Wednesday, December 12, 2007

John Tory's Majority Report

At the risk us being linked again to, I have a problem with the so-called "yes campaign" setting the bar for John Tory.

The reality is this:

1) John Tory only needs 50% + 1 to vote no to a leadership review to stay on

The constituion is quite clear on this matter. Past practice will not work here. In this case, we have a leader that not only lost the election but lost his seat. He has something to prove and he will accept 50% + 1

2) The YES side must be in trouble

If it thinks it can only manage 20% of the vote. I have made my feelings about the leadership perfectly clear. My frustration with how this campaign was handled, the lack of organization more than the "faith based funding issue" and the fact that we seemed woefully unprepared for an election we knew was going to occur points all blame to the leader. Tory has taken responsibility and is now working overtime to keep a job he doesn't really need. You learn more from losing than winning sometimes, so hopefully Tory has learned a lot this time out.

However, if the yes side wants a leadership review, they need 50% + 1. Anything less and Tory stays.

Tory stays and I will refuse to vote for him .. again.

Maybe next time I'll cast my ballot against him instead of just staying home in disgust.
I don't think the yes side has an organized enough campaign (at least so far) to have any sort of accurate prediction on what percent of the vote they will get. They just wanted to make the point that Tory does need a significant portion of the party to support him if our party wants to be unified going into the 2011 election.

Tory does need more than just 50%+1 to stay on as an effective leader. If he gets only 65% (for instance) and stays on, I will leave the party and wait until after the 2011 election loss to join again. Even though I'm voting yes for a leadership review, I'll stay in the party if Tory gets significant support because I know that there will be a chance people could pull together, create an actual policy document, then fight a good election.
I watched the video and then thought about your musings that perhaps the YES campaign cannot muster more than 20%.

Last week you critized the guy running because he wasn't taking advantage of the media they way you thought he should. You said something about building it and they will come, mentality.

What if these guys are just a little smarter than that. Seems to me that Tory has been hiding behind Capobiano and Runciman and when they did let him out last week in Windsor - he said that he had the support of the "vast Majority".

These guys waited one week until Tory finally popped out of his box in Ottawa today, and poor John did not get his meeting with the big guns of the CPC as he claimed in last weeks Toronto Star article.

No feel good story tomorrow for Dear John. If there is any story, I suspect it will have something to do with them quoting his own words in the 80 minus 1 campaign.

Pretty slick for amateurs
905-er: In fairness, I wrote about the whack-a-leader dudes and their inability to use the media they received to the best advantage.

Q is the clown who is saying that Tory only needs 50%+1 - which is laughable.

In terms of effectively leading a political party, there is very little difference between a constitutional authority to lead and the moral authority to do so.

Although I submit that a full frontal attack against Tory probably plays into his hand. No one likes to see the class egghead getting beaten in the face.
Oh and I think a PUMPKIN could have come up with the idea of baiting Tory on what constitutes the "vast majority" of the Party.

Its the age old question reporters and others of their ilk ask leaders undergoing a review of their leadership: what percentage is enough for you to stay on.

If they hadn't done that, I would have been surprised that they were smart enough to turn on their computer.
My point is that for the yes side to ensure a leadership review, it must get 50% plus 1.

By arbitrarily deciding that John Tory needs to get 80 percent, they have ceded the decision to him.


PS Why does a leader who wins the leadership with 50% plus 1 have the moral authority to lead the party, but a leader who survives a leadership review with 50% plus one does not?
Funny but the only people that had a big problem with the 'faith based funding issue' seems to be the media and its controllers. In fact those same people only years before were resoundingly supportive of the idea. So what changed? I'm guessing Muslim immigration changed it. Why don't people tell the truth and say that Tory is a lot like Dion. (real conservative)
Q: You may have the constitutional authority at 50% plus one, but you certainly don't have the moral authority.

You need both to lead.

You had to get out of the big cities to see what a turn off "faith based funding" was, especially for our core supporters.


Again, I ask you this: If we can elect a leader with 50% plus 1 and say he has the moral and constitutional authority to lead, why is the leadership review different.

'Splain it to me and use small words so I can understand.
"At the risk us being linked again to,"

You don't like links? :)

Seriously, the points and discussions here are valid and are part of what we want to get out to the average member.

As to why 50+1 is not acceptable as a total. Quite simply, a political party relies on me for my money and /or volunteer hours. At 50+1, they won't be getting much of either from a lot of people.
Q: That's a fair point, but I think that you would agree that once a leder is elected, the Party generally supports them.

With a leadership review, there are no other options - its the leader or..... something different. We don't know who will run or what they stand for.

I persoanlly feel that its pretty damning if a Leader can't get more than half the Party to support them over the unknown.

People are essentially saying "I'm not sure who the candidates might be, but any of those that may come forward are better than you."

That's pretty sad.

Oh, and BBS: Of course we like the traffic. We're whores that way.

But we don't want this to become a whack-a-leader jr site. We have much more important things to talk about. Like Britney Spears and youtube. ;-)
B Double

Of course it's damning if the leader can't get 50%. If he can't get 50%, we get a leadership race.


PS Let's find some more Britney Spears stuff and get off this Tory crap for a while.
Like Ontario voters have a clue, B-double. They voted unanimously (63.4 per cent) in favour of a rusted, archaic and out-of-date electoral system.

So it's not surprising that the few that turned out to vote (barely 52 per cent --- most who were obviously status quo huggers), would cast their votes in favour of a guy like McGuinty.

So to be honest, you should be glad you had a leader in Tory who stands for nothing, because if you didn't, judging from the people who turned out, your party would have been wiped right off the map.
The reason voter turnout was 52% is because people who are conservative didn't show up to vote. They were not motivated to vote. The policies to motivate those people were not in place, therefore the money and volunteers were not in place to have the infrastructure to get them out to vote.

It was all about John Tory. And now it will be all about accountability.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]