
What’s to be done about Andrew Scheer? He’s the most Western-entrenched Conservative leader since—well, since Rona Ambrose, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Preston Manning, Joe Clark and John Diefenbaker. He’s reduced the Conservatives to pariah status in the country’s big eastern cities, terrifying windswept concrete valleys of Laurentianism where gay people are prone to marry or parade without notice. He faces a leadership review vote at his party’s national convention next spring in—shudder—Toronto, and Conservatives are more or less openly discussing their options for a trade-in.
Sure, he gained 26 seats and a million votes over his predecessor Harper’s 2015 score, and he governs the largest opposition caucus, as a fraction of all seats in the Commons, since Pierre Trudeau’s brief turn as an opposition leader in 1979-80. He did win more votes and seats than other recent opposition leaders running their first national campaigns—more than Tom Mulcair in 2015, more than Harper in 2004—and more than Jack Layton did in the “Orange Wave” election of 2011, Layton’s fourth national campaign after three disappointing runs.
What preoccupies some Conservatives is what Scheer didn’t accomplish this time, and what he showed on the way. He ran a curiously passive campaign with a bean-counting message: his government would cost you less than Justin Trudeau’s. Running against a Liberal party with its most overtly values-based message since the Pierre Trudeau years, Scheer didn’t prepare an adequate defence against value attacks or mount a strong argument for a different worldview. He just hoped people wouldn’t ask him about abortion, sexuality, immigration, Indigenous issues or his own life story.
[…]
See Also:
(1) The government is getting more involved in Canadians’ lives – is this what we want?
(2) Scheer asked Canadians to trust him, while avoiding questions. Not a good look
Those who are proposing Peter Mackay as the next leader of the CPC had better think twice, as Paul Wells advises. If Mackay becomes leader, the next election campaign will see a resurrection of his peccadillos. The next leader – to be chosen not necessarily in the immediate future – should be one with a clean slate, preferably one who did not serve under Stephen Harper. Just to be clear: Mr. Harper was one of the best Canadian PMs, IMO. However, his stern image would probably be used once again, linking whichever policies of the Harper government the progressives dislike to any new leader with a Harper connection.
One of the major things Andrew Scheer supposedly needs to learn is to undergo some re-education re: his religious beliefs. Apparently, he needs to renounce some basic tenets of his religion. I am still more than baffled by the contradictory position of his critics and the same people opposed to Quebec’s Bill 21.
“The bill, since made law, bans public workers in positions of “authority” from wearing religious symbols, specifically while they are on duty. …
The law affects:
Any public employee who carries a weapon, including police officers, courthouse constables, bodyguards, prison guards, and wildlife officers
Crown prosecutors, government lawyers, and judges
School principals, vice-principals and teachers …”
Why my bafflement? Because critics continue to demand that people who openly express their religiosity should not be discriminated against (a generally-speaking laudable sentiment) yet the very same critics demand people like Andrew Scheer renounce basic tenets of their religion, tenets/issues which he has time and again stated he will not re-open to legislation.
Most major religions are against abortion (“reproductive rights” in progressive parlance), same-sex (or “equal”) marriage, and euthanasia (“assisted-dying”).
To prevent my comment from getting stuck in the filter, I am not going to use links, but google these if you wish to verify:
bbc.ethics/abortion
wikipedia.Catholic Church and abortion
wikipedia.Religious views on same-sex marriage
bbc,ethics/euthanasia/religion