Comments on: Ontario PC Membership Numbers

By: K

Sat, 30 May 2009 17:50:56 +0000

Not anymore, maybe Tim was stronger when he started campaigning 2 years ago but once everyone joined the race when it was official he definitly lost his momentum. As for his supporters listed on his web are not accurate and considered soft support. I like Tim but he is runing too fast without thinking and this goes with experience, maybe next time Tim.

By: Ontoryo

Ontoryo — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:21:19 +0000

I don't understand when and why the pundits resigned Klees to a first ballot loss in the first place.

It's not like he is coming way out of left (or right) field. He has been a longtime MPP, minister, and a former leadership contender.

He may have a lot of grassroots support, this proves he wasn't as deformed as (some) people thought he was...

Contrary to to what the Hudak Camp believes, not every Harris-Blue Tory is supporting them and many who originally signed on with them are loose, where as the other campaigns seem to be holding support.

And why are so many people pushing the idea that "Hillier will do better than you think".

He clearly will not. Get over it. Hillier may be "fun", but we're running for Premier, not Mayor of Springfield (Plus, Quimby is a lock)

Christine has a ton of top level support, and good for Jim for arranging all of that for her, but on the ground she is pretty weak.

All campaigns numbers will be in/deflated, and concentrated. It's politics.

These clearly put Klees/Elliott as frontrunners, with 2nd ballot figure in... Klees has the lead

By: Jack Redpath

Jack Redpath — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:12:07 +0000

Tony, huge fan – keep up the great work on the exec.

I would have to say though that the only one who can say they “championed” the policy process is Klees. As a long time party member I was at the convention when he was on the executive and brought forward the PAC process.

I would also suggest any leadership candidate who has come out with as many policy “proclamations” as Hudak has doesn’t necessarily respect the policy process either.

Just as importantly as you saying if we had the policy process in place the Faith Based Funding issue wouldn’t come up – it wouldn’t have come up either if all three candidates last time had not promised during the leadership race to address the issue. Perhaps policies that are announced during this leadership race could be the sword we fall on next time.

I’m voting for Christine but I wish they would stop making commitments (ie flat tax), they could in a few years become toxic and we saw where that got us last time.

By: Issues that really matter

Issues that really matter — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:59:10 +0000

It seems that Stephen has broken another story since I have heard similar numbers from others now for a few days. I read the comments posted here with great interest as to this point, this leadership campaign has been quite positive and I am encouraged that the leadership candidates seem to recognize that win or lose, they will have to find a way to work together going forward. These candidates represent the cream of the Ontario PC Caucus and all bring much to the table. Having had the chance to hear a few of them speak, I know they seem to consider one another friends and colleagues and it would be nice to see posters here try and stick to discussions about issues instead of drive by smears. It is obvious that all the Leadership candidates supported the school funding proposal in the last election, at least publically. For me, the more important issue is about determining which of these people is best equipped to defeat the real enemy – Dalton McGuinty – in the next provincial election; it's about evaluating which of these folks has the right blend of experience to manage our Party to victory and to bring prosperity back to Ontario. I have decided to support Frank Klees because I think his experience in business and government make him most qualified to manage our party and to defeat Dalton McGuinty in 2011. I think the other candidates have a lot of promise and may someday be the right choice to become leader of our Party, but for now, I am not sold that they have the experience and skills to win in 2011.

By: canpac

canpac — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:32:36 +0000

I certainly don't question your numbers, and in fact they make sense to me. The one thing that I can say about Klees, is that he has been supportive of the other candidates and their worth. While others across the province are spinning the future we have to keep in mid the wishes of the party to have as bloodless a battle forthe leadership as possible. Klees has done his share, and the voters recognize it. The question perhaps should be,who has demonstrated that they will best be able to pull the party together again when all is said and done. In my opinion that is Klees, he has always been a class act, and continues to deliver.

By: Melanie

Melanie — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:45:11 +0000

It does not surprise me at all that Klees has sold the most memberships! Don't forget he didn't start his campaign until John Tory had officially resigned, which is why it appeared his campaign was off to a slow start and had no steam at all. Klees has strong support in his riding (where I live) because he's been an exceptional MPP. He's very accessible and he's been an effective leader. What I think is most important about him is that he's not a career politician – he was a successful businessman before becoming an MPP – and it's that kind of experience and leadership sorely needed in this province right now. I have a feeling his campaign is just getting warmed up, and the more people get to know him and hear him speak, they'll be as convinced as I am that he'll be a great premier!

And how many times does the lie need to be refuted that he had anything to do with the faith-based school funding debacle?! Let it go, he had nothing to do with it! http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/artic...

By: thinktwice

thinktwice — Sun, 17 May 2009 13:15:11 +0000

Hudak has been crystal clear that the issue of public funding for religious schools was decided in the 2007 election, and that he won't be bringing it back. If you need more specific evidence, get a transcript of the media Q&A when he announced his candidacy and he spoke to it very directly.

The fact that somebody has dug up a link to a pre-election web page (from June 2007) in which Hudak loyally supported Tory's platform is neither here nor there. I would expect that all of the candidates were on the record supporting Tory's platform in 2007.

By: east of eden

east of eden — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:47:44 +0000

Personally, I'd like Runciman to run – every time I listen to him speak, I'm more impressed. Unfortunately, he's not running.

By: The Realist

The Realist — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:26:23 +0000

"A source close to the Party", eh? How is Richard Ciano anyway, Stephen?

Its interesting that these numbers are EXACTLY what I've personally heard the big-headed Patrick Harris running around telling everyone who will listen.

The campaign that was pulling out 190-year old Kay Weatherall and Senator Lowell Murray - who sits as a PROGRESSIVE Conservative, rather than in the Conservative caucus in the Senate - as plum endorsements this week is the campaign with the "big mo "? Uh, yeah. Oh, and I forgot the John Hastings endorsement. Hell, that will put her over the top. I'd watch the houseplants at HQ, though. Might find a bit of a surprise when Johnny is in town. .

If you look on her website today, she has article after article talking about how she's "on the move". Her team are ALL over Twitter pumping up her numbers (and this article, of course. Can't imagine why, right Stephen?). If she's doing so well, why spend so much time and effort trying to convince the unwashed masses?

Desperation - its what's for dinner.

Sure Christine Hogarth over at PCHQ is calling it a horserace. I can't imagine why. Why would anyone in the Party want to ensure this thing is competitive in the media?

What a joke.

By: look in the mirror

look in the mirror — Sat, 16 May 2009 21:36:19 +0000

Actually what I'm surprised about is this comment. I haven't heard or seen a single number from “Elliott people”. If anything, they have been surprisingly quiet, not claiming any number big or small.

Now I know there has been at least one outlandish number being pushed by a campaign that is double what Stephen reported in this article – in fact if you scroll up you can see it in this comment thread. I believe it was your own campaign claiming this big number.