Canadians Now Have A Minority Government. So What!

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Canadians Now Have A Minority Government. So What!

It could be worse such as the following three, and a few other scenarios, that are probably not within the realm of possibility but still don't get too excited yet. So far it does not appear to be a good beginning for the Liberals by the time of the next election all this will be forgotten by the voters, eh!

Conservative Majority

Conservative Minority,

Liberal Majority

Just sayin'

NorthReport

Thank goodness there is no majority government for people like class act Don Davies

NDP’s Don Davies makes history as longest-serving MP for Vancouver-Kingsway

Davies easily returns for his fourth mandate, nearly doubling the votes of Liberal candidate Tamara Taggart

 

https://www.vancourier.com/news/ndp-s-don-davies-makes-history-as-longest-serving-mp-for-vancouver-kingsway-1.23984080

NorthReport

 

Thank goodness there is no majority government for class acts like Jenny Kwan

Re-elected Vancouver East MP Jenny Kwan says New Democrats will bring strong voice to Ottawa

 

https://www.straight.com/news/1316611/re-elected-vancouver-east-mp-jenny-kwan-says-new-democrats-will-bring-strong-voice

KarlL

Good to see Gord Johns get elected.  

NDPP

On the Outcome of the October 21 Federal Election

http://communist-party.ca/on-the-outcome-of-the-october-21-federal-elect...

"After an intense 40-day election campaign, neither Big Business political party has won a majority in the new Parliament. In its preliminary comment on the outcome, the Central Executive Committee of the CPC welcomes the defeat of Andrew Scheer's Conservatives, who represented the worst danger to working people and the environment, and the failure of the far-right People's Party to elect a single candidate.

The outcome on October 21 presents an opportunity to press for more than just campaign rhetoric; but we also stress that despite claims to be progressive, none of the parties in the new Parliament stand for fundamental social and economic change, or a break with Canada's pro-imperialist foreign policy..."

Pondering

I wasn't expecting the Trudeau government to be super progressive. I didn't expect PR to happen. I did expect cannabis legalization. There was one other thing I expected.

Before the campaign Trudeau was speaking about indigenous children not receiving equivalent funding for education. He pointed out that 70% of jobs of the future will require post-secondary education. Indigenous peoples have the highest birth rate in Canada. If we fail to educate them the country will pay for it economically. 

I thought he got it. Spending on education is an investment a country can't afford not to make. It is economically short-sighted. We should be doing everything possible to have the best educated population in the world. Why don't politicians get that? It's not like voters would be against well-funded excellent schools. 

There is always a reason if only inertia but that doesn't explain it. Could it be that politicians believe we need lower classes to fill low-paying service jobs? Are they concerned that a well-educated indigenous population will be more difficult to manipulate?

NDPP

Well educated in Canada means easier to manipulate actually. Just look around...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NDPP wrote:

Well educated in Canada means easier to manipulate actually. Just look around...

Freeland in a riding that is the heart of Upper Canada's intelligentsia got over 50% of the vote. Canadians like imperialism and the nastier it is the better.

Hurtin Albertan

At least with a Conservative majority you probably wouldn't see or hear much from Jason Kenney.  He'll be even more insufferable after this.

Sean in Ottawa

This is an effective majority. The Liberals can do what they want on most issues where there is a binary response with support from either the conservatives or NDP. The NDP have next to no bargaining power.

The electoral finance mess we are in means the NDP wanting to cause an election is akin to self immolation.Voters would punish a party that caused - even if they had money to campaign.

NDPP

[quote=kropotkin1951

Canadians like imperialism and the nastier it is the better.

NDPP wrote:

True. But only in 'progressive' packaging:

"Our troops have done a wonderful job in Libya over the past few months. I want to salute the efforts and courage of our troops. New Democrats are proud to have supported Libyans in their quest for democracy..." NDP news statement, October 20, 2011

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

In terms of negotiations between the parties, even though the NDP on its own can give the Liberals a majority, the Green Party needs to be invited to these talks, and the NDP should insist on it. There are several good reasons for this. Both the NDP and the Greens campaigned very seriously on dealing with climate change, so having the Greens on board will give that plan credibility. Elizabeth May also has accused the NDP of trying to shut her out and exclude Greens. This will finally force May's hand, and whether she sits down in good faith or not, her actions will clearly reveal her character for all the world to see. Not inviting the Greens only plays into May's hands, and she will also raise the issue of the silencing of a party that is not only led by a woman but has a majority-woman caucus.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Sean, it's an effective majority but not A majority. ;)

NorthReport

How Trudeau’s broken promise on election reform may haunt him now

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/10/22/Trudeau-Electoral-Reform-Broken-Promise/

NorthReport

So that was quite an arrogant speech last nite from Justin acting like he got a majority. Is he nuts?

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Liberals lose majority in election 2019, will dominate minority Parliament

 

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2019/10/liberals-lose-majority-election-2019-will-dominate-minority-parliament

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

How Trudeau’s broken promise on election reform may haunt him now

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/10/22/Trudeau-Electoral-Reform-Broken-Promise/

Silly article. The Liberals would not be better off with fewer seats and would likely never win another majority again.  They would have to form a coalition to maintain power. 

As it stands the Liberals can pass just about any legislation they want.  The Liberals have no regrets about rejecting reform. To think so completely misunderstands the Liberal party. 

Sean in Ottawa

jatt_1947 wrote:

Sean, it's an effective majority but not A majority. ;)

What part of "This is an effective majority." could you not read?

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In terms of negotiations between the parties, even though the NDP on its own can give the Liberals a majority, the Green Party needs to be invited to these talks, and the NDP should insist on it. There are several good reasons for this. Both the NDP and the Greens campaigned very seriously on dealing with climate change, so having the Greens on board will give that plan credibility. Elizabeth May also has accused the NDP of trying to shut her out and exclude Greens. This will finally force May's hand, and whether she sits down in good faith or not, her actions will clearly reveal her character for all the world to see. Not inviting the Greens only plays into May's hands, and she will also raise the issue of the silencing of a party that is not only led by a woman but has a majority-woman caucus.

Frankly the NDP supporters should insist on it. The NDP does not ahve the ability to force through electoral reform agaisnt the wishes of the Conservatives and Liberals. The NDP and the Greens are not reliably viable apart and each trying to kill the other is a waste of resources and will not succeed. Canada needs a sustainability party and the leaderships of the parties need to understand this and make it happen.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

The preachy, gauzy, meaningless aphorisms don't suffice, Justin Trudeau

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/neil-macdonald-trudeau-opinion-1.5331427

NorthReport

Canada's national unity crisis is, in fact, a problem of climate illiteracy

Justin Trudeau can take steps to fix this if he has sufficient political will

 

https://www.straight.com/news/1316661/so-called-national-unity-crisis-canada-fact-problem-climate-illiteracy

NorthReport

National Newsaatch - has anyone looked at it today. What an absolute pile of uneventful dribble that passes for news. Jeesh!

NorthReport
NorthReport

Meanwhile in the real world The Libs and the Cons will vote in favour and it will proceed unless stopped by the courts

https://www.straight.com/news/1317081/ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh-faces-pressure-try-veto-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion

NorthReport
NorthReport

Cons

Election post-mortem, Part 1: A Conservative insider explains how his party got it so wrong

ANALYSIS: TVO.org speaks with a senior Tory official about bad data, bad assumptions — and why leader Andrew Scheer should have gone to Pride

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-1-a-conservative-insider-explains-how-his-party-got-it-so-wrong

NorthReport

NDP

Election post-mortem, Part 2: Why did the NDP get blown out? A war-room strategist explains

ANALYSIS: TVO.org speaks with a party insider about why “NDP curious” voters got spooked at the last minute

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-2-why-did-the-ndp-get-blown-out-a-war-room-strategist-explains

NorthReport

How many ridings did the Greens cost the NDP?

People’s Party may have cost the Tories 6 ridings on election night

https://globalnews.ca/news/6071771/ppc-conservative-spoiler-election/

NorthReport

Canada's pollsters nailed the outcome of the federal election - mostly

The polls said it would be close and the projections always favoured the Liberals

Éric Grenier · CBC News · Posted: Oct 24, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

The polls suggested it would be close, but with Liberal leads in Ontario and Quebec, a Liberal minority government was seen as the most likely outcome of the election by the CBC's Poll Tracker and other projections. (Sebastien St.-Jean/AFP via Getty Images)

201

comments

Politicians and pundits love nothing more than to say the polls can't be trusted. After all, the numbers frequently get in the way of talking points or convenient narratives.

But in the 2019 federal election, the polls did pretty well — and where they didn't, they offer clues about what happened on Monday.

Roughly 120 national surveys and dozens of regional and riding polls were published during the 40-day campaign. Twelve different pollsters released national survey results in the last week of the election. All of them were relatively close to the final outcome.

The polls captured the close race between the Liberals and Conservatives from start to finish, the steep rise of the Bloc Québécois, the growth of the New Democrats and slumping support for the Greens.

How those numbers broke down at the regional level suggested how difficult it would be for any party to secure a majority of seats, and pointed to the Liberals as the party in the best position to emerge at the head of a minority government.

The Conservatives finished the night with 34.4 per cent of ballots cast, edging out the Liberals' 33.1 per cent. The New Democrats took 15.9 per cent of the vote, followed by the Bloc at 7.7 per cent, the Greens at 6.5 per cent and the People's Party at 1.6 per cent.

Those 12 pollsters pegged the Conservatives at between 30 and 33 per cent, the Liberals at between 29 and 34 per cent, the NDP at between 14 and 21 per cent, the Greens at between six and nine per cent and the People's Party at between one and four per cent. In Quebec, most pollsters were close in predicting the 32.5 per cent the Bloc captured.

Considering the margins of error for all of these polls, that's almost as good as it gets.

In fact, every pollster but one had an average error of less than three percentage points for the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. Four pollsters (Léger, Abacus Data, Mainstreet Research and Ipsos), along with the CBC's Poll Tracker, predicted all three parties' results within three points.

The final polls by Léger and Abacus had the lowest total error, at just under six percentage points. Mainstreet and Ipsos each had a total error of eight points. These were the four pollsters whose total error was lower than the Poll Tracker's, which had a total error of nine points. The other eight pollsters had total error ranging from 10 to 14 points.

Results of the 2019 federal election compared to the final poll by 12 different pollsters and the averages compiled by the CBC's Poll Tracker. (CBC)

Both the Conservatives and Liberals were largely under-estimated in the polls — every pollster undershot the Conservatives by between one and four points, while 10 of 12 did the same for the Liberals. The New Democrats and (to a lesser extent) the Greens were over-estimated across the board.

There are some reasonable explanations for those small errors. Strategic voting might have played into the hands of the Liberals, peeling off a few NDP and Green voters at the ballot box. Polls suggested supporters of these parties were the least committed and the most likely to flip to the Liberals.

The Conservatives might have seen a bump at the ballot box due to turnout; their supporters are disproportionately older, and older people are more likely to vote. Their large and unexpected numbers in Western Canada might also have played a significant role.

Conservatives beat their polls in Western Canada

At the regional level, the aggregate performance of the polls — as measured by the Poll Tracker — was largely on the mark. But there were some big errors in Alberta and the Prairies.

The Conservatives beat their aggregate polls in Saskatchewan and Manitoba by 9.5 percentage points and in Alberta by 8.5 points — a significant miss that might not have delivered many more seats to the party but would have been worth nearly two percentage points at the national level. That alone explains much of the low-balling of Conservative support in the polls.

The party was only under-estimated by two points in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and in Ontario by only one. The Liberals were over-estimated in Western Canada but slightly under-estimated in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada — which explains in part why the Liberals did better in the seat count than was widely expected.

It's possible that polls were not measuring all of the dissatisfaction with the Liberals in Western Canada. It's also possible that many progressive voters in this region did not consider it worthwhile to cast a ballot. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance, the Conservatives captured a majority of the vote in 43 of 48 ridings.

How the seat projection did

There was certainly a big audience for all of the polls published over the course of the campaign — the Poll Tracker received millions of visits over that time. The Poll Tracker's average projection was close to the mark but, like the polls that made it up, it under-estimated both the Conservatives and the Liberals to the benefit of the NDP, Greens and People's Party.

The seat results all fell well within each party's estimated seat ranges of the Poll Tracker. The Liberals ended the night with 157 seats, against 121 for the Conservatives, 32 for the Bloc, 24 for the NDP, three for the Greens and one Independent.

The precise projection, at 137 Liberals, 124 Conservatives, 39 Bloc, 35 NDP and one seat apiece for the Greens, People's Party and Independents was not as close as it could have been — the Bloc and NDP were too high and the Liberals too low. Other projections, like those put out by EKOS Research and Mainstreet Research in particular, were closer.

In all, 87 per cent of ridings were correctly called and 98 per cent of the winners were identified within the 95 per cent confidence interval (94 per cent within the 68 per cent interval).

The ghosts of MPs past

The biggest source of error was the seats that were called for the NDP but actually ended up going to the Liberals — this alone was responsible for a net eight-seat miss in the national seat projection.

The list of those misses is instructive, as they include seats like Halifax and Sackville–Preston–Chezzetcook in Nova Scotia, Acadie–Bathurst in New Brunswick and Toronto–Danforth, Nickel Belt, Thunder Bay–Rainy River and Hamilton East–Stoney Creek in Ontario.

These are all seats where the NDP had a history of electoral success until 2015. Their under-performance in these ridings suggests that the loss of long-time MPs had a particularly significant impact on support for the NDP in these ridings; without these names on the ballot, the NDP brand was not strong enough to win the seat.

Liberal wins in ridings that were projected to go Conservative were largely around Kitchener-Waterloo and seats like Burlington, St. Catharines and Whitby in the Golden Horseshoe — suggesting that the Conservatives have lost some underlying strength here.

A less efficient Bloc vote than projected explains much of the rest — a few Liberal and Conservative incumbents proved more resilient than expected.

As always, there will be some calibrating of the seat projection model in the wake of the results — particularly when it comes to projecting ridings where a party's history of support might be tied more closely to departed MPs or candidates than to a party's brand.

But with the exception of a single day, the Poll Tracker always showed the Liberals in a better position to win more seats than the Conservatives — even when they were trailing in the popular vote — and short of a majority government. In this campaign, at least, you could trust the polls.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-poll-postmortem-1.5332548

NorthReport

Post-Mortem canada 2019: Trudeau pulls a Trump, NDP vote not coming out

   Tuesday, October 22, 2019

After what will likely not be remembered as a great election, Justin Trudeau managed to win a surprisingly strong minority. This happened with a mix of polling failure - namely the NDP vote clearly not coming out - along with an incredible vote efficiency of the Liberals. The number of ridings won by a few hundred votes is astonishing. Multiple ones in the GTA and pretty much every single close ridings in Quebec against the Bloc ultimately went red.

 

So like Trump, Trudeau won while losing the popular vote. With only 33% of the vote, this is one of the lowest score for a governing party in a long time. Coupled with a weaker turnout - around 65% - this means the Liberals 

https://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2019/10/post-mortem-canada-2019-trudeau-pulls.html

NorthReport

 

Thursday, 24 October 2019

In full transparency

Dear readers,

I have updated to website to show the contrast between the final 338Canada projection and the actual election results. By browsing through the website, you will notice that the correct winner was identified in 299 of 338 districts (88,4%). Among the remaining 39, the correct winner was within the margin of error (moe) 27 times.

Twelve districts were complete misses (wrong winner outside moe).

In the following weeks, I will study those districts that were wrong and work to improve the model.

The graphs of individual districts are static images and look like this:


The couloured bars are the confidence intervals and the black dots, the election results for each party.

You will see some pretty awesome projections, such as Barrie–Springwater–Oro-Medonte (Ontario):

Or Hamilton-Mountain (Ontario):

Or Saskatoon-University (Saskatchewan):

But you will also come across some misses, like Central Nova (Nova Scotia):

Ouch. Or Montmagny–L'Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup (Quebec):

Or Elmwood-Transcona (Manitoba):

The goal here is transparency.

Some readers online will surely mock my misses, and I guess I have to live with it. But I believe most readers will see it for what it is: a statistical ensemble of 338 districts. Naturally, there were going to be some misses - "hyperlocal effects" are not easy to decipher during a campaign where I have to pay attention to all 338.

But 88,4% (299/338) correctly identified winners?

Only 12 (12/338 = 3,6%) wrong winners outside the margin of error?

That's not bad at all.

You can find your districts here:

 


Philippe J. Fournier is the creator of Qc125 and 338Canada. He teaches physics and astronomy at Cégep de Saint-Laurent in Montreal. For information or media request, please write to info@Qc125.com.

https://blog.338canada.com/2019/10/in-full-transparency.html

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

NDP

Election post-mortem, Part 2: Why did the NDP get blown out? A war-room strategist explains

ANALYSIS: TVO.org speaks with a party insider about why “NDP curious” voters got spooked at the last minute

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-2-why-did-the-ndp-get-blown-out-a-war-room-strategist-explains

This strategist does not seem to be out of touch. I guess that is hopeful.

The NDP has a problem in nationally campaigning against strategic voting. It cannot just say here are ridings that cannot go Conservative do not vote Liberal there without allowing that they are pitching the other ridings to the wolves. It is very hard to describe the line between a LPC-CPC race where strategic voting has to be understood and a LPC-NDP race where it must be discouraged without saying where that line is. The only thing left is to discourage all strategic voting but I think most who would consider this discount this NDP messaging as unrealistic and out of touch with their reality. Certainly the NDP messaging is popular in the NDP best places but in the places it matters most, the message is not getting through becuase of the obvious problem of not distinguishing between more credible strategic voting and totally ridiculous ones.

I do not ahve a solution except perhaps that maybe we are wrong to not accept the Liberals on the transferable vote ballot. That option puts strategic voting in the hands of every voter without risk. Perhaps by pretending we can get PR when it is clear we have no power to get it we are giving up on a middle option that actually might help somewhat. Perhaps PR might be considered in the future by a parliament elected by STV. I have no faith that we can get PR out of a parliament elected by FPTP.

The present situation illustrates how minority does not necessarily give the means for a third party to influence government significantly -- even though you might wait 20 years to get a minority with FPTP.

We are dreaming of the past when there were just 3 parties and a minority meant a balance of power between two bigger ones. When there aremultiple dance partners it means even the second biggest one can be a partner. Ultimately you ahve almost as much power in this minority as you have in a majority -- just like the last two minorities.

The last time you had a minority with any power to the third part was 15 years ago and the time before that was when most Canadians were not even born.

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

KarlL

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

STV would eliminate strategic voting (up to a point).  There could stil be games played, like hard right wingers choosing the NDP second, to deny Liberals a vote in a riding in which the Conservatives and Liberals are closely competitive but in which the NDP isn't.  The same would be true in other permutations.  That said, that is an insider's play and all the sketchy facebook stuff isn't going to be able to get Canadians to start those sorts of games on a broad basis.

It would certainly allow for a more head-to-head competition on which policies/candidates you like rather than who do you least want to form government.

Pondering

The seats lost in Quebec were due to Singh's turban and Bill 21. In terms of evaluating the NDP's performance for this election that must be taken into account. Based on policy I believe the NDP would have won those seats and more. 

Sean in Ottawa

KarlL wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

STV would eliminate strategic voting (up to a point).  There could stil be games played, like hard right wingers choosing the NDP second, to deny Liberals a vote in a riding in which the Conservatives and Liberals are closely competitive but in which the NDP isn't.  The same would be true in other permutations.  That said, that is an insider's play and all the sketchy facebook stuff isn't going to be able to get Canadians to start those sorts of games on a broad basis.

It would certainly allow for a more head-to-head competition on which policies/candidates you like rather than who do you least want to form government.

Please fix the messed up quotes here

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

The seats lost in Quebec were due to Singh's turban and Bill 21. In terms of evaluating the NDP's performance for this election that must be taken into account. Based on policy I believe the NDP would have won those seats and more. 

The seats lost in Quebec were due to many factors -- including that the NDP was far too weak going in. The Turban was well defended by Singh and likely was not a complete negative.

Seats that could have been won were lost across the country for some of the same reasons -- mostly the extreme weakness of the NDP and an inability to trust a vote for the NDP as not being a waste in too many places.

To counter this the NDP has to wage a social media war that does not stop so people really do believe the NDP will be able to fight for them rather than just want to fight for them.

That was what lost the NDP seats and it was everywhere.

Pondering

The Bloc resurgence is entirely due to Quebec defensiveness over Bill 21. While Singh may have reassured some over his turban Quebecers strongly agree that leaders and people in government in general should not wear religious symbols. I hoped he could overcome it but never really believed that he could. Were it not for Bill 21 he may have been able to overcome discomfort with it but Bill 21 hightened emotions over it at exactly the wrong time. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

The Bloc resurgence is entirely due to Quebec defensiveness over Bill 21. While Singh may have reassured some over his turban Quebecers strongly agree that leaders and people in government in general should not wear religious symbols. I hoped he could overcome it but never really believed that he could. Were it not for Bill 21 he may have been able to overcome discomfort with it but Bill 21 hightened emotions over it at exactly the wrong time. 

Sorry I disagree. Quebec is not a monolith and the NDP lost support due to it but if it had been more viable it could have retained support enough to hold more seats. the NDP was not the only party that took this position -- so did the Greens and so did the Liberals. Many votes cast in Quebec had nothing to do with this and the NDP did poorly among those as well.

As for the BQ resurgance it also had to do with the performance of the BQ leader on more than one issue.

I think Singh's defence was a good one and if the NDP had not already become a pathetic husk in Quebec it would have made more of a difference. Singh lost Quebec becuase the efforts to save it came after the election call and not before.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Cons

Election post-mortem, Part 1: A Conservative insider explains how his party got it so wrong

ANALYSIS: TVO.org speaks with a senior Tory official about bad data, bad assumptions — and why leader Andrew Scheer should have gone to Pride

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-1-a-conservative-insider-explains-how-his-party-got-it-so-wrong

We should have dragged Scheer to a Pride parade. That hurt us in the GTA. Abortion hurt us in Quebec; same-sex marriage hurt us in the GTA. .....The party needs to have a tough conversation with itself. We need to look in the mirror and ask how we’re going to do better next time. But Scheer doesn’t want that conversation. His team is selling this as a step toward victory. There’s going to be a convention and leadership review early next year, and they’re going to be 100 per cent focused on surviving that, not on winning the next election. And that’s bad. If we’re going to make changes, we should make them now. Immediately.

The party remains split and has no room for growth. Social conservatives may not vote for another party but they will stay home if the party stops running social conservative candidates. The anti-immigration crowd is giving them trouble too. In any case it seems social conservatives have a lot of power within the party and won't allow it to just go straight up neoliberal. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Cons

Election post-mortem, Part 1: A Conservative insider explains how his party got it so wrong

ANALYSIS: TVO.org speaks with a senior Tory official about bad data, bad assumptions — and why leader Andrew Scheer should have gone to Pride

https://www.tvo.org/article/election-post-mortem-part-1-a-conservative-insider-explains-how-his-party-got-it-so-wrong

We should have dragged Scheer to a Pride parade. That hurt us in the GTA. Abortion hurt us in Quebec; same-sex marriage hurt us in the GTA. .....The party needs to have a tough conversation with itself. We need to look in the mirror and ask how we’re going to do better next time. But Scheer doesn’t want that conversation. His team is selling this as a step toward victory. There’s going to be a convention and leadership review early next year, and they’re going to be 100 per cent focused on surviving that, not on winning the next election. And that’s bad. If we’re going to make changes, we should make them now. Immediately.

The party remains split and has no room for growth. Social conservatives may not vote for another party but they will stay home if the party stops running social conservative candidates. The anti-immigration crowd is giving them trouble too. In any case it seems social conservatives have a lot of power within the party and won't allow it to just go straight up neoliberal. 

 

I think your conclusion is the opposite of what the quote points to. Scheer was a soc-con. A more centrist Conservative but still to the right of Trudeau would have beaten Trudeau in seats as well as popular vote and then they would have negotiated with the right side of their party.

The Conservatives are a threat and nearly won this with an inept leader who was caught in a half dozen lies during the campaign.

Scheer nearly did it - the next with a better (from their point of view) balance will win.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not ahve a solution except perhaps that maybe we are wrong to not accept the Liberals on the transferable vote ballot. That option puts strategic voting in the hands of every voter without risk. Perhaps by pretending we can get PR when it is clear we have no power to get it we are giving up on a middle option that actually might help somewhat. Perhaps PR might be considered in the future by a parliament elected by STV. I have no faith that we can get PR out of a parliament elected by FPTP.

The present situation illustrates how minority does not necessarily give the means for a third party to influence government significantly -- even though you might wait 20 years to get a minority with FPTP.

We are dreaming of the past when there were just 3 parties and a minority meant a balance of power between two bigger ones. When there aremultiple dance partners it means even the second biggest one can be a partner. Ultimately you ahve almost as much power in this minority as you have in a majority -- just like the last two minorities.

The last time you had a minority with any power to the third part was 15 years ago and the time before that was when most Canadians were not even born.

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

 

I agree. I think it would be beneficial to go to a preferential instant runoff voting system. I think it would put to bed most of the problems caused by FPTP vote splitting and FPTP tactical voting. It would be great if people could easily vote honestly without often fearing that voting honestly could perversely help elect disliked candidates.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not ahve a solution except perhaps that maybe we are wrong to not accept the Liberals on the transferable vote ballot. That option puts strategic voting in the hands of every voter without risk. Perhaps by pretending we can get PR when it is clear we have no power to get it we are giving up on a middle option that actually might help somewhat. Perhaps PR might be considered in the future by a parliament elected by STV. I have no faith that we can get PR out of a parliament elected by FPTP.

The present situation illustrates how minority does not necessarily give the means for a third party to influence government significantly -- even though you might wait 20 years to get a minority with FPTP.

We are dreaming of the past when there were just 3 parties and a minority meant a balance of power between two bigger ones. When there aremultiple dance partners it means even the second biggest one can be a partner. Ultimately you ahve almost as much power in this minority as you have in a majority -- just like the last two minorities.

The last time you had a minority with any power to the third part was 15 years ago and the time before that was when most Canadians were not even born.

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

 

I agree. I think it would be beneficial to go to a preferential instant runoff voting system. I think it would put to bed most of the problems caused by FPTP vote splitting and FPTP tactical voting. It would be great if people could easily vote honestly without often fearing that voting honestly could perversely help elect disliked candidates.

Not my preference but if we do not compromise we remain where we are.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think your conclusion is the opposite of what the quote points to. Scheer was a soc-con. A more centrist Conservative but still to the right of Trudeau would have beaten Trudeau in seats as well as popular vote and then they would have negotiated with the right side of their party.

The Conservatives are a threat and nearly won this with an inept leader who was caught in a half dozen lies during the campaign.

Scheer nearly did it - the next with a better (from their point of view) balance will win.

My point is that the reform party types won't allow the party to be more centrist. They want militant and they want someone who will represent the interests of the west. The rest of the country won't elect someone who is Alberta first. The Energy Corridor was a no go in Quebec. That was more important than the abortion issue. The pipeline issue is impacting them in BC too. 

Climate change is growing as a national issue. Denial or soft-pedaling just doesn't cut it anymore yet a significant portion of their base is in denial. 

The problems that split the Reform party off from the PCs still exist and are still a barrier to the Conservatives holding together all the different groups they tried to assemble under one tent. The one thing holding them together is the desire for a pipeline. If they lose hope of that watch out. Extreme violence including terrorism is possible.

It isn't entirely Scheer's fault. The alternative to Scheer was not someone more centrist it was Bernier. Some want Peter MacKay but the reformers will not allow a PC, They want someone militantly pro-oil. I realize there are progressives in Alberta but the majority want militantly pro-oil types that blame the east for their problems. They seem to think emulating Quebec will get them something but Canada didn't reopen the constitution for Quebec and they won't do it for Alberta because it is a can of worms. 

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not ahve a solution except perhaps that maybe we are wrong to not accept the Liberals on the transferable vote ballot. That option puts strategic voting in the hands of every voter without risk. Perhaps by pretending we can get PR when it is clear we have no power to get it we are giving up on a middle option that actually might help somewhat. Perhaps PR might be considered in the future by a parliament elected by STV. I have no faith that we can get PR out of a parliament elected by FPTP.

The present situation illustrates how minority does not necessarily give the means for a third party to influence government significantly -- even though you might wait 20 years to get a minority with FPTP.

We are dreaming of the past when there were just 3 parties and a minority meant a balance of power between two bigger ones. When there aremultiple dance partners it means even the second biggest one can be a partner. Ultimately you ahve almost as much power in this minority as you have in a majority -- just like the last two minorities.

The last time you had a minority with any power to the third part was 15 years ago and the time before that was when most Canadians were not even born.

Perhaps it is time to recognize just how strong FPTP actually is in this system and that PR is not an outcome it will produce. Going to STV at least prevents a minority party everyone else hates from being government. That might be the best we can get from a FPTP parliament. Work on PR from a STV parliament also once voters understand that the sky does not fall if you have any reform.

 

I agree. I think it would be beneficial to go to a preferential instant runoff voting system. I think it would put to bed most of the problems caused by FPTP vote splitting and FPTP tactical voting. It would be great if people could easily vote honestly without often fearing that voting honestly could perversely help elect disliked candidates.

Not my preference but if we do not compromise we remain where we are.

I'd also prefer p.r. but I think instant runoff voting would be an improvement over what we have now, six political parties running under a plurality system unable to deal fairly with multi-party politics.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

NorthReport wrote:

 

The rise and decline of the NDP's Quebec triumphs

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/mulcair-the-rise-and-decline-of-the-ndps-quebec-triumphs

Tom Mulcair always was and still is a pompous self-serving asshole.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think your conclusion is the opposite of what the quote points to. Scheer was a soc-con. A more centrist Conservative but still to the right of Trudeau would have beaten Trudeau in seats as well as popular vote and then they would have negotiated with the right side of their party.

The Conservatives are a threat and nearly won this with an inept leader who was caught in a half dozen lies during the campaign.

Scheer nearly did it - the next with a better (from their point of view) balance will win.

My point is that the reform party types won't allow the party to be more centrist. They want militant and they want someone who will represent the interests of the west. The rest of the country won't elect someone who is Alberta first. The Energy Corridor was a no go in Quebec. That was more important than the abortion issue. The pipeline issue is impacting them in BC too. 

Climate change is growing as a national issue. Denial or soft-pedaling just doesn't cut it anymore yet a significant portion of their base is in denial. 

The problems that split the Reform party off from the PCs still exist and are still a barrier to the Conservatives holding together all the different groups they tried to assemble under one tent. The one thing holding them together is the desire for a pipeline. If they lose hope of that watch out. Extreme violence including terrorism is possible.

It isn't entirely Scheer's fault. The alternative to Scheer was not someone more centrist it was Bernier. Some want Peter MacKay but the reformers will not allow a PC, They want someone militantly pro-oil. I realize there are progressives in Alberta but the majority want militantly pro-oil types that blame the east for their problems. They seem to think emulating Quebec will get them something but Canada didn't reopen the constitution for Quebec and they won't do it for Alberta because it is a can of worms. 

It was an odd situation that had Bernier vs Scheer and the reason Scheer was selected. The party could go to someone more centrist and win -- there are some who advocate this now.

Pages