey the law this time, and hold the votes as required. But it will be fascinating to see how the Conservatives vote.

    Should a majority of MPs vote to assume the leader-removal power, it would take the signatures of just 20 per cent of them (25 out of 121) at any time to force a vote on Scheer’s leadership, by secret ballot. Were a majority in that vote to support his removal, he’d be gone as of that date. The April convention might then be devoted to selecting a new leader.

    It’s unlikely the caucus will be so bold, of course. Many will blanch at turfing a leader who was elected by a vote of 51 per cent of party members at large (even if many of those members, like the dairy farmers who provided Scheer’s margin of victory, had no prior connection to the party, but only signed on for the day).

    But Conservative members do not have to go so far as to remove the leader to make their point. It would be enough to vote to give themselves the power to do so. Chances are Scheer would take the hint: his position had become untenable. But even if he didn’t, caucus would have put him on notice. It would always remain open to them to pull the trigger on some later occasion.

    And not only him, but future leaders. Ideally we would give caucus the power, not just to remove the leader but to choose his replacement: the classic Westminster model. But even in its half-realized, Reform Act version, it would be a revolution. No longer could a party leader remain aloof from caucus, holed up with his advisers, accountable to no one. From now on, he would have to answer to members of caucus. Whereas at present it is they who must answer to him.

    Probably the Tories will be too timid even to do that. They should ask themselves: is the alternative — a six-month campaign of internal bloodletting that at best results in a still longer leadership race, and at worst resolves nothing — any better?
    Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times [#uc# you CCP!]

  2. #2
    Senior Member labradort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    1,832
    Given the way so many Conservatives have gone public on their distaste for Scheer's leadership, it is impossible at this point to turn it around and say 'yeah, he's OK, we back him". It's just a question of timing.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    12,852
    Yeah I agree. I just hope it is sooner rather than later and done "cleanly" rather than in a manner that makes the party look foolish and divided. Not holding my breath.
    Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times [#uc# you CCP!]

  4. #4
    Senior Member wolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    North of North Bay area, ON
    Posts
    3,157
    A high profile woman leader would be the best to replace the docile Scheer. Maybe Anne Murray or Pamela Anderson.
    But the sooner the better so they could interact with the Canadian public for the next 4 yrs.
    Not just wait till an election to be announced.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Grimlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,974
    Hey, Pam Anderson is a lot smarter than she looks. Not hard, I know. She would do ok in this day and age.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Petamocto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rusagonis/Waasis, NB
    Posts
    6,974
    It would be a lot easier to do if he had sucked, like Ignatief's performance, but it's kind of hard to rise out to throw someone out who won the popular vote by 240k votes.

    I don't like the guy at all, and I'm one of the 29% of Con members who voted for Bernier and not the 22% who voted for Scheer, but it's not like the election was a catastrophic failure.

    It's one of those weird circumstances where they "lost" but not really.

    Normally I like Mackay, but I don't like his comments that Scheer missed scoring on an open net.

    A significant fraction of Canadians are completely retarded for voting for Trudeau after how embarrassing his performance has been in the past four years, and the only way to have gotten those voters back would have been to out-spend Trudeau to buy their votes, and I don't think the Cons want to get into that game.

    It's a given that the Liberals will always get a huge fraction of the vote, and the only time they didn't was when the NDP helped us out in 2011 by leapfrogging them under Layton's leadership.

    Until the NDP and/or the Greens start becoming consistent top performers, the Liberals will continue to get 30%+ and there's nothing the Cons can do about that.
    I have no signature block.

  7. #7
    Senior Member glockfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    3,563
    i agree 100% that it must be done NOW. doing so would give us a chance to maybe impeach the supreme imbecile and call an election in 2 years from now .2 years would be enough for the new chief to make sure he's known by the electorate, and proceeding to start to jab the turd repeatedly for couple years ,unmasking the turd in the process which is what is needed,and which is what sheer failed at.

    it's a real shame that bernier is now gone.....like it or not,he would have won this election.why? because culbecers would have voted for him.like it,or not,that is evidence when you lok at the culbec vote.they did not voted for the worthless bloc.they voted against the turd,because they felt they had no other choice .gosh!! if the cpc can't get it,we're done.
    Last edited by glockfan; 11-05-2019 at 11:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Forbes/Hutton View Post
    I was hoping he would show up and do something useful in front of the cameras. Like beat the flames out with his face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magi View Post
    This intellectual midget needs to rub the contents of a large tube of PREPARATION H® on his ego and then smack himself with the empty tube until he's in a permanent coma. !

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    444
    If Scheer had any pride, he would just pack it in but WTF is he going to do? He's been living off the taxpayer his working life, hard to give that up with all the perks. To me it just shows how little he really cares about Canadians or his party, it's about Scheer's bottom line first, but why am I surprised he is a politician who rank lower than even lawyers.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator Rory McCanuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Manitoba
    Posts
    12,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimlock View Post
    Hey, Pam Anderson is a lot smarter than she looks. Not hard, I know. She would do ok in this day and age.
    I'm not sure the prison population would vote for her.

    Pamela Anderson Calls for Vegan Meals in Canadian Prisons

    https://vegnews.com/2019/10/pamela-a...nadian-prisons

    "Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, urging him to take meat and dairy off the country’s prison menus and replace them with vegan alternatives. Anderson explained that serving the country’s approximately 40,000 inmates vegan meals of beans, rice, lentils, pasta, vegetables, and fruit would provide all the essential nutrients they would need and would be a “simple but effective way to reduce costs and improve lives.” In her letter—which comes as part of her ongoing work with animal-rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—Anderson pointed to the potential cost savings of replacing meat and cheese with plants, as well as the country’s newly retooled Canada Food Guide, which puts more emphasis on plant-based proteins and completely removes the meat-and-dairy protein food groups. She also mentions the UN climate panel report calling for a dietary shift to help combat climate change."
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for that clown. Oct 20, '15

  10. #10
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    49,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimlock View Post
    Hey, Pam Anderson is a lot smarter than she looks. Not hard, I know. She would do ok in this day and age.
    [not worth clicking on any of this]

    Pamela Anderson’s Halloween Costume Prompts Accusations Of Cultural Appropriation
    Nov 4 2019
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/pamel...-appropriation

    pictures at.
    https://twitter.com/pamfoundation/st...40368148090891
    Basically her wearing an Indian chief feathered headdress, and not much else.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •