The Decline of the Conservatives

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Once in a while a pro-business party will have the money and fail -- many examples. But where do you see beyond a single bad electoral result pro-business being stuck with a third place party? 

Meanwhile labour in Canada is stuck with a 4th place party.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Once in a while a pro-business party will have the money and fail -- many examples. But where do you see beyond a single bad electoral result pro-business being stuck with a third place party? 

Meanwhile labour in Canada is stuck with a 4th place party.

Very much has to do with electoral financing

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

When the centre party out polled the right wing party, it got taken over in time for the next election and the Liberals have been the "conservatives" of BC ever since.

There will always be a party to the right in the top two as an ongoing dynamic. If there is an explosion of change and a party has to die another party will be reborn or rebranded for the purpose.

Capital can be caught flat-footed for an election but money to political control to right wing policies is like electricity to ground. It will find a way and in a very short time-frame.

We have a party named "The Conservatives" but it isn't a conservative party big c or little c. It is not even dedicated to neoliberalism. They are free market all the way. The Reform party hijacked the Conservative party, or rather the Conservatives surrendered when they let Harper take the lead instead of MacKay. If it had been the reverse I think we would be looking at a very different party. Conservatives across Canada vote for the party but I would say most don't realize they are voting for the Reform Party not the Progressive Conservatives. In my view that is going to change as the party gets more frustrated over equalization and the lack of pipeline capacity. 

All the Conservatives have to offer now is more of the same, tax cuts, preaching small government, individualism. They have nothing to offer Ontario or Quebec. They spend all their time fighting for oil. The message from Alberta is a constant "you don't understand us, you would go broke without us, we are ignored" even though the pipeline issue regularly dominates. 

The Liberals are so far right now they hardly have to lean over to become the Progressive Conservatives. The federal Liberal party will follow BC and Quebec becoming the defacto conservative party under the Liberal banner. The Conservative party will remain the Alberta Party or Reform Party or Canadian Alliance or whatever the hell they want to call themselves. They can't move closer to the centre without losing the Reform party voters. 

Climate change is not a leftist or progressive issue. Progressives and leftists have been the activists ringing the alarm bells but as of now this is a totally centrist issue. The only people not taking climate change seriously are the Reform party types. This "Conservative " party can't come up with a climate change plan that would satisfy both Alberta and the RoC. It's very significant that the carbon tax has been accepted everywhere with little complaint from citizens. Conservatives have no choice but to pick Alberta's side. The Liberals will continue with their economy and environment hand in hand but will lean farther right as they absorb PCers. Peopl concerned about climate change will move to the Greens and NDP. The NDP should pick up all moderate progressives as it becomes more apparent that the Liberal party is increasing inequality.

We will end up with a Conservative/Reform party holding a solid base of around 25% more or less heavily dominated by Alberta. A Liberal party which could initially grow much bigger as it absorbs PCers. A growing NDP as progressives realize the Liberals aren't doing enough about inequality and climate change. 

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry Pondering but I disagree with your entire post.

Tax cuts you say is nothing -- it is what wealthy people look for when they want to buy a government.

This will keep that party in the top two even if not the top.

There are no scenarios right now where the NDP could leap frog over them either without resources to compete with them.

The Liberal party is not likely to get more popular right now either. The Conservatives have room to grow and could even benefit from having something more right wing than them to pick up the worst media hits and appear reasonable to those not paying too much attention.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

It is not even dedicated to neoliberalism. They are free market all the way.

Probably just a terminological issue, but as far as I know, "neo-liberalism" means "free market", insofar as "free market" means "unfettered captialism".

The Reform party hijacked the Conservative party, or rather the Conservatives surrendered when they let Harper take the lead instead of MacKay.

This is "Great Man Theory" taken to a ludicrous degree. You don't have to be an ironclad historical determinist to infer that Canada was eventually going to get its own version of Thatcherism, Reaganism or David Lange-ism, regardless of who wins this or that leadership race.

Conservatives across Canada vote for the party but I would say most don't realize they are voting for the Reform Party not the Progressive Conservatives. 

So you think that people who voted for Harper all those years were under the illusion that they were voting for the values of Flora MacDonald? Why would you assume that? When I read on-line comments sections, I rarely, if ever, see anything from Conservatives along the lines of "You know, I'm really happy to support a party that endorses a mixed economy, a moderate presence of Crown Corporations, and the concept of noblesse oblige applied to social welfare". Anyone who believes in that sort of thing has already gone to the Liberals or the NDP, leaving the Conservatives hosting "Why the %$#& do we have to keep sending all this money to Queerbec and goddam muzlims??"

And just out of curiousity, how many examples can you provide of old Red Tory grandees coming out and telling people NOT to vote for Harperism? I know, for example, that Mike Harris and the Fords are supposed to be some big affront to the values of Bill Davis, but has Bill Davis ever said "Well, I think it's time for all true Tories to head over to the Liberals or the NDP"? How about Joe Clark? Brian Mulroney?

I recall Peter Lougheed in the 1990s(to show you how far back this alleged aberration has been around) publically stating that he wasn't entirely happy with the way Klein was dismantling everything that had been built by previous PC premiers. Don't recall that this admonition was accompanied by a call for all true Tories to abandon the party.

We will end up with a Conservative/Reform party holding a solid base of around 25% more or less heavily dominated by Alberta.

For the foreseeable future, yes, Alberta will be the province that most consistently and uniformly supports the Conservatives. That doesn't mean they will always be the ONLY people in the country giving the party support, or that there will never come a time, eventually, when the party is able to cobble together enough non-Alberta support to do a repeat or near-repeat of what Harper was able to do for nine years.

 

Debater

voice of the damned makes a good point.

Most voters know that the Conservatives of today are to the right of the old PC party.  They know that it is more similar to the Reform party than the red tories.

That is also why the Conservative Party has had trouble achieving the reach of the old PC's.  That is why they have trouble winning Toronto, Vancouver & Atlantic Canada and have been shut out of Montreal for 30 years.  People in those regions do not support today's Conservative Party the same way they supported the Tories from the Diefenbaker, Clark & Mulroney days.

JKR

I agree that the Red Tories have left the Conservatives and the remaining Conservative voters are very loyal to the Conservative's which explains why the Conservatives popularity has hovered in the low to mid 30's for almost fifteen years. Harper won the election in 2011 because a lot of "blue Liberals" got frightened of the possibility of an NDP government and voted Conservative.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Left Turn wrote:

Sean, you originally asked "When and where was the last time a party that could collect as much in financial support as the other parties put together became the third party". The Socreds in BC in 1991 is an example of that.

I'll agree that it's not an example of where a economically hard-right neoliberal party permanently ceased to exist, but I'll also contend that you didn't ask for an example of that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry if I was not clear: I was responding to the notion presented in this thread of a right party becoming the third party going forward as an ongoing reality.

Even finding one where due to scandal becoming third is rare but I certainly from the context was speaking about becomng third not just as a one election thing (Kim Campbell?) but where the right party is consigned to third as an ongoing thing.

Sorry if I also wasn't clear that I don't consider the current version of the BC Liberals to be a reincarnation of the Socreds. Which is why I do believe that the socreds were moved into third place and ultimately ceasing to exist, on an ongoing basis.

I will contend that the BC Liberals (1994 onwards) have a different social base than the Socreds did. The Socreds were a party of small businessmen and social conservatives, supported by corporations as a "coalition against the left" in order to avoid splitting the free enterprise vote and allowing the NDP to win elections. In contrast, the BC Liberals since 1994 have been a party of the corpoations and the wealthy, with many small business and social conservative types supporting them as a "coalition" against the NDP.

I will contend that the Socreds would have remained far more supportive of BC's version of state capitalism as enacted by them in the 1950s and 1960s. I'll also contend that they would have remained far more socially conservative than the BC Liberals (though this may have eroded their popularity in the long run had they not collapsed in 1991). As such I will contend that the BC Liberals have enacted several policies that the socreds never would have.

1) I believe the Socreds would not have privatized BC Rail, or partially privatized BC Ferries and BC Hydro, as the BC Liberals did.

2) I believe the Socreds would have never enacted a carbon tax.

3) I believe the Socreds would have remained so thoroughly homophobic that they would never have enacted legislation to protect LGBTQ students in the education system or to grant any other LGBTQ or trans rights. I also don't believe the Socreds would ever have marched in the Pride Parade.

4) The Socreds would never have supported the creation of InSite (Vancouver's safe injection site).

5) I don't believe that the Socreds would ever have held any referendums on changing BC's electoral system (the Socreds were responsible for scrapping the short-lived Alternative Ballot (different name for ranked ballots) voting system that was used in the 1952 and 1953 BC elections, after they won a majority in 1953).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Small "c" conservatives do not sit in third in this capitalist country. They may change party names etc but at no time do they ever chronically sit in third in any left-rght system in Canada. Even in Quebec, the Liberals were the party of business and alternated with the PQ.

I only use the term "small 'c' conservatives" to refer to social conservatives, and I will contend that the BC Liberals are socially liberal. The BC Liberals are not trying to force schools to "out" students who attend gay/straight alliance club meetings (as the UPC in Alberta is), or trying to overturn inclusive sex-ed curricula (as Doug Ford's PC's did in Ontario).

As I mentioned upthread, many social conservatives do support the BC Liberals as a free enterprise "coalition" against the left, not because they are in any way a small "c" conservative party. BC Elections have been fought mainly on left-right economic lines going back to the 1890s.

brookmere

Left Turn wrote:

1) I believe the Socreds would not have privatized BC Rail, or partially privatized BC Ferries and BC Hydro, as the BC Liberals did.

In fact the swing to privatization began under Socred premier Bill Vander Zalm, who sold off BC Hydro's gas and rail divisions, and virtually gave away the Expo lands, which his predecessor Bill Bennett had planned to develop under public ownership.

You're right that the BC Liberals are not social conservatives in the mould of the Socreds. However it's just hypothesizing that the Socreds never would have changed. After the 1991 defeat big business interests decided it would be more effective to take over the BC Liberals than to try to remake the Socred brand. But if the Socreds had stayed in power or simply finished 2nd, big business and electorial necessity probably would have remade them. That's basically what happened after their loss in 1972.

 

voice of the damned

You're right that the BC Liberals are not social conservatives in the mould of the Socreds.

Prior to Vander Zalm launching his anti-abortion crusade, was there anything particularly SoCon about BC Social Credit? My memory of 1970s politics is kinda sketchy, but I don't remember Bill Bennett, for instance, being known for taking any stands on the kinds of issues that we now associate with social conservatives, eg. abortion and gay rights.

Mind you, abortion didn't really become a major issue until the SCOC struck down the law in 1988, by which point Vander Zalm was already premier and ready to swing into action.   

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:
Prior to Vander Zalm launching his anti-abortion crusade, was there anything particularly SoCon about BC Social Credi

WAC Bennett's Socreds were dominated by rural social conservatives, which was one of the reasons for their eventual downfall, along with their namesakes in Alberta. When the Socreds were renovated after 1972 with the addition of BC Liberal MLAs the so-cons were marginalized in government. But they were able to elect Vander Zalm when Bill Bennett stepped down.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Tax cuts you say is nothing -- it is what wealthy people look for when they want to buy a government.

This will keep that party in the top two even if not the top.

 

Wealthy people sway elections but they don't determine them. Otherwise the Conservatives would be in power right now especially against such a weak Liberal party. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There are no scenarios right now where the NDP could leap frog over them either without resources to compete with them.

 

I don't foresee any sort of leap-frogging. I see a slow decline for the Conservative party with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That will strengthen the Liberal party. Depending on timing I expect the next election to be won by the Liberals again. If they don't win then we might get a Conservative minority. Within 8 to 10 years the Conservatives will be down to 25% support although Alberta could skew it up some. 

If the Conservatives drop that much the Liberals will likely grow enough to get a couple of majorities.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 The Conservatives have room to grow and could even benefit from having something more right wing than them to pick up the worst media hits and appear reasonable to those not paying too much attention.

The Conservatives should have won this election easily.  They chose to be bland and non-commital because they expected Trudeau to defeat himself and for them to be the logical other choice. They thought all they had to do was throw some bones to the base and pick up centrists disgusted by Trudeau's antics. This is why the party is so demoralized. It should have been an easy win. 

The pundits are saying he lost because he didn't handle abortion and gay rights well enough but Harper wasn't a shining star on those topics either. Sure Ford damaged their chances in Ontario but people don't tie the provincal and federal governments that tightly together. A reasonable platform offering would be enough. The problem is "conservative" policy. The Conservatives aren't credible on climate change. Even in the past four years fear has grown significantly. Climate change is not an issue that will ebb and flow.  It's non-partisan. It will hit conservative communities as hard as any other communities. Farmers are going to have a hard time coping. Terrible things are happening and will happen more frequently. 

If TMX goes through that will be extremely positive for both the Liberals and Conservatives at first. It would be an exageration to say Alberta is a power keg but it isn't all that far off. Alberta wouldn't care about equalization and senate reform half as much if they had TMX. It would give the Liberals credibility and the Conservatives wouldn't have to be so militant to keep Alberta support. 

I really can't guess what will happen if TMX doesn't go through, or if both TMX and Keystone XL don't go through. While that is what I want it is also scary. So far Alberta still has hope no matter how nervous they are. They have not seriously contemplated that there will never be another pipeline or that the industry is as big as it will get. Alberta does not want to become a have not province. 

The outcome of TMX will have a huge impact on Canadian politics and it will force parties to show their cards.

The growing impact of climate change has just begun. California has not seen the worst of fires. Katrina will not be the worst storm that hits. We don't know exactly where the next spectacular weather events will happen but we know they will happen. The heat waves will get worse. 

We aren't living through typical times. We are closer to the time when the New Deal was first introduced not that we are in a financial depression. I mean in terms of being a time for radical change. 

Pondering

Speaking of the wealthy not getting their way....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/09/seattle-amazon-kshama-sawant-socialist-elections

In a blow to Amazon, the socialist candidate Kshama Sawant appeared on Saturday to have beaten the business-backed Egan Orion for a seat on Seattle city council, despite an unprecedented financial effort from the tech giant.

Amazon is headquartered in the city. It ploughed $1.5m into the city council election through a political action committee sponsored by the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

Sean, you originally asked "When and where was the last time a party that could collect as much in financial support as the other parties put together became the third party". The Socreds in BC in 1991 is an example of that.

I'll agree that it's not an example of where a economically hard-right neoliberal party permanently ceased to exist, but I'll also contend that you didn't ask for an example of that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sorry if I was not clear: I was responding to the notion presented in this thread of a right party becoming the third party going forward as an ongoing reality.

Even finding one where due to scandal becoming third is rare but I certainly from the context was speaking about becomng third not just as a one election thing (Kim Campbell?) but where the right party is consigned to third as an ongoing thing.

Sorry if I also wasn't clear that I don't consider the current version of the BC Liberals to be a reincarnation of the Socreds. Which is why I do believe that the socreds were moved into third place and ultimately ceasing to exist, on an ongoing basis.

I will contend that the BC Liberals (1994 onwards) have a different social base than the Socreds did. The Socreds were a party of small businessmen and social conservatives, supported by corporations as a "coalition against the left" in order to avoid splitting the free enterprise vote and allowing the NDP to win elections. In contrast, the BC Liberals since 1994 have been a party of the corpoations and the wealthy, with many small business and social conservative types supporting them as a "coalition" against the NDP.

I will contend that the Socreds would have remained far more supportive of BC's version of state capitalism as enacted by them in the 1950s and 1960s. I'll also contend that they would have remained far more socially conservative than the BC Liberals (though this may have eroded their popularity in the long run had they not collapsed in 1991). As such I will contend that the BC Liberals have enacted several policies that the socreds never would have.

1) I believe the Socreds would not have privatized BC Rail, or partially privatized BC Ferries and BC Hydro, as the BC Liberals did.

2) I believe the Socreds would have never enacted a carbon tax.

3) I believe the Socreds would have remained so thoroughly homophobic that they would never have enacted legislation to protect LGBTQ students in the education system or to grant any other LGBTQ or trans rights. I also don't believe the Socreds would ever have marched in the Pride Parade.

4) The Socreds would never have supported the creation of InSite (Vancouver's safe injection site).

5) I don't believe that the Socreds would ever have held any referendums on changing BC's electoral system (the Socreds were responsible for scrapping the short-lived Alternative Ballot (different name for ranked ballots) voting system that was used in the 1952 and 1953 BC elections, after they won a majority in 1953).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Small "c" conservatives do not sit in third in this capitalist country. They may change party names etc but at no time do they ever chronically sit in third in any left-rght system in Canada. Even in Quebec, the Liberals were the party of business and alternated with the PQ.

I only use the term "small 'c' conservatives" to refer to social conservatives, and I will contend that the BC Liberals are socially liberal. The BC Liberals are not trying to force schools to "out" students who attend gay/straight alliance club meetings (as the UPC in Alberta is), or trying to overturn inclusive sex-ed curricula (as Doug Ford's PC's did in Ontario).

As I mentioned upthread, many social conservatives do support the BC Liberals as a free enterprise "coalition" against the left, not because they are in any way a small "c" conservative party. BC Elections have been fought mainly on left-right economic lines going back to the 1890s.

I tried to be clear but let me try this again: In BC the party of the establishment capitalists never became the third party After a single election loss it was abandonned for another party.

My response was based on the suggestion that the party of tax cuts and smaller government will never become and stay as third party with the advantages that money from capital and the sytem of propaganda from business.

I am not sure why it is a controversy here at all.

The moment the Socreds lost they pretty much ceased to be the vehicle for capital interests.

The idea that the Liberals (right of NDP by a lot but not the default right of centre party) and the NDP could share the first two spots relegating the Conservtives to third is a fantasy.

Either the Conservatives would vanish as they did in BC and another party (in that case the Liberals) would gt the nod from business transforming them to be nothing like the current Liberals or they will occupy at least the second spot.

Remember where this ridiculous conversation came from : the idea that a conservative vision for this country could be relegated due to demographics etc to third party status or that the more left party could replace them leaving them in third. The money and propaganda dynamics do not allow that to happen. 

Sure you can play semantics with names moving around but there will either be a right and a left option with no close third or there will be a three party system with the rightmost option occupying one of the top two spots.

To think otherwise is to have fantasies that our political system is not as dominated by money and propaganda as it is.

The argument that the Liberals are not the replacement for the Socreds is also false. Sure they may have a different lineage but they defintely became the party of the establishment Conservatives and in very short order as they took over it. If you want to speak about the traces of the party that is much less than who buys and pays for a party. The rich are not going to own and finance a third party and they ahve enough power not to. When they lose very badly they will dump that party and take over another and remake it into the party of small government and tax cuts.

As for the differences you mention: cabon tax and social conservativism -- these are not the ingrained atributes of a right of centre party controlled by wealthy people. Low taxes and smaller government is along with punishment of the power based on a selfish moral position of related to some BS about everyone being capable of making it on self reliance. The first two can go in and out of fashion and are in fact more tools of the capitalists to get support among the poeple. Social conservatives and the religious are not always rich so the rich often employ that appeal to create a governing majority but they can appeal to other issues as long as the low taxes small government self relilance theme applies.

Climate change denial is not necessarily a part of conservatism. It was one policy they have but it was not always that way and it won't be in the future.

Pondering

What do you think the Liberals are? Just because they don't preach low taxes doesn't mean they don't deliver. They just aren't as extreme or ideologically driven as the Conservatives. Liberals do what they think is best for business regardless of whatever ideology underpins it. If public education is good for business, Liberals will go for it. Our current brand of Conservatives wouldn't institute public education if it didn't already exist. Liberals are in favor of regulation of business because it is more profitable in the long run. Their motive is not to be nice to "the people". Businesses (other than in the health field) like medicare because it is cheaper for companies not to have to cover it. If the Liberals thought opposing gay marriage would bring them more votes they would do it. Liberals are entirely driven by big business and the need for votes. The ideology is just a foil for the party. 

The Liberals are for small government and low taxes for business. Their infrastructure bank is aimed at privatizing public infrastructure. Money being poured into daycare has nothing to do with supporting woman and everything to do with increasing productivity to generate profits for business. 

Cannabis legalization was rolled out entirely to the benefit of corporations and the stock market. Cannabis is a good example of the opposing sides within the Conservative party. Libertarians are one of the Conservative targets. They are all for unregulated legalization but the social conservatives wouldn't stand for it. Because legalization was not something businesses or the majority public were agitating for, the Conservatives could humor the social conservatives on it. They can't humor social conservatives on abortion or gay marriage because they would lose too many centrist votes. They can't go too anti-immigrant either. Even in Quebec Legault has been forced to backtrack because businesses need immigrants. 

While left right and centre are convenient labels when discussing politics people don't fit neatly into those categories. Someone can be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, racist, and still be worried about how climate change is affecting their families. Climate change is hitting farmers. 

Wealth won't have a problem switching to supporting the Liberal party. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

What do you think the Liberals are? Just because they don't preach low taxes doesn't mean they don't deliver. They just aren't as extreme or ideologically driven as the Conservatives. Liberals do what they think is best for business regardless of whatever ideology underpins it. If public education is good for business, Liberals will go for it. Our current brand of Conservatives wouldn't institute public education if it didn't already exist. Liberals are in favor of regulation of business because it is more profitable in the long run. Their motive is not to be nice to "the people". Businesses (other than in the health field) like medicare because it is cheaper for companies not to have to cover it. If the Liberals thought opposing gay marriage would bring them more votes they would do it. Liberals are entirely driven by big business and the need for votes. The ideology is just a foil for the party. 

The Liberals are for small government and low taxes for business. Their infrastructure bank is aimed at privatizing public infrastructure. Money being poured into daycare has nothing to do with supporting woman and everything to do with increasing productivity to generate profits for business. 

Cannabis legalization was rolled out entirely to the benefit of corporations and the stock market. Cannabis is a good example of the opposing sides within the Conservative party. Libertarians are one of the Conservative targets. They are all for unregulated legalization but the social conservatives wouldn't stand for it. Because legalization was not something businesses or the majority public were agitating for, the Conservatives could humor the social conservatives on it. They can't humor social conservatives on abortion or gay marriage because they would lose too many centrist votes. They can't go too anti-immigrant either. Even in Quebec Legault has been forced to backtrack because businesses need immigrants. 

While left right and centre are convenient labels when discussing politics people don't fit neatly into those categories. Someone can be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, racist, and still be worried about how climate change is affecting their families. Climate change is hitting farmers. 

Wealth won't have a problem switching to supporting the Liberal party. 

They will only switch to the Liberal party if the Conservative party is gone. There is no scenario where a more right party of the Liberals will sit in third like the NDP. It will either go to a handful of seats like the Greens or Socreds with a more mainstream Conservative party or will disappear and those supporters take over the Liberals and make them a Conservative party. There is no way you can get three mainstream parties like the NDP, Libs and Conservative with the most right of the three chronically sit in third. That is what you suggested and it is impossible.

So long as there is a mainstream Conservative party the others will distinguish from it so - no the Liberals will not be as right as that party -- there will be a difference unless the right party goes away. That difference is in part due to what I have explained before and that is that parties are defined not just inherently but also by context -- by what the other parties are. The Liberal party can only go so far to the right if there is a party on their right big enough to compete with them for supporters and members. Then they have to distinguish from it at least to some degree. Without such a party those more right wing people will come into the party and shift it to the right.

This is also why I have said that the NDP needs the Liberals to exist otherwise the NDP will move to the right and become Liberals in all but name. Parties can change names but the main volume of voters and finances will be constant and adjust such that there will be a right party and a centre party.

There can only be a real left party when both exist. This is becuase the centre will swamp the left party and make it centre. The centre party can drop to third though, unlike the right party.

The most right of the mainstream parties will be first or second as a rule. they can drop for one eleciton but they will never stay there as they would be abandoned and capital will support something else. The left party and the centre party can be anything from first to third. The advantage of wealth and Capital makes this so.

You can get another more right party on the fringe but the main right party will not sit chronically in third place. Propaganda and capital will ensure that. A more right party can doom the Conservatives to second or it can replace them in second or first. But the mainstream right and fringe right are not both going to sit 3rd and worse.

No Liberals and Conservatives are not the same. They are similar. Liberal party can b e Conservative if the Conservative party drops to fringe but then that Liberal party is the mainstream Conservative party benefitting from the wealth of capital and pushing for small government and lower taxes. A more progressive Liberal party needs a mainstream Conservative party to exist -- otherwise the number of right of centre people will dominate it.

Debater

I think Sean's analysis comes closest so far.

One other point to keep in mind:  it's important not to generalize about "the rich".  They aren't all right-wing or trying to do bad things.  In fact, many rich people tend to support liberal & progressive parties, whether in Canada, the U.S. or Europe.  It often tends to be non-rich voters who form the base of right-wing parties and who are the most fervent supporters of right-wing causes. 

If you look at the wealthiest ridings/districts in Canada, the U.S. and Europe, many of them are Liberal/Democratic, etc. rather than Conservative or Republican.  So it depends.  One obvious example is celebrities, actors, entertainers, etc. who are often wealthy but usually support left of centre parties.  This is certainly the case in Hollywood and also the case in Canada and Europe.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I don't foresee any sort of leap-frogging. I see a slow decline for the Conservative party with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That will strengthen the Liberal party. Depending on timing I expect the next election to be won by the Liberals again. If they don't win then we might get a Conservative minority. Within 8 to 10 years the Conservatives will be down to 25% support although Alberta could skew it up some. 

If the Conservatives drop that much the Liberals will likely grow enough to get a couple of majorities.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that, because of current trends, the Conservatives are soon going to start losing some of their support and are going to get stuck firmly in second place as some of their supporters are going to move to the Liberals which will put the Liberals very firmly in first place. Given current trends I think this could happen but if it did I think the Conservatives would moderate their policies after losing a few elections in a row. I think if the Conservatives lose the next two elections their election platforms after that will start to mirror the Liberal election platforms and then the Conservatives will once again be in contention to win an election. I think the NDP or Greens could one day become a top-two party but that would require the Liberals moving back into third place or worse. Given the recent election results I don't see that happening for the foreseeable future.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 .....or will disappear and those supporters take over the Liberals and make them a Conservative party....

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen but they won't change the name and they will be more like the Progressive Conservatives not like the Reform Party types because Reform party types will stick with the Conservative Party.

What we now call the Conservative Party is going to end up with Reform Party/Canadian alliance types and very ideologically driven. 

What we now call the Liberal Party will absorb moderate Conservatives which will make the Liberal party more Conservative. 

As the Liberals gain more right-wing supporters they will lose progressive voters. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Liberals of today fiscally are the PCs of yore.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen .... 

When will we have some evidence that shows that your novel prediction here has any validity? I think until then this thread will remain pointless. People can make all sorts of baseless predictions but without any evidence such predictions are pointless.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't foresee any sort of leap-frogging. I see a slow decline for the Conservative party with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That will strengthen the Liberal party. Depending on timing I expect the next election to be won by the Liberals again. If they don't win then we might get a Conservative minority. Within 8 to 10 years the Conservatives will be down to 25% support although Alberta could skew it up some. 

If the Conservatives drop that much the Liberals will likely grow enough to get a couple of majorities.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that, because of current trends, the Conservatives are soon going to start losing some of their support and are going to get stuck firmly in second place as some of their supporters are going to move to the Liberals which will put the Liberals very firmly in first place. Given current trends I think this could happen but if it did I think the Conservatives would moderate their policies after losing a few elections in a row. I think if the Conservatives lose the next two elections their election platforms after that will start to mirror the Liberal election platforms and then the Conservatives will once again be in contention to win an election. I think the NDP or Greens could one day become a top-two party but that would require the Liberals moving back into third place or worse. Given the recent election results I don't see that happening for the foreseeable future.

Actually she is saying they will go to third. I actually agree that they could get stuck for a time not being able to get above second but I do not see them pushed to third with the NDP second as was claimed in this thread as a possible.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 .....or will disappear and those supporters take over the Liberals and make them a Conservative party....

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen but they won't change the name and they will be more like the Progressive Conservatives not like the Reform Party types because Reform party types will stick with the Conservative Party.

What we now call the Conservative Party is going to end up with Reform Party/Canadian alliance types and very ideologically driven. 

What we now call the Liberal Party will absorb moderate Conservatives which will make the Liberal party more Conservative. 

As the Liberals gain more right-wing supporters they will lose progressive voters. 

AS I have been saying it is possible that the Liberals could replace the Conservatives as the Conservative party but that will not happen if the Conservatives are a reasonable size third party and they will not remian third if the Liberals do not replace them so no -- your thesis of the Liberals and NDP potentially being the top two is impossible.

The onlyway the NDP gets to second or first is to push the Liberals to third or have the Conservative party vanish and the Liberals become that party. The most right of the mainstream parties is not ever going to sit as third. They either remain second or first or stop being a mainstream party and are replaced by another new party or Liberals becoming the right party.

Way, way too much power from capital for it to be any other way.

 

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen .... 

When will we have some evidence that shows that your novel prediction here has any validity? I think until then this thread will remain pointless. People can make all sorts of baseless predictions but without any evidence such predictions are pointless.

Actually Pondering is not being straight here. She was predicting that the Conservatives would move to third and the NDP and Liberals would alternate for first. Now she is saying the Conservatives will be replaced by the Liberals as the conservative party but somehow still manage to be around the size of the NDP? Makes no sense. The mechanism for the Liberals to be the right party is that there not be a right party to the right of them that is anything but fringe. Something the size of the NDP would suck up both support, ideas and candidates as well as cash preventing the Liberals from becoming the right mainstream party.

It is possible that the NDP and the Liberals could end up in a two party system where the Liberals became the right party and the NDP move to the centre. It is also possible that one or more fringe Conservative parties could exist but the main Conservative party be the Liberals but these would be small anti-establishment minor parties not something the size of the NDP.

Otherwise the NDP will be the third party at best (assuming they can resolve the issue of splitting vote with the Greens) and once in a while might even have a chance at getting into power if they have the best leader, the other parties have weak leaders and scandals and they have a near perfect election. However, getting re-elected would require a re-alignment. there are parts of the country (provinces where this could happen but it is hard to imagine federally.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Prior to Vander Zalm launching his anti-abortion crusade, was there anything particularly SoCon about BC Social Credi

WAC Bennett's Socreds were dominated by rural social conservatives, which was one of the reasons for their eventual downfall, along with their namesakes in Alberta. When the Socreds were renovated after 1972 with the addition of BC Liberal MLAs the so-cons were marginalized in government. But they were able to elect Vander Zalm when Bill Bennett stepped down.

The Socreds were a neo-liberal Chicago School party under Mini-Wac and when his policies were enacted we took to the streets. The social conservatives have not controlled any of the levers of power in this province for a long time but they are very vocal minority that won't shut the fuck up. We've been fighting Howe Street for over thirty years not a bunch of Christian wankers.

This was a revolution from the right. Fuelled by the radical conservatism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman’s economic neoliberalism, the Socreds took aim at all those elements in society they had never liked. With no advance notice, a total of 26 repressive bills came down the chute in a single day, along with a harsh government restraint budget that dramatically slashed social spending.

Rent controls were abolished. Landlords were given the right to evict tenants without cause. The Human Rights Commission was shut down, its workers fired on the spot. The Employment Standards Branch was killed off. Scrutiny of Crown corporations was wound up, while the government tightened its grip over local school board budgets and community colleges, including course content. And on and on.

The worst of the onslaught focused on workers and unions in the public sector. Under Bill 2, they lost the right to negotiate almost anything except wages and benefits, even as wage controls were extended indefinitely. Bill 3, designed to pave the way for a wave of firings, wiped out job security and, incredibly, gave all public sector authorities the power to terminate workers without cause, regardless of seniority. (The first list of government employees to be fired included the names of BC Government Employees Union executive members John Shields and Diane Woods.) This was, indeed, “Black Thursday.”

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/06/Year-BC-Citizens-Workers-Fought-Back/

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The idea that the Liberals (right of NDP by a lot but not the default right of centre party) and the NDP could share the first two spots relegating the Conservtives to third is a fantasy.

Either the Conservatives would vanish as they did in BC and another party (in that case the Liberals) would gt the nod from business transforming them to be nothing like the current Liberals or they will occupy at least the second spot.

Remember where this ridiculous conversation came from : the idea that a conservative vision for this country could be relegated due to demographics etc to third party status or that the more left party could replace them leaving them in third. The money and propaganda dynamics do not allow that to happen.

Two points:

1. I don't believe the the Conservatives will be relegated to third place any time soon because of the number of ridings where people seem to want the most unabashedly pro-oil party to win.

2. I don't actually believe that there are any fundamental differences on economic matters between the Liberals and the Conservatives at this point. The biggest differences between the parties have to do with how socially liberal or conservative their bases are.

The Conservatives have so far walked a fine line in picking leaders who are personally social conservatives, in order to appease their base; but who accept that in order to be able to win elections they can't enforce those views on society as a whole. It's possible the party may in the future pick a socially conservative leader who does want to enforce those views on society as a whole, but the desire of the base for such a leader gets tempered by the desire to pick a leader who can win.

The Liberals on the other hand are always going to have a leader who is socially liberal going forwards.

As far as the BC Socreds go, I am arguing for the purposes of our conversation that them being wiped out entirely is equivalent to them being permanently reduced to a minor party status in the legislature.

bekayne

brookmere wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Prior to Vander Zalm launching his anti-abortion crusade, was there anything particularly SoCon about BC Social Credi

WAC Bennett's Socreds were dominated by rural social conservatives, which was one of the reasons for their eventual downfall, along with their namesakes in Alberta. When the Socreds were renovated after 1972 with the addition of BC Liberal MLAs the so-cons were marginalized in government. But they were able to elect Vander Zalm when Bill Bennett stepped down.

The social conservatism would manifest itself  in sort of a Tom Campbell-style "get to work, bum" sort of way.

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Socreds were a neo-liberal Chicago School party under Mini-Wac and when his policies were enacted we took to the streets.

And Young Master Bennett gave the breath of life to Michael Walker and the Fraser Institute.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen .... 

When will we have some evidence that shows that your novel prediction here has any validity? I think until then this thread will remain pointless. People can make all sorts of baseless predictions but without any evidence such predictions are pointless.

Like predicting the collapse of capitalism? What is the point of having threads about how awful Trump is?  Or Trudeau or Scheer for that matter? What is the point of most of our discussions here? 

The "proof" will start coming with the very next election we face. The Conservatives will definitely not win a majority. A minority Conservative government is a long shot. Most likely outcome will be another Liberal minority. The Conservative party will not be able to increase support east of Manitoba.

The order will likely be Liberals, Conservatives, NDP in the next election.  Conservative support will at first just stabilize too low too win although they will continue to dominate in Alberta and Saskatchewan. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Actually Pondering is not being straight here. She was predicting that the Conservatives would move to third and the NDP and Liberals would alternate for first. Now she is saying the Conservatives will be replaced by the Liberals as the conservative party but somehow still manage to be around the size of the NDP? Makes no sense. 
 

I'm talking about a transition that will take 8 to 15 years not something that will happen in a single election cycle.

I have questions for anyone who cares to answer.  The Conservatives didn't win this election with the Liberals crippled so how will they add support? Someone said (Sean?) by becoming more moderate. More moderate how?  Give up the idea of a National Energy Corridor?  Stop opposing the carbon tax?  Be less aggressive on oil? 

Do you think the pundits are right and Scheer lost because he hemmed and hawed on his personal views on gay marriage and abortion? Or because he didn't promote their policies enough? Why didn't the Conservatives win this election? 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The "proof" will start coming with the very next election we face. The Conservatives will definitely not win a majority. A minority Conservative government is a long shot. Most likely outcome will be another Liberal minority. The Conservative party will not be able to increase support east of Manitoba.

The order will likely be Liberals, Conservatives, NDP in the next election.  Conservative support will at first just stabilize too low too win although they will continue to dominate in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I think until the Conservatives and NDP are both polling simultaneously within the twenty percent range, your prediction will just remain baseless conjecture. I think as long as the Conservatives are polling above 30% there is no reason to think that they are on the way toward 3rd party status especially if the NDP continues to poll generally below 20%. I think as long as the Conservatives are polling well ahead of the NDP, predicting the NDP will move ahead of the Conservatives is just wishful thinking that does not help the left or people depending on the left to create a better Canada.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Why didn't the Conservatives win this election? 

Because the Liberals won? The Liberals winning an election over the Conservatives is what has happened most often during Canada's history.

voice of the damned

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Why didn't the Conservatives win this election? 

Because the Liberals won? The Liberals winning an election over the Conservatives is what has happened most often during Canada's history.

Yes. Between R.B Bennett and Diefenbaker was 22 years. Between Diefenbaker and Clark was 16 years, but Clark only lasted a few months, so between Diefenbaker and Mulroney was 21 years.

Whereas Harper, supposedly the Jim Jones of Conservativism in Canada, actually managed to limit the Liberals to 13 years in power, better than the respective achievements of Diefenbaker and Mulroney. And he managed to stay in power for longer than Diefenbaker, and about as long as Mulroney(albeit without Brian's back-to-back majorities).

So, all in all, the Conservative party in recent years has been more-or-less as healthy as its PC predecessors. They're probably not going to form government within the remaining lifetime of your average shuffleboard player, but by no means are they down for the count.  

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

That is exactly what I am saying is going to happen .... 

When will we have some evidence that shows that your novel prediction here has any validity? I think until then this thread will remain pointless. People can make all sorts of baseless predictions but without any evidence such predictions are pointless.

Like predicting the collapse of capitalism? What is the point of having threads about how awful Trump is?  Or Trudeau or Scheer for that matter? What is the point of most of our discussions here? 

The "proof" will start coming with the very next election we face. The Conservatives will definitely not win a majority. A minority Conservative government is a long shot. Most likely outcome will be another Liberal minority. The Conservative party will not be able to increase support east of Manitoba.

The order will likely be Liberals, Conservatives, NDP in the next election.  Conservative support will at first just stabilize too low too win although they will continue to dominate in Alberta and Saskatchewan. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 Actually Pondering is not being straight here. She was predicting that the Conservatives would move to third and the NDP and Liberals would alternate for first. Now she is saying the Conservatives will be replaced by the Liberals as the conservative party but somehow still manage to be around the size of the NDP? Makes no sense. 
 

I'm talking about a transition that will take 8 to 15 years not something that will happen in a single election cycle.

I have questions for anyone who cares to answer.  The Conservatives didn't win this election with the Liberals crippled so how will they add support? Someone said (Sean?) by becoming more moderate. More moderate how?  Give up the idea of a National Energy Corridor?  Stop opposing the carbon tax?  Be less aggressive on oil? 

Do you think the pundits are right and Scheer lost because he hemmed and hawed on his personal views on gay marriage and abortion? Or because he didn't promote their policies enough? Why didn't the Conservatives win this election? 

Please do not use names attributing them to comment if you do not read the thread to get it right. I did not comment on the Conservatives becoming more or less moderate. I have been saying that when you ahve three parties that are maintstream the third will not be the most right of the three. This has nothing to do with the fact that you now say this is a slow moving thing -- it is still a fantasy. The right has an extra boost in propaganda and other dynamics including the fact that people become more conservative as they get older and also more likely to vote. There is no indication that this will change.

I am in my 50s. when I was 18 the people in their 50s were more likely to vote and more Conservative than those of us who are 18. I am now in the Conservative generation even if I am not Conservative and many others here are not as well.

The biggest reason for this is money and propaganda that comes from money. A right wng party will either fade to fringe or sit in second or first but it will not switch with the NDP for a respectable third. Please do not use that tactic of skating from the original premise.

Sean in Ottawa

Let me put part of this in a different way.

 

In our present system there is an optimal number of parties (not counting fringe) in order for progressive ideas to be viable at the political table. A two-party system will favour centre and right. Does not matter what you call the parties this is what you will have. Business will support one for smaller government and those who oppose it will support the other.

Add a left party to create a third party and you can have a system where any of the three can govern as the left and the centre party can compete between third and first and the Conservatives will compete between first and second.

The left party becomes possible with a centre party taking up some less progressive but not as right wing voices. You need a roughly central party (can be third with the left party first or first with the left party third) for a left party to exist without being swamped

 

The Conservative problem is that while they are a firm second they have limited growth and can stagnate with little hope for first. However, elections are referenda on the government and people will sooner or later elect the second party to punish the first even if they disagree with it. An out-of-touch conservative party does not drop to third but may only get to first with difficulty (but it can happen).This is what we are looking at now.

Sean in Ottawa

We have more than the optimal number of parties. The progressive voice is being divided and drowned out. No matter how many people who hate the greens talk about the Greens being right wing -- their supporters are generally not. This party competes with the NDP among the same demographics particularly in age and gender. This split means that the NDP are unable to remain a viable third. The demographic that can support the NDP can also go to the BQ in Quebec even though the BQ is not inherently progressive.

Now the NDP and the Greens are facing a real choice: they can fantasize about the improbably possibilities of PR or seriously consider their role competing with each other in the present system. They cannot continue to attack each other in the present system without guaranteeing that they will both remain less than viable.

Two options are possible: one is a form of cooperation and the other is a merger. I think a merger is not a terrible idea as a sustainability party -- social and environmental is a good direction. Linking the two firmly in the rhetoric is important to put the idea before the public that you cannot have one without the other.

It is not something that needs to happen right away. Electoral cooperation is possible. Both parties believe in PR so they could produce a joint list using a system of nominations and then primary runoffs in each seat in order to determine which party gets a candidate in each election. Provided they enter the election with a cooperation agreement with agreements on key policy principles voters would not lose much by not having both choices in each riding and instead having a more viable single candidate.

The point here is that in the present system not only is the NDP going to be short-changed in seats as more parties come in, with the other parties the chance of a real balance of power opportunity is reduced. At the moment there is a minority in name only. The Liberals have a choice between two parties who are vastly different and can pick either a yes or no partner from one of them for virtually any question.

Sean in Ottawa

The conditions for a balance of power opportunity are actually quite clear: you need a situation where the official opposition wants an election and where the party with the balance between them can at least afford a new election realistically. The balance of power is found between one party wanting an election and another not wanting one. It can exist on individual votes provided the party has a real choice in the vote and can select which of the larger parties to support. Most often this does not exist as the party already has a position so we are really talking about balance when it comes to whether or not to have an election.

Then the small party can extract something from the government in exchange for support to avoid the election.

The opportunity, therefore falls apart under the following conditions:

  1. the party in power wants an election,
  2. the party in official opposition does not want one or
  3. the balance party cannot threaten one because it does not want one.

Not wanting an election comes from three situations: lack of money, popularity or leadership ready for an election. (These add up to one situation: who thinks an election would be an advantage.) If either the opposition or the balance party lack popularity, leadership or money, no balance of power exists.

As well this is compromised further by the political blame game as elections often are not popular so being the cause of an election could undo other advantages associated with it.

Minorities under Harper and the present one under Trudeau are/were majorities in all but name. as the conditions for them never materialized. The minority under Martin started as an opportunity but that was lost as the NDP lost the balance of power to independents who determined to bring down the government without them. Balance of power opportunities for the NDP have occurred very rarely:

2004 gone by end of 2005);

1972-3 (gone by 1974 when the popularity shifted prior to the new election;

1965-8;

1963-4;

1945-9;

(in 1962 Social Credit had the balance of power and in 1957 small parties and independents had the balance of power as the NDP and Liberals did not have a majority between them).

So the mythical balance of power for the NDP in 84 years has covered maybe 10 years of which 8 of those were more than 50 years ago. this covers 2% of the modern era (since 1974).

This is not to say that an agreement between the NDP and Greens would make this automatic but this sorry record did not need to have another reason to get worse.

 

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:
We've been fighting Howe Street for over thirty years not a bunch of Christian wankers.

Bill Vander Zalm was premier until 1991, which is not quite 30 years ago.

The business establishment never wanted Vander Zalm in the first place, and I think this was one of the reasons why they decided to take over the BC Liberals rather than try to revive the Socreds a second time and face down the so-cons. The other main reason, of course, is that the Socreds had come third rather than second as in 1972.

"Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing" - a future Prime Minister.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The conditions for a balance of power opportunity are actually quite clear: you need a situation where the official opposition wants an election and where the party with the balance between them can at least afford a new election realistically. The balance of power is found between one party wanting an election and another not wanting one. It can exist on individual votes provided the party has a real choice in the vote and can select which of the larger parties to support. Most often this does not exist as the party already has a position so we are really talking about balance when it comes to whether or not to have an election.

Then the small party can extract something from the government in exchange for support to avoid the election.

The opportunity, therefore falls apart under the following conditions:

  1. the party in power wants an election,
  2. the party in official opposition does not want one or
  3. the balance party cannot threaten one because it does not want one.

Not wanting an election comes from three situations: lack of money, popularity or leadership ready for an election. (These add up to one situation: who thinks an election would be an advantage.) If either the opposition or the balance party lack popularity, leadership or money, no balance of power exists.

As well this is compromised further by the political blame game as elections often are not popular so being the cause of an election could undo other advantages associated with it.

Minorities under Harper and the present one under Trudeau are/were majorities in all but name. as the conditions for them never materialized. The minority under Martin started as an opportunity but that was lost as the NDP lost the balance of power to independents who determined to bring down the government without them. Balance of power opportunities for the NDP have occurred very rarely:

2004 gone by end of 2005);

1972-3 (gone by 1974 when the popularity shifted prior to the new election;

1965-8;

1963-4;

1945-9;

(in 1962 Social Credit had the balance of power and in 1957 small parties and independents had the balance of power as the NDP and Liberals did not have a majority between them).

So the mythical balance of power for the NDP in 84 years has covered maybe 10 years of which 8 of those were more than 50 years ago. this covers 2% of the modern era (since 1974).

This is not to say that an agreement between the NDP and Greens would make this automatic but this sorry record did not need to have another reason to get worse.

 

It could also be argued that the NDP has had influence at other times by pushing the Liberals to the left, even if it didn't become part of a minority government.

Eg. in the 2015 election, the strong position of the NDP coming out of 2011 made the Liberals adopt a more progressive fiscal platform than they might otherwise have done.

Pondering

 

Misfit wrote:
The Liberals of today fiscally are the PCs of yore.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 AS I have been saying it is possible that the Liberals could replace the Conservatives as the Conservative party but that will not happen if the Conservatives are a reasonable size third party and they will not remian third if the Liberals do not replace them so no -- your thesis of the Liberals and NDP potentially being the top two is impossible.

I am saying the Liberals will replace the R-Conservatives as the mainstream party of the right. The R-Conservatives will continue to dominate Alberta becoming the Bloc of that province while still running candidates across Canada. It is unlikely that will happen over one election cycle. 

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2019/how-did-the-polls-fare-in-election-2019/

An additional question in Léger’s October 7-8 poll asked for respondents’ second choice. Answers to this question confirmed the levels of commitment shown in figure 6: NDP, Liberal and Green voters were second choices of each other while the Conservative voters, more than voters of any other party, tended to have no second choice. And supporters of other parties did not tend to have Conservatives as their second choice. Therefore, the Conservative vote appeared strong but could not increase by much.

A party that loses the election and isn't even second choice doesn't have room to grow even if they are the official opposition unless the reason they lost is an outlier. That isn't the case for the last election. The platform was moderate. The leader bland. The opposition badly wounded by repeat scandals. Scheer's minor stumbles shouldn't have been enough to derail the party. They won't drop the notion of the Energy Corridor. The R Conservatives have nothing to offer Quebec or Ontario, little to offer to the maritimes. Nothing for immigrants or minorities. Nothing for indigenous peoples. Nothing for women or for LGBTQ2. Nothing for the working class other than oil workers. 

The R-Conservatives may stay quite large but their support will be so centred in Alberta that they will not be able to win enough seats outside the province to form government even if they manage to hold on to second place. 

As you noted eventually the second place party will win but the R-Conservatives  will not be second place across Canada they will be first place in Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe some other rural areas and 3rd place everywhere else. 

The conventional wisdom here has long been that the Liberals are the party that has to fall to third for the NDP to win. That the NDP must replace the Liberals as the party of the left. That with FPTP systems become two party. The two parties envisioned by the NDP are the Conservatives and the NDP. 

That seems logical because the party the NDP takes most votes from is the Liberals and vice versa. When you take into account that the Conservatives aren't second choice for Liberals or NDP voters you see that it is the Conservatives who are the odd man out. They lost the election and they aren't even second choice for the grand majority of voters. 

Pondering

Put these numbers in a different post so they wouldn't get buried.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Federal-Politics-Oct-9-2019.pdf

1st choice then 2nd choice number Oct 9 then total followed by actual result 2019 then 2015 popular vote. Actual are from Wikipedia

  • 27% Liberal 13% = 40%                      (39.7% (33.07%) lost 6.63
  • 27% Conservative 9%=36%               (34.41% (31.89%) ) gained 2.52
  • 15% NDP 25%  = 40%                        (33.07% (19.71%) lost 13.36
  • 10% Green 16% = 26%                      (6.5 (3.45%) 
  • 6% Bloc 3% = 9%                                (7.69 (4.66) 
  • 2% PPC 6% = 8%                               (N/A)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
We've been fighting Howe Street for over thirty years not a bunch of Christian wankers.

Bill Vander Zalm was premier until 1991, which is not quite 30 years ago.

The business establishment never wanted Vander Zalm in the first place, and I think this was one of the reasons why they decided to take over the BC Liberals rather than try to revive the Socreds a second time and face down the so-cons. The other main reason, of course, is that the Socreds had come third rather than second as in 1972.

"Charisma without substance is a dangerous thing" - a future Prime Minister.

Sorry you missed the part about Mini-Wac. I date the Howe Street control from him not Vander Zalm. The Zalm was nothing but a two bit hustler but boy could he work a room. And never underestimate the power of offereing cheap beer which he actually did. His so-con bit was just part of his routine like wearing a head dress.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

Misfit wrote:
The Liberals of today fiscally are the PCs of yore.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 AS I have been saying it is possible that the Liberals could replace the Conservatives as the Conservative party but that will not happen if the Conservatives are a reasonable size third party and they will not remian third if the Liberals do not replace them so no -- your thesis of the Liberals and NDP potentially being the top two is impossible.

I am saying the Liberals will replace the R-Conservatives as the mainstream party of the right. The R-Conservatives will continue to dominate Alberta becoming the Bloc of that province while still running candidates across Canada. It is unlikely that will happen over one election cycle. 

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2019/how-did-the-polls-fare-in-election-2019/

An additional question in Léger’s October 7-8 poll asked for respondents’ second choice. Answers to this question confirmed the levels of commitment shown in figure 6: NDP, Liberal and Green voters were second choices of each other while the Conservative voters, more than voters of any other party, tended to have no second choice. And supporters of other parties did not tend to have Conservatives as their second choice. Therefore, the Conservative vote appeared strong but could not increase by much.

A party that loses the election and isn't even second choice doesn't have room to grow even if they are the official opposition unless the reason they lost is an outlier. That isn't the case for the last election. The platform was moderate. The leader bland. The opposition badly wounded by repeat scandals. Scheer's minor stumbles shouldn't have been enough to derail the party. They won't drop the notion of the Energy Corridor. The R Conservatives have nothing to offer Quebec or Ontario, little to offer to the maritimes. Nothing for immigrants or minorities. Nothing for indigenous peoples. Nothing for women or for LGBTQ2. Nothing for the working class other than oil workers. 

The R-Conservatives may stay quite large but their support will be so centred in Alberta that they will not be able to win enough seats outside the province to form government even if they manage to hold on to second place. 

As you noted eventually the second place party will win but the R-Conservatives  will not be second place across Canada they will be first place in Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe some other rural areas and 3rd place everywhere else. 

The conventional wisdom here has long been that the Liberals are the party that has to fall to third for the NDP to win. That the NDP must replace the Liberals as the party of the left. That with FPTP systems become two party. The two parties envisioned by the NDP are the Conservatives and the NDP. 

That seems logical because the party the NDP takes most votes from is the Liberals and vice versa. When you take into account that the Conservatives aren't second choice for Liberals or NDP voters you see that it is the Conservatives who are the odd man out. They lost the election and they aren't even second choice for the grand majority of voters. 

The NDP IS the party of the left. The Liberals and the Conservative parties are both right wing. They both pander to the interests of Bay Street and other large corporate interests. The Liberals are milder on social issues than the Conservatives are but they are essentially both puppets of the corporate establishment. The Liberals may campaign and try to portray themselves as being left wing but then they govern just like any other right wing party. For instance, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin have both passed austere budgets that are indistinguishable from Conservstive ones.
 

All you have to do is to look at Bolivia today. This is a very clear but extreme example of what happens when big business does not get its way. The CCF/NDP in Saskatchewan has uniquely had to face threats as well short of a coup from the banks, the media, and big business.

An oil company divested from Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was elected. Banks threatened to divest from provincial bonds. Banks foreclosed on farm mortgages en masse. Many other major industries threatened as well. The doctors went on strike.  Lyndon Johnson refused to deal with Saskatchewan because he didn't approve of our socialist government.

Other governments face negative media coverage when warranted. They don't receive the fever pitched media hysteria that the CCF and NDP have had to reckon with. Liberal and Conservstive governments don't ever face  this because they are not left wing.

You have spewed hateful and nasty propoganda that has been repeated ad nauseum since the beginning to discredit the CCF/NDP. I educated you on your factoids and rather than read my articles and learn the truth, you insulted my awareness of politics.

Too many people in Canada believe the lies and falsehoods and internalize then as inherent truths. That is why the NDP historically attract roughly 20% of the vote. The rest of Canadians are either wealthy and greedy or they are just too politically uneducated to really care or know any better.

The Mulroney Progressive Conservstive government collapsed to two seats because their policies stunk. The Scheer Conservatives stagnated in Ontario because Doug Ford's policies stunk up the party. When Ford is defeated, many will forget about Ford and vote Conservstive again. When the Liberals right wing policies stink up the party, more people will vote Concervstivw again.

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Put these numbers in a different post so they wouldn't get buried....

I would also make sure these numbers don't get buried:

2019 Canadian Election

1) Conservative: 34.4%
2) Liberals: 33.1%
3) NDP: 15.9%
4) BQ: 7.7% [32.5% in Quebec]
5) Green: 6.5%
 

 

 

 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

The NDP IS the party of the left. The Liberals and the Conservative parties are both right wing. They both pander to the interests of Bay Street and other large corporate interests.

I don't think you read my posts because that is exactly what I am saying. In multiple threads over months i have said I don't see the Liberals as progressive, that they used cannabis legalization to appear progressive but that they are neoliberal therefore right wing. I have been arguing that gay marriage and pro-choice are no longer left-wing positions they are mainstream as is the seriousness of climate change. These are no longer debatable positions therefore they don't put the Liberals on the left. 

The mainstream media and people on this board argue that the left is split between the Liberals and the NDP while the Conservatives are united. People on this board, not me, argue that the Liberals have to drop to third place for the NDP to win because the Conservatives will always be first or second. 

I'm arguing the Liberals are the mainstream right wing party. The Conservatives are really the Reform party. The Reformers and PCs did not reunite. The Reformers took over and called themselves the Conservatives. 

This entire thread which I started is arguing that the Conservatives will shrink and become so oil centric that they will virtually be the Alberta party. That will leave the Liberals as the mainstream right wing party that they already are. As they absorb moderate Conservatives they will become even more right wing. 

This is going to happen because of climate change and the fact that the oil belongs to provinces not to the country like in Norway for example. For that reason oil provinces and non-oil provinces will be in ever increasing conflict, no province more so than Alberta and Saskatchewan due to the pipeline issue. The R-Conservatives will represent oil. 

Once people realize the Conservatives are no longer a national threat they won't need to vote Liberal to "stop the Conservatives". Then the fight will become between the Liberals and the NDP. It is quite possible, likely even, that the Liberals will strengthen as they absorb the Progressive Conservatives of yesteryear.

I hope that the NDP continues their focus on climate change and income inequality. I hope they will be able to pin both on the Liberals as well as the Conservatives. 

 

JKR

Misfit wrote:

The NDP IS the party of the left.

The NDP government here in BC seems centrist to me. The most recent NDP governments in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario all also seemed to me to be mostly centrist.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Conservstive party is a national party. For the time being, Atlantic Canada has strongly embraced the Liberal party. But the Conservatives have a very deep history in that region and they will make gains there.

I cannot speak about Quebec. I find Quebec politics intriguing but I do not understand the politics of that province.

Rural Ontario is a Concervstive steonghold. They are strong in the 905 as well.

The Conservatives dominate rural Manitoba and have strong showings in Winnipeg as well.

Alberta and Saskatchewan are solid Conservative.

Concervstives are strong in the BC interior, lower mainland, and the island ususally.

They win seats in the North.

It looks to me like they are a solid and vibrant national party.

And as for gay rights, minority, reproductive rights, etc. They are always progressive issues. Just look at the United States. Look at Bolivia right now. Look at Iran. Look at your own secular law. What people fight very hard for and gain can just as easily be taken away. 
 

They are always always always always progressive issues, and the battle is never over.

I understand that you don't like Alberts. You don't like pipelines. You don't like oil. While you sit and criticize Alberta, take a look at the number of planes that take off and land every single day at your two airports. Take a look at the number of cars that drive on your streets every day. Then multiply that by all the cities in Quebec. Then compound that with all the cars and planes that consume fuel just in one day in all of Ontario.

We are doing absolutely nothing to combat the consumption of fossil fuels in Canada. Urban transport is just a small dent in the problem.

I am not defending Alberta. But as long as we have oil refineries refining oil at ever increasing levels, demonizing Alberta and fixating on them solely is counterproductive.

They are going to get TMX. They may eventually get more. And if they don't, then they can and most likely will build more oil refineries in Alberta. 
 

As long as the world CONSUMES oil, there will be suppliers that provide it.

So beyond urban transport, what realistically can we do as a society to stop people from flying in airplanes, driving all those vehicles, using less cargo ships, etc.

All I hear is Alberta.

There are indigenous communities who support the pipeline because they need jobs. So why do these communities feel that the only jobs that they can get are in the lumber and oil industry? Why have Canadians lived off extracting materials from the environment and not on getting value added? Why haven't the governments invested more in manufacturing?

Aside from screaming about Alberta and screaming for more urban transit, the left has no vision to get us off fossil fuels.

i don't like B.C. pipelines because B.C. is on a fault line. You don't build pipelines on fault lines. Period. You don't build nuclear power plants on fault lines either but I am not the Ontario government so I cannot make those decisions.

so instead of fixating on Alberta, I want to really know how the left plans to grow crops and sustain our economy without the use of fossil fuels: maybe that is a healthier topic than all this negativity about Alberta.

Misfit Misfit's picture

JKR wrote:

Misfit wrote:

The NDP IS the party of the left.

The NDP government here in BC seems centrist to me. The most recent NDP governments in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario all also seemed to me to be mostly centrist.

Yes. That is my point.

Right wing parties tout themselves as being fiscally responsible. Yet they don't seem to be able to balance their budgets. And nationally, they have run up an approximate $760 billion deficit. Conservatives run deficits and Liberals run deficits. Yet people assume from media propoganda that they are fiscally responsible. They also say that the NDP is not fiscally responsible. They say that the NDP's social programs will drive up deficit spending.

 The NDP in Saskatchewan have always paid down the debts that they inherited from Liberal and PC governments before them. They balance their budgets. They also expand on social programs while being fiscally responsible.

While deficit spending isn't really as big an issue as the media and other political parties try to portray them as being, the NDP have never had the luxury of being allowed to be as foolish with their books as right wing parties are able to be.

The CCF in Saskatchewan had to survive in a uniquely hostile climate that right wing parties have never had to face. International bond companies threatened to divest from Saskatchewan. Banks foreclosed on farmers mortgages. An oil company divested from the province. Lyndon B Johnson refused to deal with the Saskatchewan NDP. The Blakeney government faced  lawsuits by the federal Liberal government.

Tommy Douglas waited seventeen years to introduce his Medicare legislation. He had to get the banks off his back and get the provinces finances in a situation where they could afford to introduce government funded healthcare. Because they were a left wing government, the banks and other outside forces dictsted what they could or could not do.

i am arguing that this is more of an issue with an NDP than it is with other governments. The NDP have had to be better and more fiscally responsible than other governments run by right wing political parties that promote themselves as being fiscally responsible.

The MSM lets governments like the Saskatchewan Party run mostly deficits because they cater to big business. The MSM is more critical and more biased against the NDP so the NDP has to be more careful. Despite this, the NDP in Saskatchewan did invest heavily into social programs. 
 

I had free dental care until I was eighteen.it was the PC government that scrapped the dental program for all children and adolescents. They also ran a deficit after doing so.
 

We had pharmacare in Saskatchewan. Our drug prices were a small fraction of what people paid elsewhere in Canada. I remember paying $3.50 for a prescription in 1980 that cost $21.00 in Ontario. The PC government scrapped our pharmacare. They ran a deficit anyway.

 We had the most progressive labour legislation in Canada.

We were the first government in North America to have a Bill of Rights. Twelve years before the Canadian government, we were the first.

I am not going to list everything but we were light years ahead of everyone else in the country. And Saskatchewan was a have not province. It would have been much easier if Saskstchewan was well off, but the CCF/NDP built our province up from a dire economic situation.

The NDP in Saskatchewan afford social programs by slashing debt and freeing up money for social programs. The double standard used against the NDP slows down their progress and drives them more to the centre. They still build and increase social spending but it is a slower process than if they had the luxury to deficit spend like right wing parties do who slash programs and run huge deficits anyway..

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Sorry you missed the part about Mini-Wac. I date the Howe Street control from him not Vander Zalm. The Zalm was nothing but a two bit hustler but boy could he work a room. And never underestimate the power of offereing cheap beer which he actually did. His so-con bit was just part of his routine like wearing a head dress.

I didn't miss the part about Bill Bennett, I pointed out that he marginalized the so-cons in his "new" Socreds. But his successor, Bill Vander Zalm, was a true so-con. He organized the visit of Pope JP2 to BC shortly before seeking the Socred leadership, and he made the politically suicidal attempt to stop abortion after the SCC decision. He was a lot less polite than Andrew Scheer but beyond that not much different.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Put these numbers in a different post so they wouldn't get buried....

I would also make sure these numbers don't get buried:

2019 Canadian Election

1) Conservative: 34.4%
2) Liberals: 33.1%
3) NDP: 15.9%
4) BQ: 7.7% [32.5% in Quebec]
5) Green: 6.5%

My goodness, with the Conservatives ever so popular Scheer must be PM right? But he isn't PM. How could that happen? Could it be because their increasing support is mostly in the prairies? 

It seems the argument being presented against my prediction is that the only way the NDP can win is if the Liberals fall to third because the Conservatives will always be first or second because that is the way it always is. That's not an argument. 

This link https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Federal-Politics-Oct-9-2019.pdf has second choice divided by 1st choice party, province, sex, and age. That is second choices broken down 4 different ways. I'm not familiar with all the different ridings across Canada like some of you are. 

I am saying that Conservative Party support will become more and more concentrated making their votes increasingly less efficient. So, they may maintain extremely high support in specific areas that gives them a misleadingly high popularity vote in terms of how that translates into seats.

Clues to the future lie in the second choice votes.