News   Mar 17, 2023
 4K     8 
News   Mar 17, 2023
 1.8K     0 
News   Mar 17, 2023
 2.9K     2 

What's the future for the Conservative Party?

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,818
Reaction score
1,802
So ... is Patrick Brown incapable of behaving himself so that he always has a scandal that forces him out of the Conservative party races, or are the Conservatives constantly unscrupulously using dirty tricks to force him out? It feels really strange that the scandal that forced him out as Ontario leader to clear a path for Doug was of a completely different nature from this new one.
I am thinking that the financial trespass here is one of the "I always got away with this before" variety; same things he's done in the past, but this time there were too many lights shining in the corners to make it through without being caught.
 

Jonny5

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,818
Reaction score
1,802
I was reading some early coverage of the UK Conservative party race now that Boris has resigned and came across this quote from a UK Con MP and laughed:
We can’t just have a wacky races of 20 candidates here. We need those that are serious about being the next prime minister and have a chance of doing so, and doing so credibly.
Interesting though on that credibility front is that they have a rule that would-be party leaders must be nominated by "at least 5% of sitting MPs". Think about that and then how much bigger the UK Parliaament is--the Conservatives have over 350 MPs right now--so you would need at the very least 15-20 MPs to publicly back your leadership bid from day zero. Perhaps that's something we should consider here. Requiring already elected MPs to put themselves on the line to support your bid would cut out some of this tomfoolery.
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Giving this all more thought, it’s becoming clear that Brown is a very energetic self-promoter, and a very effective campaigner. That’s how he was able to first win the Ontario PC leadership from nowhere, recover incredibly quickly from the sudden ouster, sell hundreds of thousands of CPC memberships to be a top-tier leadership candidate.

But he seems to make a hell of a lot of enemies and doesn’t come across as a team player. This would explain the revolt by half of Brampton Council, particularly those on the old establishment right (including the son of a former mayor), who have it out for him; they have also gone after a new progressive female councillor.

The five councillors do not acknowledge that they preemptively appointed a replacement to one of their allies, who won a seat for the Cons. This was against the Municipal Act; the city solicitor who provided the legal advice against the process was since turfed. One of the councillors opposed to Brown has sexual harassment allegations against him. But if Brown was as good a leader as he is a campaigner, that potential revolt would have been handled better.

It’s very likely Brown’s leadership campaign violated party rules. But not having many friends in the party establishment did not help his case. Him trying to do two things at once probably helped give him more trouble than he wanted at the party and City Hall.

Finally, it’s interesting how Doug Ford can keep falling upwards despite the many skeletons in his closet.
 
Last edited:

Towered

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,003
Reaction score
8,518
Giving this all more thought, it’s becoming clear that Brown is a very energetic self-promoter, and a very effective campaigner. That’s how he was able to first win the Ontario PC leadership from nowhere, recover incredibly quickly from the sudden ouster, sell hundreds of thousands of CPC memberships to be a top-tier leadership candidate.

But he seems to make a hell of a lot of enemies and doesn’t come across as a team player. This would explain the revolt by half of Brampton Council, particularly those on the old establishment right (including the son of a former mayor), who have it out for him; they have also gone after a new progressive female councillor.

The five councillors do not acknowledge that they preemptively appointed a replacement to one of their allies, who won a seat for the Cons. This was against the Municipal Act; the city solicitor who provided the legal advice against the process was since turfed. One of the councillors opposed to Brown has sexual harassment allegations against him. But if Brown was as good a leader as he is a campaigner, that potential revolt would have been handled better.

It’s very likely Brown’s leadership campaign violated party rules. But not having many friends in the party establishment did not help his case. Him trying to do two things at once probably helped give him more trouble than he wanted at the party and City Hall.

Finally, it’s interesting how Doug Ford can keep falling upwards despite the many skeletons in his closet.
Now he's accusing PP's campaign team and the party elite of smearing him because he wanted to push the Cons in a more progressive and electable direction.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
24,034
Reaction score
62,761
Location
Toronto/EY
Althea Raj has some details on Conservative party apparatus' takedown of Patrick Brown, in the Star. It is behind the paywall...........


A couple of bits from the above:

First, former NDP leader Thom Mulcair, who was also a minister in Charest gov't in Quebec is alleging that this was a move to sabotage Charest's chances of winning.

Now a direct quote from Althea:

"So the party, based on an undisclosed number of allegations and complaints — whose nature is also shrouded in secrecy — chose to remove an approved candidate, who’d spent $300,000 to enter the race and may have raised about $2.25 million for the party (the cost of a one-year membership multiplied by the 150,000 memberships Brown claimed he sold), without, it appears, fully investigating the matter itself."

and

"Several Conservatives told the Star that Brodie — the supposedly neutral chair of the committee overseeing the race — encouraged Brown to drop out of the contest, saying his attacks on perceived front-runner Pierre Poilievre were hurting the party. (The party did not return a request for comment.)"


Finally...

"Many Conservative MPs who’ve decided to back Poilievre have confided to the Star the strategic reasons behind the move: their personal ambition, their fear of Jenni Byrne, Poilievre’s top adviser and Harper’s former campaign director, or concern they’d be vulnerable to nomination challenges with the number of memberships Poilievre sold in their ridings."

*****


Leadership race shenanigans are nothing new.........certainly in both the 'red team' and blue' team races over the years. I can't speak with the same level of knowledge about team orange, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

That said, usually, the parties want to at least maintain the appearance of fairness, and the idea that the race isn't clearly rigged. (It usually isn't.....but there are thumbs on scales)....

This......is just looking bad. I'm not a Brown sympathizer nor a member of that party.......(or any other for that matter); but I borderline feel bad for the guy; moreso though I feel bad for democracy when even the illusion of fairness is lost.


 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Althea Raj has some details on Conservative party apparatus' takedown of Patrick Brown, in the Star. It is behind the paywall...........


A couple of bits from the above:

First, former NDP leader Thom Mulcair, who was also a minister in Charest gov't in Quebec is alleging that this was a move to sabotage Charest's chances of winning.

Now a direct quote from Althea:

"So the party, based on an undisclosed number of allegations and complaints — whose nature is also shrouded in secrecy — chose to remove an approved candidate, who’d spent $300,000 to enter the race and may have raised about $2.25 million for the party (the cost of a one-year membership multiplied by the 150,000 memberships Brown claimed he sold), without, it appears, fully investigating the matter itself."

and

"Several Conservatives told the Star that Brodie — the supposedly neutral chair of the committee overseeing the race — encouraged Brown to drop out of the contest, saying his attacks on perceived front-runner Pierre Poilievre were hurting the party. (The party did not return a request for comment.)"


Finally...

"Many Conservative MPs who’ve decided to back Poilievre have confided to the Star the strategic reasons behind the move: their personal ambition, their fear of Jenni Byrne, Poilievre’s top adviser and Harper’s former campaign director, or concern they’d be vulnerable to nomination challenges with the number of memberships Poilievre sold in their ridings."

*****


Leadership race shenanigans are nothing new.........certainly in both the 'red team' and blue' team races over the years. I can't speak with the same level of knowledge about team orange, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

That said, usually, the parties want to at least maintain the appearance of fairness, and the idea that the race isn't clearly rigged. (It usually isn't.....but there are thumbs on scales)....

This......is just looking bad. I'm not a Brown sympathizer nor a member of that party.......(or any other for that matter); but I borderline feel bad for the guy; moreso though I feel bad for democracy when even the illusion of fairness is lost.



I don’t know about leadership-level shenanigans at the Orange Team, but there were enough at the provincial riding nomination level last election, including Brampton North and Scarborough Centre.
 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
11,179
Reaction score
5,162
I was reading some early coverage of the UK Conservative party race now that Boris has resigned and came across this quote from a UK Con MP and laughed:

Interesting though on that credibility front is that they have a rule that would-be party leaders must be nominated by "at least 5% of sitting MPs". Think about that and then how much bigger the UK Parliaament is--the Conservatives have over 350 MPs right now--so you would need at the very least 15-20 MPs to publicly back your leadership bid from day zero. Perhaps that's something we should consider here. Requiring already elected MPs to put themselves on the line to support your bid would cut out some of this tomfoolery.
It’s a private club, let the Canadian Cons pick their leader however they want, names from a hat perhaps? Or a big game of Twister?
 

toonderly

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
181
Reaction score
89
It’s a private club, let the Canadian Cons pick their leader however they want, names from a hat perhaps? Or a big game of Twister?
The memberships they were selling weren't to a big game of Twister. Raising money under the pretext of letting members vote if that isn't what membership buys you seems unethical.

From the Star story:

As for what this means for this race, even the Charest team is unsure. It may help ensure he lasts longer on the ballot than Brown, but without all of Brown’s voters, Charest may be even less likely to best Poilievre.

Is this saying that Brown's members won't be able to vote, or just that Charest can't assume that 100% of them will vote Charest?
 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
11,179
Reaction score
5,162
The memberships they were selling weren't to a big game of Twister. Raising money under the pretext of letting members vote if that isn't what membership buys you seems unethical.

From the Star story:



Is this saying that Brown's members won't be able to vote, or just that Charest can't assume that 100% of them will vote Charest?
Brown doesn’t have exclusive members. What this means is that Brown’s supporters may lose interest and stay home, whereas had Brown stayed to the end, his supporters may have bounced to Charet in a second round.
 

John_Dee

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
794
Reaction score
620
Like I said, he seems to make a lot of enemies.

Over the past year or so I've asked in a couple of different subject threads here if anyone had an explanation for the apparent enmity our beloved Premiere seemed to hold against Brown, and nobody ever really came up with an actual reason for it. Of course, in Ford's case the waters are kind of muddied due to Thug being your classic schoolyard bully type, who'd gleefully pounce on the opportunity to kick a man when he's down, whether the person in question had actually done anything to him or not.

As ShonTron points out, Brown really appears to be an opportunist and self-promoter more than anything else. Perhaps this has rubbed some of his fellow Cons the wrong way? Or is it that he's simply not reactionary enough for them? He always seemed pretty conservative to me, but then, my opinion hardly counts here. And then again, as the above reports indicate, there's a lot of truly ugly, nasty stuff happening behind the scenes to see who's going to grab control of the party. Certainly a lightweight like Brown doesn't stand a chance against wolves of this caliber.

So, what's the deal with Brown's apparent unpopularity? His slimier traits turn people off? Not right wing enough? Or is it just business? Nothing personal, as they say? Maybe a combination of all these factors? Who knows?
 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
7,544
Location
Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
Over the past year or so I've asked in a couple of different subject threads here if anyone had an explanation for the apparent enmity our beloved Premiere seemed to hold against Brown, and nobody ever really came up with an actual reason for it. Of course, in Ford's case the waters are kind of muddied due to Thug being your classic schoolyard bully type, who'd gleefully pounce on the opportunity to kick a man when he's down, whether the person in question had actually done anything to him or not.

As ShonTron points out, Brown really appears to be an opportunist and self-promoter more than anything else. Perhaps this has rubbed some of his fellow Cons the wrong way? Or is it that he's simply not reactionary enough for them? He always seemed pretty conservative to me, but then, my opinion hardly counts here. And then again, as the above reports indicate, there's a lot of truly ugly, nasty stuff happening behind the scenes to see who's going to grab control of the party. Certainly a lightweight like Brown doesn't stand a chance against wolves of this caliber.

So, what's the deal with Brown's apparent unpopularity? His slimier traits turn people off? Not right wing enough? Or is it just business? Nothing personal, as they say? Maybe a combination of all these factors? Who knows?

He’s popular enough to come from nowhere to win the Ontario PC leadership, to later move to Brampton and win the mayoralty the same year he was tossed out of the Ontario PCs, and then sell 150,000 memberships to be a top-tier candidate for federal leadership.

I think it’s a combination of not making enough friends within the party, not being a reactionary/right-wing enough, and being focused more on self-promotion than party politics. Having some issues in Barrie haven’t helped him, nor did an antagonistic Brampton establishment, but he’s not the only one. There were plenty of skeletons in Doug Ford’s closet – the claims of hash wholeselling, the anti-Semitism from the 2014 campaign, Renata Ford’s accusations – but they weren’t a problem for an opportunistic party.

Yes, Brown is opportunistic. But against an opportunistic bully like Ford or Poliviere, he has trouble.
 

PinkLucy

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
9,563
Reaction score
6,687
He appears opportunistic it not to the level others are. He seems more naive than they are and not as nasty or at least not as willing to be publicly nasty.

Also, the creep factor is strong. He gives off the vibes that would make me uncomfortable being alone with him.
 

Top