7

Controversial proposal exposes internal rift in CPC

Harper’s close circle supporting Tory leadership selection changes


 

Those most closely aligned with Prime Minister Stephen Harper are throwing their weight behind the controversial initiative to change the Conservative Party’s leadership selection process. According to The Hill Times, key MPs and Senators like Don Plett, John Baird and Jason Kenney will support a motion at the party’s ongoing convention that would create a one-member-one-vote method of choosing a leader. Currently, under the rules agreed upon when the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance combined their efforts in 2003, each riding association is given equal weight when it comes to voting for a new leader. Those opposing the initiative include former Progressive Conservative leader and current defence minister Peter MacKay. Under the current system, ridings with lower membership have the same influence as larger associations. The Hill Times reports that an internal rift is emerging around the issue, with those representing ridings in Western Canada and Ontario supporting the proposed change, and those from the Atlantic region opposing it.

The Hill Times


 
Filed under:

Controversial proposal exposes internal rift in CPC

  1. Seems like a ‘no-brain-er’ to me. One person – one vote.

    • I trust you’re not in favor of an “equal” senate then?

      • I knew this would come up, but why the senate?

        It  makes sense to have this type of system with the political parties. It doesn’t work as well for electing the politicians.

        Just out of curiosity, how would ‘one person – one vote’ not support an equal senate?

        • How is electing a politician from among the various parties any different from electing a politician within a party?

          If it makes sense for one, how can it not make sense for the other.

          One person-one vote does not support an equal senate because there are a heck of a lot more people in some regions than others, so either those people would have a larger say on the decisions the senate makes, or if you equalize the seats per region, than those people in the less populous regions have a vote that carries more weight.

          The problem is simple, and I believe intractable. Given a set of regions with specific regional concerns, where the regions are of different sizes, there is no “equality” that can be done.  The best we can hope for is some sort of compromise.  

          For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong. This is the problem with the CPC supporters who prefer no-brain solutions.

          In this case, one person one vote will eventually cleave off Eastern Canada from the CPC again, because any politician will quickly realize that the path of least resistance is to make the “no-brain-er” promises to the Western side of the party that ignore the Eastern concerns.  

          • It isn’t really different that what we have now, but it is different than what some people are clamoring for. A different sort of rep by pop.

            The difference is that when you elect a leader of a political party, you have one person. When you elect the person in your riding, you have one person. This works, as it sometimes gives us a majority gov’t. With the other systems of rep by pop that I have seen, it guarantees a minority gov’t, that is less effective.

            I guess we were talking about different versions of ‘equal’, when we are talking about the senate. As it sits right now, the house favors the areas with the most population. Having a second house that would counterbalance that weight, would seem to make sense.

            I agree, there will never be a completely ‘equal’ system, and compromise it what we will end up doing.

            “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant,
            and wrong. This is the problem with the CPC supporters who prefer
            no-brain solutions.” – pretty broad and stupid statement. Firstly, for every complex solution, there are probably many simple and complex solutions, not just one of each. And to suggest that anyone of them is ‘no brainer’ would probably just mean you disagree with them. By your logic, even if everyone agrees that the solution is simple, it must be wrong and ignored. Sad.

            Your suggestion that the CPC will ignore eastern Canada is ignorant. I personally vote for what is best for all of Canada, not just for my province/region. That others vote that way is detrimental to the rest of Canada. I submit that the biggest challenge the gov’t will have with eastern Canada is regarding EI.  Some areas in eastern Canada have very generous EI requirements. Other areas of Canada are importing people to fill the jobs that are available. This makes no sense whatsoever. It would make more sense to train the unemployed, and then help them move to where there is work. I have nothing against immigrants, but the current system makes no sense whatsoever. The areas’ that would be losing the workers will fight this tooth and nail, as they will also lose votes, and over time, a say in the house. The equal senate would help alleviate those concerns. This is probably too simple a solution, though.

  2. Mr. Reid said he believes the party “could be torn apart” if a leader is
    ever selected with less than 50 per cent of the vote, which would be
    possible.

    He continued “Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? One man ruling the party even though a majority didn’t vote for him, forcing his own will down the throats of a strong majority of people that completely disagree with him and his policies. Canada should never see a situation like… uh, actually, never mind!”

  3. “Loooove! Loooove will tear us apart…. again….”

Sign in to comment.