Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  

which Ontario PC Leadership Candidate is the most electable in Ontario
Tim Hudak
40%
 40%  [ 9 ]
Christine Elliott
31%
 31%  [ 7 ]
Frank Klees
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Randy Hillier
13%
 13%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 22

Author Message
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diane Cunningham ran against Mike Harris for the Leadership of the PCs in 1990. She was the more "electable" candidate, as she was a woman and a red tory. Red Tories painted Mike Harris as too "extreme" to win an election. He lost the 1990 election, but went on to win two majority governments in 1999. He was from Nipissing and yet people in urban areas including the 416 voted for him.

When he resigned, Ernie Eves was seen as the most "electable" leader to move the party back towards the Bill Davis styled (conservative in name only) PCs. Eves went down to a big defeat. The party brass once again focused on "electability" over policy and chose John Tory as another quick fix to get back into power. He went down to a resounding defeat.

Mike Harris won elections not because he was "electable", elections weren't about him. He focused on policies. Policies won. John Tory lost because he focused on himself instead of policies, and the Mainstream media took one of his policies and turned it into a wedge issue.

My point? The choice for leader should be based on a policy - not appeasing the elites or the media. IMHO Hillier is the most sincere and committed to his values of less government and more freedom for individuals. Hudak, to me seems like more of a big-government conservative - using tax cuts as a social policy, instead of reducing government. Elliot, while I like her flat tax comes across as trying to appease everyone, instead of standing up for what she believes.
Except for Hillier, I am not sure if I know what the rest of the candidates honestly believe versus what they are saying just to get elected.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It really does not matter who become leader, it is how well they can communicate their message to the voters. Mike Harris did this well in the 1995 election. He came from the third party to the government, because while the Liberals were attacking the NDP, and the NDP were attacking the Liberals, Harris was laying his plan down for Ontario, and would not lower himself to the tactics by the Liberals or NDP mud slinging.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:


Mike Harris won elections not because he was "electable", elections weren't about him. He focused on policies. Policies won. John Tory lost because he focused on himself instead of policies, and the Mainstream media took one of his policies and turned it into a wedge issue.


Very well said,
We need a leader who will not be larger then the goals and policies of the party.

This is how we get into trouble.
Take2





Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Posts: 91
Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8Reputation: 7.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Reid wrote:
My point? The choice for leader should be based on a policy - not appeasing the elites or the media. IMHO Hillier is the most sincere and committed to his values of less government and more freedom for individuals. Hudak, to me seems like more of a big-government conservative - using tax cuts as a social policy, instead of reducing government. Elliot, while I like her flat tax comes across as trying to appease everyone, instead of standing up for what she believes.
Except for Hillier, I am not sure if I know what the rest of the candidates honestly believe versus what they are saying just to get elected
My sentiments exactly.

One of the biggest complaints I have about the Harper government is that they turned their back on what they said they were committed to doing and turned into another version of the Liberals.

I'm hoping and believe that Hillier's not going to make that same mistake on the provincial level. I feel he's more in touch with reality that some of the fed elites..
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does who would do the best job even factor into it?
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Does who would do the best job even factor into it?


It does. And actions speak louder than words. For me while I have every respect for Elliot and Hudak, and won't be upset if they win, Hillier hasn't just "talked" about conservative values only when he is in a closed room with party members. Hillier has been advocating for property rights for years. That is something that should transcend the urban/rural divide as property ownership is one of the best ways for a family to escape out of poverty. It's why home ownership is a the typical middle class canadian dream.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Hillier. He seems like a principled chap, I think his support for a Senate in Ontario is spot on in helping ensure rural areas can get decent representation.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Libertas wrote:
I like Hillier. He seems like a principled chap, I think his support for a Senate in Ontario is spot on in helping ensure rural areas can get decent representation.


An elected senate would ensure everyone gets decent representation, because as it stands now, an elected senate represents no one other than Prime Ministers.
Libertas





Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 358
Reputation: 14.6
votes: 6
Location: Medicine Hat, AB

PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My view of the Senate has been that it should be appointments done by the provincial governments instead of the Prime Minister. If Alberta wishes to elect Senators they should be allowed to do it, if Ontario wants them appointed by the Premier then all the power to them.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Which Ont PC leadership Cand is most electable

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB