Return Of Lewis?

This could be a complete coincidence, but the Conservatives still need a candidate in Toronto Centre, and my old Conservative opponent just left his job:

MGI was being run by Lewis Reford, who left the firm this week, and was previously an investment banker at JP Morgan Canada and an unsuccessful candidate for the federal Conservatives in Toronto. After arriving in 2006, Mr. Reford took on what proved the unpopular task of imposing a new compensation and ownership plan. A number of employees choose to leave when the scheme was put in place, with Genuity Capital Markets picking up much of MGI’s Calgary-based energy team.

Would he fit into this job description? And would he be comfortable with this being his last chance?

6 thoughts on “Return Of Lewis?

  1. Hey Chris, don’t get too smug about the CPC’s two strikes and you’re out policy.

    It appears twice defeated CPC candidates can morph into GPC candidates once their two lives are used up. Case in point- twice losing GPC *Star* CPC candidate Gary Caldwell.

    As the GPC critic for electoral reform, what do you think about that press release? Or the leader’s embrace of this newby candidate, warranting a CTV Question Period announcement and subsequent GPC press release?

    Q: Was this individual elected by the EDA in a contest, or simply appointed by the leader?

    Do you agree with the characterization that he is “principled” for returning questionable advertising funds once ruled improper by Elections Canada? Wouldn’t a truly “principled” person have refused them to begin with?

    Afterall, the funds would have been used in national CPC advertising against other parties to influenece voters – including then GPC candidates (you being one example).

    Just wondering. The situation may arise in the future in other ridings as twice defeated CPC candidates seek longer shelf life, pushing aside long time party activists.

  2. Hi Dot,

    I don’t see what you’re getting at. Please try and focus your criticisms (you’re a bit scattered here) and express them respectfully. That will help me respond in a useful way. As is, here’s the best I can do.

    1. I’ve linked to the referenced press release myself, so yes, you can trust that I’m fully supportive of it and excited that Mr. Caldwell is running for us.

    2. I’m not sure of the process that was followed in this case, but knowing my leader I’d be very surprised if she made any decisions without the blessing of the local association. Regardless, I’ve never claimed that leaders should never appoint candidates, nor am I aware of any other national political party that doesn’t appoint at least some candidates centrally for a variety of reasons.

    3. Yes, Mr. Caldwell’s actions demonstrate that he’s principled. When he first participated in the “in and out” program, he did so with the understanding that it was legal. As soon as he was advised otherwise, he did the right thing and re-filed. The fact that all but one of the other candidates did not is shocking.

    Your last paragraph is just nonsense. No “party activists” have been pushed aside.

    ps. If you expect me to continue to allow your comments, you’ll need to start using either:

    1. A real name.
    2. A real email address.
    3. A constructive tone.
    4. Reason.

    Or any of the above in combination. Otherwise, don’t be surprised if your comments stop showing up.

  3. Chris , thanks for your comments. You can censor my comments anytime you like. The “reason” I did bring up the questions over how this particular individual came to have such a high profile had to do with your comments on your subsequent blog video (good job btw – credible and articulate – but in fairness, you should also list the other four participants in your intro – why just WK? You doing an EM here?).

    You suggested that one reason for lower voter turnout and disillusionment with the electoral process was too much centralized decision making, not enough grass roots. So, here was an opportune time for me to test your convictions:

    1. You supported the candidates nomination – without knowing the circumstances of whether they were appointed or competed

    2. You accepted the spin in the press release on the funding without question

    3. You state: “Your last paragraph is just nonsense. No “party activists” have been pushed aside.” Not successfully. But I do recall the efforts of EM to encourage others to vote for NOTA when it came to the nomination of Dan Grice in Vancouver Quadra. I’ve never heard of the guy beforehand but he seems to be a good candidate based upon some of his blog entries on the GPC website. Do a media search if you’re not familiar with the circumstances.

    Go ahead and delete. Fine with me.

  4. Actually, Elizabeth was asked by local members in Vancouver Quadra to write a letter to the riding association asking them to postpone their nomination meeting to a later date (not to vote for NOTA). The letter emphasized, however, that the decision was theirs (which, ultimately, it was, and the meeting went ahead). I fail to see the wrongdoing.

    And yes, Dan is a solid candidate and he has the full support of the central party and the leader.

  5. The day before the nomination meeting, May sent an open letter to the riding association asking for more time to find candidates.

    In her letter, May wrote, “a vote for None of the Above or a vote to re-open the nomination process would be appreciated. Either decision would give myself and the national leadership … the opportunity to secure a high-profile candidate.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *