The Decline of the Conservatives

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

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.

This is dead on. If the left want to succeed in getting off oil -- really want to succeed then they will make it a national project and invest in it. Restraining Alberta is a cheap investment from the East and expensive in the AB, SK and NL. It will go nowhere.

Both sides are hypocritical though. Those who support extraction not being penalized shoudl support consumption models like A Carbon tax. I say "a" becuase this cardon tax does not address consumption of carbon in goods imported. 

As I have said for a long time these should be taxed based on the life of the product thereby making the investment in longer lasting products with better warranties a better buy than cheap stuff made for landfill after a couple uses. These products in our present carbon taxes are untouched and this is a mistake as we penalize domestic extraction but not the use of extracted oil to produce wasteful products made for a short lifespan.

Alberta is correct to say that the country is not playing fair with it.

It is also not dealing honestly either as it whines about equalization under rules set up by Kenney and harper in 2009 (yep guess where they come from) or efforts to get off oil.

Alberta should not be opposing recognition of climate change or all policies to mitigate against it. The rest of the country should not be proposing that we manage climate change but that this become Alberta's problem.

Like most disputes, this is fueled by unreasonable positions on both sides. Unfortunately, we do need to address climate change and we are running out of time as both sides entrench.

We need better efforts to curb consumers -- these will do more than obstructing extraction and they will cost Ontario and Quebec. but it is time to put some money where the Eastern mouth is. Once these are in place a swing at Alberta extraction might not produce as much of the well-justified backlash. Sure unjustified backlash will continue but at least it will be unjustified and we will have done something toward the project we say we believe in.

Some seriouely inconvenient truths for Eastern Canada in this debate if anyone cares to look.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Yes, the NDP government took the federal government to court over equalization. Harper had Brad Wall drop the lawsuit right after the Saskatchewan party won the election.

The equalization dispute goes beyond Alberta and transcends party lines.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Clues to the future lie in the second choice votes.

Opinion polls have shown that Conservative voters have far fewer second preferences than the voters of the other parties do. Opinion polls have shown that the Conservatives have a strong base that make up just 1/3rd of the electorate. Because of FPTP, this 1/3rd of the electorate gives the Conservatives a solid top-two position that is able to sometimes win elections with just minority support. Without FPTP the Conservatives would be a much more marginal party that would have no chance of winning elections. If we had PR I think the chances of the Conservatives declining would be much more possible. But we're stuck with FPTP and with the Conservatives occasionally winning elections with their 1/3rd base that has little room for growth but also little room for decline.

Misfit Misfit's picture

And my point about Montreal and Toronto wasn't to focus blame on Montreal and Toronto.

There are days I watch traffic go by and I wonder how much gas is being burned on this street every day. All that exhaust goes into the atmosphere. Then I think about all the vehicles in my city in just one day. And while my own city is burning fuel, other cities in my province are doing the very same thing day after day. This isn't a shot at Ontario and Quebec. This is happening all over the world.

I know from living on the prairies that the heat generated from cities has an effect on weather patterns and it is not a coincidence.

 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
I understand that you don't like Alberts. You don't like pipelines. You don't like oil.

If the oil was under Quebec we would be doing exactly what Alberta is doing; trying to get it out of the ground as fast as possible. If that oil belonged to Quebec there would be no bottleneck because we have direct ocean access. It isn’t about liking or not liking Alberta. Humans put their own self-interest first generally speaking. They will give someone a shirt but generally not the one on their own back.

 

Misfit wrote:
The Conservative 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. 

How deep can a history be for a party that came into existence in 2003?   This is not the Progressive Conservative Party. The Canadian Alliance hijacked the party when they merged. Carrying the Conservative name has fooled people but the mask is slipping.

Misfit wrote:
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. 

That wasn’t enough to win the election. From the numbers Conservatives are the least likely to have a second choice, and are least likely to be the second choice of other parties.

Misfit wrote:
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. 

Gay rights in Canada are non-debatable. Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of being against inter-racial marriage; doesn’t matter if it is “just a personal view”. Social conservatism is no longer welcome in polite company. I would never vote for anyone who was even “just personally” against inter-racial marriage or gay marriage because it says something about their character and intelligence. The Conservatives have tried to sit on the fence on these issues to avoid offending their base. That fence is crumbling.

 

Misfit wrote:
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. 

The reason the pipelines are being stopped has nothing to do with climate change other than getting funding for the fight. Climate change is an add-on argument not the core issue.

BC and Quebec don’t want pipelines because they are a direct threat to the environment they pass through. Quebec isn’t going to allow Alberta to ruin the drinking water of most of the province. BC will do its best to stop Alberta from destroying tourism and fishing.

Misfit wrote:
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.   

They should have been building refineries and upgraders decades ago. Not an ounce of oil should have left the province without being upgraded. Instead Alberta sold itself to international oil and refused to use the tools at its disposal to maintain pricing and increase production.

It is stupid to have spent decades blaming other provinces because Alberta only wants free-market solutions. It isn’t our fault Alberta is politically driven to reject the solutions it has had in hand for decades.

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

Oil will not be replaced by a single product and it will not be 100% replaced. The demand will drop over time. High speed rail can replace a lot of flying but not all of it. Flyers can be forced to pay the full cost of the pollution caused by flying. Geothermal can replace a lot of heating. Wind and solar will continue to advance technologically. Wave power is being explored. Power-generating algae exist.

Misfit wrote:
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. 

You are living in a bubble of oil. Alberta is trying to frame itself as a victim when no one is doing anything to Alberta. None of the provinces in this union are victims. Alberta is not being demonized. Other provinces are saying “no” to pipelines and Alberta is having a massive temper tantrum.

Climate change is an issue separate from pipelines. The Conservative party is caught between a rock and a hard place. The Conservative base is increasingly at odds with mainstream Canada on social issues and on climate change. That is why they will soon be unable to win elections federally. At the moment I think they still might be able to win minorities within the next 8 years but I don't think they will. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering,

I don't think that you listen to what other people on this board have been trying to explain to you.

The roughly 33% of the population who voted Conservative in this past election represent a group in society who share a core set of common political values. They change their party names as a marketing tool but they are the same people promoting the same message and political ideology.

I dunno. It was posted just the other day the time lapse between Diefenbaker and Joe Clark, Diefenbaker to Mulroney because Clark was defeated within a year. Then there was the time lapse between Mulroney/Campbell and Harper. Oh, but there was a name change. The rest of us can understand that we are talking about the same people and the very same politicians with the almost exact same ideology except for you.

You are unique on this board.

And if your Quebec water is so safe to drink, then environmentalists have erroneously complained about the dangerous pollution levels in the Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence river system. When I was a child, acid rain and industrial pollution polluting the water supplies in central and eastern Canada was the big environmental hot topic for a generation. None of that has changed.

I know that it is nice to fixate on Alberta. But Quebec does not have clean water nor top notch environmental standards by any measure. We don't talk about industrial pollution much anymore but it is still there.

i am not saying that Quebec should allow pipelines. Just don't get sanctimonious when your own environmental stench is so extreme.

I am done on this thread. I think that this thread is just a game to you. I am gone.

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:

I know that it is nice to fixate on Alberta.

I realize this is within a context of discussing the environment(which I won't get into), but just as an observation, if you look at what are arguably the three most important cabinet positions, Finance, Justice, and Global Affairs, NONE of them were held by an Albertan throughout the entirety of Harper's tenure. And of the positions that did go to the rat-free zone, a disproportionate number were held by one person, Rona Ambrose.

And at least two of those top-tier positions were held by that saintly old Red Tory Peter McKay.

Debater

Misfit wrote:

The Conservatives are a national party with a very strong support base in Ontario.

Yes, although it's predominantly in rural Ontario.

The Conservatives were shut out of the 416 for the 2nd election in a row, and underperformed in the 905 -- losing Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt in Milton.

They also lost ground in other places such as losing Kitchener-Conestoga.

If the Liberals had been stronger the Cons would have lost even more.  They only narrowly held onto Aurora-Oak Ridges, and had a narrow win in Flamborough-Glanbrook.

The Cons also have a big problem in Quebec -- they haven't won a single seat in Montreal in 30 years, and are also shut out of the Montreal suburbs, the Outaouais and many other places.

They also underperformed in Alantic Canada again -- they won back a couple rural Conservative seats, but failed to win back traditional seats like Saint John, NB, or Cumberland-Colchester, NS.

They also underperformed in Winnipeg, and were shut out of Vancouver again.  For the 2nd election in a row they lost the traditional Con riding of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast.

So although the Cons are a national party, the Con party of today lacks the coast to coast national resonance of the old PC party.

voice of the damned

By the way, slightly tangential but still relevant, I'd like to make a point about nomenclature...

The "Progressive" in "Progressive Conservative" is not an inheritance from some glorious old Red Tory tradition going back to Sir John A. Rather, it was adopted in 1942, at the request of John Bracken, the Progressive premier of Manitoba, when he agreed to become Tory leader.

And the Progressives of Bracken's day(which more or less included the various United Farmer parties) were an agrarian hybrid of moderate socialism and American Progressivism. Among other things, they SUPPORTED free-trade with the US, in opposition to the tradtional Tory position.

So, contra people like David Orchard, when today's Conservatives embrace continentalist policies like NAFTA, they are actually very much in line with what their nominal forebears stood for. But the whole question around that is probably irrelevant anyway, since Progressivism as it existed in the early 20th Century doesn't survive in any major political party today.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

By the way, slightly tangential but still relevant, I'd like to make a point about nomenclature...

The "Progressive" in "Progressive Conservative" is not an inheritance from some glorious old Red Tory tradition going back to Sir John A. Rather, it was adopted in 1942, at the request of John Bracken, the Progressive premier of Manitoba, when he agreed to become Tory leader.

And the Progressives of Bracken's day(which more of less included the United Farmers) were an agrarian hybrid of moderate socialism and American Progressivism. Among other things, they SUPPORTED free-trade with the US, in opposition to the tradtional Tory position.

So, contra people like David Orchard, when today's Conservatives embrace continentalist policies like NAFTA, they are actually very much in line with what their nominal forebears stood for. But the whole question around that is probably irrelevant anyway, since Progressivism as it existed in the early 20th Century doesn't survive in any major political party today.

 

Yes, Agnes MacPhail was a Progressive.

I remember listening to Judy Rebick comment on the merger of the Progressive Concervstives with the Canadian Alliance  to form the Conservative party.
 

She quipped, "The Progressive Conservatives were known as the oxymoron party. When they renamed themselves the Conservative party, they decided to drop the oxy!"

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:
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?

The 121 seasts that the Conservatives won in this election is only 3 seats short of the 124 seats that Harper won when he got his first minority government. The Conservatives could easily add 3 more seats in Ontario if Doug Ford is no longer Premier. Note that there's a long-standing pattern of many Ontario voters voting in federal elections for whichever of the Liberals or Conservatives is NOT in power provincially.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Left Turn wrote:

Note that there's a long-standing pattern of many Ontario voters voting in federal elections for whichever of the Liberals or Conservatives is NOT in power provincially.

This is worth noting for sure. I grew up in the age of PC governments in Toronto and Liberal governments in Ottawa both fueled by winning the Windsor to Oshawa corridor. Of course in those days they were Red Tories like Davis not their neo-con descendants after the 1980's global counter revolution. Those shifting blocks of voters are not looking to have any kind of regional parity in decision making. They decide on the basis of their interests which the politicians tell them is the "national interest." At present we are a failed federation but not a failed central state.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I'll also point out that I don't put much stock in predictions of future electoral trends based on the results of one or two elections.

Case in poin: In the United States, after Bush got re-elected in 2004 and republicans won both the house and the senate, many pundits argued that the democrats were being relegated to a permanent second place position, unable to win non-coastal states.

Then in 2006 the Democrats won back the house, and in 2008 they won the presidency and both houses of congress.  And even though the republicans won back the senate in 2010, and both house and senate in 2012, Obama's re-election in 2012 led many pundits to argue that demographics changes would turn republicans into a permanent second-place party.

Then in 2016 the Republicans won the presidency and both houses of congress.

Debater

And the Democrats won the House back in 2018, with Pelosi returning as Speaker for a 2nd time.

And so it continues .  . .

Pondering

It isn't a game to me. I'm expressing what I think is happening. 

How is it sanctimoneous to say that if Quebec had the oil they would do the exact same thing Alberta is doing?  That we pollute our own water is not a persuasive argument for adding oil to the mix. 

In no way am I suggesting that Quebec is morally superior. I am saying that it isn't in the best interests of Quebec (or BC) to accept a pipeline. Just as Alberta acts in its own best self-interest so too do Quebec and BC. Nothing to be proud of. 

The Conservative Party is being run by the same people and the same divisions exist within the party that caused it to rupture in the first place. 

After most elections I wouldn't ask what a party has to change to win because there is always a winner and a loser. The difference is that the Conservatives should have won this election. The blackface should have been the last nail in the coffin. The picture was stunning. The way his hand was placed was highly questionable to say the least. That he survived it shows just how unpopular the Conservatives are. 

I don't dislike Alberta. I love Canada and Alberta is as much Canada as anywhere else. Rejecting the pipelines isn't personal. We believe that they pose a direct catastrophic threat to the land that they cross. We don't trust oil companies to priorize safety or to be around to pay to remove the pipe at end of life. I don't understand how you don't understand the core issue. 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
This is worth noting for sure. I grew up in the age of PC governments in Toronto and Liberal governments in Ottawa both fueled by winning the Windsor to Oshawa corridor. Of course in those days they were Red Tories like Davis not their neo-con descendants after the 1980's global counter revolution.

Okay

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Those shifting blocks of voters are not looking to have any kind of regional parity in decision making. They decide on the basis of their interests which the politicians tell them is the "national interest." At present we are a failed federation but not a failed central state.

What? I recognize every word but your meaning escapes me. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote,

"What? I recognize every word but your meaning escapes me."

Krop Is a western Canadian grumble bunny.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

After most elections I wouldn't ask what a party has to change to win because there is always a winner and a loser. The difference is that the Conservatives should have won this election.

I think the unpopularity of Doug Ford's PC government in Ontario made it very difficult for the Conservatives to win the election. Given the unpopularity of the PC Ontario government, Scheer's Conservatives should have lost the election, which they of course did lose, as should be expected. No surprise there. The Conservatives loss should have been expected given the unpopularity of the Doug Ford government. Anyone looking at Canada's electoral history would be aware of this. I think the idea that the Conservatives could soon become a 3rd party completely ignores Canadian history. I think it's unfortunate that many people seem to be so unaware of history and it's unfortunate that many people ignore the lessons of history.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote,

"What? I recognize every word but your meaning escapes me."

Krop Is a western Canadian grumble bunny.

I grew up in Northern Ontario before moving to the West Coast in my twenties. My parents were transplanted "Downhomers" and they and most everyone else in our mining city had a genunie distain for the Bay Street leeches that sucked the wealth out of the region. My understanding of history is that most Prairie farmers had the same feelings for the CPR and the leeches in Montreal's Golden Square Mile. It is the Calgary oil industry leeches that the people around the Salish Sea now feel the same way about.

Those are some historic grumbles from the West and Northern Ontario. I will let the new Green MP tell you about the leeches called the Irvings but you get the picture I hope.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Krop,

I'm with you bro.

In the old CCF days, they drew a cartoon depiction  of Canada in the shape of a cow. Western Canada fed the cow, Ontario and Quebec milked the cow, and the cow shit on the Maritimes. It is the very same thing today.

I know people in Thunder Bay who want to join Manitoba and become a part of western Canada. They hate Toronto.

i am a flatlander myself.
 

I also know of the Irving's very well. I went to Irvingland when I was eleven on a family vacation and I saw that they owned pretty much everything. That was when I first heard of them. My parents were disgusted and we cut that part of the vacation short to not our hard earned money go into the pockets of that family.

I too am a grumble bunny.

Misfit Misfit's picture

It was Tommy Douglas who referred to Canada as a cow.

Tommy Douglas's Canada Cow

"Tommy Douglas once said, 'Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it’s doing in the Maritimes.'l

JKR

Misfit wrote:

It was Tommy Douglas who referred to Canada as a cow.

Tommy Douglas's Canada Cow

"Tommy Douglas once said, 'Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it’s doing in the Maritimes.'l

... and the NDP managed to win only 8 out of the 231 seats west of Manitoba.

JKR

Regional division seems to have been a major part of the establishment of the NDP. It seems the NDP originally mostly represented leftists from western Canada where the Liberals became linked with the interests of central Canada. Reform was also established in the West in opposition to central Canada. And the BQ was also a regional party established in opposition to other regions of Canada. I think FPTP has enhanced regionalism and regional alienation in Canada.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is dead on. If the left want to succeed in getting off oil -- really want to succeed then they will make it a national project and invest in it. Restraining Alberta is a cheap investment from the East and expensive in the AB, SK and NL. It will go nowhere.

Alberta is correct to say that the country is not playing fair with it....

The rest of the country should not be proposing that we manage climate change but that this become Alberta's problem...

Some seriouely inconvenient truths for Eastern Canada in this debate if anyone cares to look....

What left are you referring to? I haven't heard any political party proposing much more than a carbon tax. NDP federal opposition to TMX is rooted in social license and indigenous rights not climate change. The NDP isn't opposing Keystone XL. Pretty much nobody in Canada is. If there is a group in Canada trying to shut down the oil sands they are very marginal and have zero chance of success. The grand majority of Canadians would be outraged at the notion of ending oil production in Canada.  Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC all have oil refineries. 

Eastern Canada is buying oil for its refineries. Who is trying to shut down Newfoundland oil? 

Quebec opposition to Energy East is about protecting Quebec's land and water not the planet. 

Climate change activists run around opposing all pipelines but without local opposition based in local concerns over contamination climate change activists would get nowhere. 

This is why I say to Alberta blame the oil industry because if pipelines didn't leak Keystone XL, TMX and EE would all be built. 

Climate change activists, and the world, are just lucky that neoliberalism was so dedicated to deregulation and the oil companies were so dedicated to their bottomline over safety. 

The oil industry made its own bed and so did Alberta. If their economy tanks I will be just as eagar to help them transition as I will to help Newfoundland transition. I am happy to fund green sustainable economic development for any community, territory, reserve, etc. in Canada. Any province including Alberta that becomes a have not province is entitled to receive equalization payments.

Neither Quebec nor Alberta deserve to be treated extra special. No province has rights above any other. Any power that Quebec has every other province should have if they so desire it. 

Pondering

Big Trouble Coming

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/flat-drilling-activity-in-canada-will-result-in-more-layoffs-amid-low-growth-outlook-for-oil#comments-area

The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors’ annual activity forecast released Wednesday predicted there will be 13,731 direct and indirect jobs losses in the oilfield during 2020. The association has said its member companies have already moved 29 drilling rigs to the United States “in order to find work and generate cash flow” and those rigs include the larger, higher-technology rigs used to drill deep, horizontal wells in new formations in Western Canada....

 

The association is forecasting that 4,905 wells will be drilled next year, which is nine more than last year, but is statistically flat over current activity levels....

As a result, CAODC’s Sholz called upon the federal government to repeal its tanker ban on oil shipments on the West Coast, accept Alberta’s new climate plan and guarantee the completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to British Columbia.

I don't believe that Wexit is a serious threat but that doesn't mean a serious threat doesn't exist. The frustration over the lack of pipeline is growing. Politicians have stoked it. Both the Liberals and Conservatives are going to come under intense pressure. The Liberals can't do what they are being asked to do. The pressure will be on the Conservatives to push the Liberals on the pipeline issue among other irritants. That will make them less popular with moderates. 

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Canada's climate pollution changes by province from 2005 to 2017

 

Um.

JKR

I think the 1/3rd of the electorate that votes Conservative generally don't care about global climate change.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

I think the 1/3rd of the electorate that votes Conservative generally don't care about global climate change.

Did they not hate Trudeau enough to get out the vote?

You are absolutely right that Conservatives generally don't care about climate change. So why didn't the Conservatives win the election? 

Since 2015 I have been predicting a 2019 win for Trudeau, likely even a majority. Were it not for the blackface, ethics violations and JWR he probably would have another majority. However, had I known in 2015 those things would happen I would have predicted a loss. I don't blame the Conservatives thinking Scheer would win with Trudeau so exposed. "Not as advertised" is an understatement. Trudeau wasn't exactly front and centre this election. He avoided debates. 

Why did the Liberals win this election instead of the Conservatives. Were voters not sufficiently disillusioned to vote Conservative? 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think the 1/3rd of the electorate that votes Conservative generally don't care about global climate change.

Did they not hate Trudeau enough to get out the vote?

You are absolutely right that Conservatives generally don't care about climate change. So why didn't the Conservatives win the election? 

Since 2015 I have been predicting a 2019 win for Trudeau, likely even a majority. Were it not for the blackface, ethics violations and JWR he probably would have another majority. However, had I known in 2015 those things would happen I would have predicted a loss. I don't blame the Conservatives thinking Scheer would win with Trudeau so exposed. "Not as advertised" is an understatement. Trudeau wasn't exactly front and centre this election. He avoided debates. 

Why did the Liberals win this election instead of the Conservatives. Were voters not sufficiently disillusioned to vote Conservative? 

There comes a time when a rhetorical question is asked too many times. It then becomes obnoxious.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Why did the Liberals win this election instead of the Conservatives. Were voters not sufficiently disillusioned to vote Conservative? 

I think the Liberals mostly won because Ontarians were disillusioned with their Ford conservative PC government much more than they were disillusioned with the Trudeau government. I think Trump also created a negative atmosphere toward the right in Canada that helped the Liberals. I've thought Trudeau was going to win the election since Ford won the Ontario election. To win an election the Conservatives need Ontario since they've lost their competitiveness in Quebec since Mulroney was PC leader and PM. You can't win Canadian elections without either Ontario or Quebec so the Conservatives have to win Ontario by a dozen seats or so to be competitive. They failed to do that so they lost.

melovesproles

Yeah exactly.

Debater

And the fact that Scheer appears to be a Canadian version of Rick Santorum doesn't help the Conservatives much either.

Pondering

The Globe and Mail has a different opinion:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-its-deeper-than-andrew-scheer-the-root-of-the-conservative-partys-2/

The Conservative Party has a demographic problem, and it has to think hard about how to address it. It cannot hope to win government solely by motivating a rural and Western base, and then counting on vote-splitting among Liberals, New Democrats and Greens. Nor can Conservatives hope to form government without capturing a big chunk of the vote in the fast-growing parts of urban and suburban Canada, particularly in Ontario.

That means Conservatives can’t win unless they can offer something more than denial on climate change.

They can’t win unless they can offer something better than evasion and obfuscation when they produce a platform that promises spending cuts.

And they can’t win unless they rethink their faith-based deficit orthodoxy, and accept a more realistic definition of fiscal responsibility.

In other words, stop being Conservatives. I really don't see the above happening. If it does the party will split again. A significant portion of the Conservative base wouldn't stand for it.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The Globe and Mail has a different opinion:

Something tells me that the Globe and Mail didn't state that the Conservatives are heading toward being a third place party while the NDP are likely going to move ahead of them into a top-two position. Another thing tells me that the Globe and Mail didn't state that Conservative supporters will likely ultimately migrate in droves to the Liberals.

voice of the damned

From the Globe editorial...

That means Conservatives can’t win unless they can offer something more than denial on climate change.

Even assuming that the official Conservative position right now is denial of climate change(is it?), that doesn't preclude them from changing it in the future. They could even frame it as "Yes, of course it's real, and yes, it's man-made, and yes, we need to do something about it, but the important thing is to balance the environment and jobs blah blah blah". And, given other fortuitous circumstances, that could be enough to satisfy Canadians who are ticked off with the Liberals at some future date.

They can’t win unless they can offer something better than evasion and obfuscation when they produce a platform that promises spending cuts.

I think the historical record will show that parties can and do survive the occassional lapse into evasiveness, and that refusing to give 100% clear answers on every given issue is far from being an automatic kiss-of-death.

And they can’t win unless they rethink their faith-based deficit orthodoxy, and accept a more realistic definition of fiscal responsibility.

Wasn't Mike Harris able to win a second majority AFTER it had become blatantly apparent that he was an adherent to "faith-based deficit orthodoxy"? Or am I misremembering things and Harris was one of those jolly old Red Tories who dominated the Canadian Right before Harper came in and wrecked everything?

 

 

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

There is a lots between being reduced to third party and being unable to win. It is being opposition. Speculation that the Conservatives cannot win (which is only speculation) is not the same as them giving up second. A party can be suck in second for a quite a while without risk of dropping or chance of growing.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

The Globe and Mail has a different opinion:

Something tells me that the Globe and Mail didn't state that the Conservatives are heading toward being a third place party while the NDP are likely going to move ahead of them into a top-two position. Another thing tells me that the Globe and Mail didn't state that Conservative supporters will likely ultimately migrate in droves to the Liberals.

I don't expect them to stay in second place forever. I do expect them to lose the next election. The party will split up again with moderates on one side that want votes from central and eastern Canada and reformers on the other side that want the good ol' days. I suppose we could end up with de factor coalition governments. If Quebec sticks with the Bloc, and the Conservatives split in two the Liberals and NDP could end up too small for anyone to win without forming a coalition.

I think the Conservatives could win a minority but that is a longshot. hey aren't getting more moderate. Just the opposite. The people running the party are Albertans who want another oil boom not help transitioning. They don't want to be just as well off as other provinces. They want to stay the wealthiest province with the youngest population. They are ideologically against taxes and a lot of public services. Provincially sales tax would solve many of their problems but they won't do it. They feel entitled to low taxes. This isn't the PC party evolved into the Conservative party. It is the Reform/Canadian Alliance with some former PC types tagged on. When the PCs see that the R-Conservatives can't win the PCs will move to the Liberals or NDP. 

The Liberals are the least likely party to fall to third unless the NDP decides to go centrist again as they did under Layton and Mulcair. Then yes, the NDP could replace the Liberals as the party of the centre. Socially progressive fiscally conservative. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

All the leaders of each party met with Trudeau to talk about how they can work together under this minority. But Andrew 'Fuckface' Scheer wants the Liberals to implement most of their platform.Who the fuck does Scheer think he is? He knows full well that the Liberals aren't going to pass  most of the CPC platform. We'll probably be another election in the winter.

Our Conservatives in 2019 are Republicans. They campaign like Republicans and would rule like the Republicans. As right wing most here think the Liberals are, they are not going to pass the majority of the Republicans platform. I'd eat my hat if they did.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

All the leaders of each party met with Trudeau to talk about how they can work together under this minority. But Andrew 'Fuckface' Scheer wants the Liberals to implement most of their platform.Who the fuck does Scheer think he is? He knows full well that the Liberals aren't going to pass  most of the CPC platform. We'll probably be another election in the winter.

Our Conservatives in 2019 are Republicans. They campaign like Republicans and would rule like the Republicans. As right wing most here think the Liberals are, they are not going to pass the majority of the Republicans platform. I'd eat my hat if they did.

I agree, but if the Conservatives take down the Liberals they might come back with a majority. 

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

This isn't the PC party evolved into the Conservative party. It is the Reform/Canadian Alliance with some former PC types tagged on.

So, again, how do you explain the evolution of the Ontario PCs from Bill Davis to Harris/Ford, with no takeover by another party, and in a province where the Reform Party never made any significant inroads?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The party will split up again with moderates on one side that want votes from central and eastern Canada and reformers on the other side that want the good ol' days.

They won't split up again because they don't want to return to the bad old days, between 1993-2005, when the Liberals had a monopoly on power because the right was split. The right are not about to have a repeat of that period, at least as long as we have FPTP and Stephen Harper and Peter McKay are still alive. I think for the foreseeable future, as long as we have FPTP, the Conservatives will be a top-two party even if they have the support of only around 30% of the electorate.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

This isn't the PC party evolved into the Conservative party. It is the Reform/Canadian Alliance with some former PC types tagged on.

So, again, how do you explain the evolution of the Ontario PCs from Bill Davis to Harris/Ford, with no takeover by another party, and in a province where the Reform Party never made any significant inroads?

I don't see a need to. Seems Ontarians have a case of buyers remorse. They gave the Liberals a time out because they had been in power for a decade but they did not expect Ford to do the things he has. It's pitiful that the Liberals and NDP can't get it together and find leaders that can beat Ford. 

I could be wrong. Ontarians could be stupid enough to vote for the Conservatives federally but I don't think so, not in numbers high enough for a majority anymore. 

Blanchet made me lol. If he keeps it up the future will be interesting. I don't think Alberta appreciates Quebec's irreverant humour. 

Likewise Kenney told Blanchet to “pick a lane” — if Quebec doesn’t want Alberta oil, it should be fine not getting Alberta equalization resources, he said. Eager for the last word, Blanchet told his federal counterpart he should try debating “without insult,” then joked that if he ever goes to Alberta to talk about oil, he’d need to bring along “security friends” in case he’s attacked.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-whole-national-unity-thing-is-going-swimmingly-politics-insider/

Funny guy. 

I have another interesting article to quote that suggests we are in the age of minorities but I will put it in a separate post. 

Pondering

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-federal-election-2019-canada-welcome-to-the-age-of-minority/

And if the current trend in Canadian politics holds, they’re something we could be seeing more of. There were six candidates at the leaders’ debates, representing six parties with legitimate shots at electing MPs. Even without electoral reform, the menu of voting options has grown, taking votes from both Liberals and Conservatives. That makes it harder to imagine a future of those two parties endlessly trading majorities.

What if the Bloc continues to be strong taking Quebec out of the equation and the Conservatives remain limited to their base taking them out of the equation. The NDP and Greens continue to have strength. What then? 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

What if the Bloc continues to be strong taking Quebec out of the equation and the Conservatives remain limited to their base taking them out of the equation. The NDP and Greens continue to have strength. What then? 

Then Justin Trudeau might be PM for a very long time leading minority governments with the Conservatives serving as the Official Opposition and the NDP and Greens fighting it out for 4h place? Maybe Trudeau will be a modern day Mackenzie King?

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

I don't see a need to. Seems Ontarians have a case of buyers remorse.

I didn't ask you about how Ontarians feel about their current government. I'm asking you how the Ontario PCs managed to become what they currently are, in the first place.

You say the federal Conservative Party is the way it is because it's controlled by a bunch of Albertans who have conned all these voters in the rest of the country into thinking that they care about the national interest. My point is that the Ontario PCs have been the way they are since at least the mid-90s, with no influence from conniving Albertans.

And using the Ontario PCs as a test-case, we can probably assume that the federal PCs would have gone in the same direction, with or without the Reform schism of the 1990s.  

voice of the damned

And this was a telling incident from the 2015 Alberta election. Postmedia headquarters in TORONTO ordered their papers in Alberta to endorse the PCs. These would be the same post-Klein PCs who had recently pulled themselves even further to the right by absorbing the majority of Wildrosers in a mass floor-crossing.

And the only people at Postmedia who spoke out against this were several of their Alberta columnists. Not that this proves anything about the overall politics of the provinces involved, but it does somewhat complicate the narrative that right-wing politics in Canada is simply a matter of Alberta forcing its views on the rest of the country.

https://preview.tinyurl.com/uwo97pn

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

But Andrew 'Fuckface' Scheer wants the Liberals to implement most of their platform.Who the fuck does Scheer think he is? He knows full well that the Liberals aren't going to pass  most of the CPC platform. We'll probably be another election in the winter.

Actually this would be great news for Canada and for the NDP.

If Scheer, the NDP or the BQ put a low price on cooperation then you have an effective majority with less than 1/3 of the vote of the low numbers who voted -- and with poor representation in many provinces.

Stating that there is a higher price up front means that the Liberals will have to negotiate a better longer term arrangement with a party rather than being able to get votes on individual initiatives. 

The effect of this means the government won't be able to play opposition parties off each other as easily and will either have to get close to one partner or the other. This means possibly a better negotiation for the NDP and would resul in a more stable government.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't see a need to. Seems Ontarians have a case of buyers remorse.

I didn't ask you about how Ontarians feel about their current government. I'm asking you how the Ontario PCs managed to become what they currently are, in the first place.

You say the federal Conservative Party is the way it is because it's controlled by a bunch of Albertans who have conned all these voters in the rest of the country into thinking that they care about the national interest. My point is that the Ontario PCs have been the way they are since at least the mid-90s, with no influence from conniving Albertans.

And using the Ontario PCs as a test-case, we can probably assume that the federal PCs would have gone in the same direction, with or without the Reform schism of the 1990s.  

Okay, I never said that there are no Conservatives in the rest of the country. Just that there are not enough of them anymore to deliver a majority government to the Conservatives, maybe not enough to deliver a minority. If there were they would have won this election not Trudeau.

I don't think Albertans are any more conniving than citizens of any other province. Both the Liberal and Conservative party are conniving. It would be biased not to include the NDP. They all try to appear what they are not to get elected.  The new Conservative party tries to appear as though they are like the old Conservative party but they are not. They are extreme "free market". I put that in  quotes because "free market" appears to include more than a hands off approach. 

Postmedia isn't from Toronto regardless of where their head office is. No matter what they support the Conservative party, never the Liberal party, because the Liberal party isn't extreme free market. Someone said the Liberals are the PCs of yesteryear and I agree with that. The Liberals are pro-business not pro-free market. The Liberals won't cut of their nose to spite their face for ideology. The new Conservatives will. While individual MPs care about all sorts of stuff the Party cares only about free market and getting oil to market.Not every Conservative who supports pipelines is a free-marketer in the sense of the power brokers. The people of Alberta as opposed to the politicians just want pipelines so they can sell their oil. There is no ideology behind it. Same with social conservatives. They are voting for social conservatism not free market ideology. 

Throughout the Harper years social conservatives made do with the bones Harper threw, like not funding organizations that provide or refer women to abortion providers outside of Canada and allowing pro-life MPs to speak their minds.  Trudeau is the first PM to march in Gay Pride making that a new litmus test. There is a subset of conservatives that could never accept that in a leader. It's one thing to be publicly neutral, another to actually march in pride.

If the oil were in Quebec, Quebec would be equally eager to sell it. Any federal party hoping to win seats would have to support that. But it isn't in Quebec. It is in Alberta. For Quebe any party would have to support Bill 21, hence, the Bloc.

All you have to do is look at a map to see which parties dominate which areas. 

brookmere

My point is that the Ontario PCs have been the way they are since at least the mid-90s

Not quite. John Tory, who in some respects is the de facto leader of the opposition to Ford, was the PC leader for one election. He was succeeded by Hudak, who was indeed a right winger, and who lost two elections. The PCs then chose Patrick Brown who is another Red Tory. After Brown was forced out, Ford managed to win the leadership without a lead either in member votes or constituencies, due to the PC point system. If those had counted, the winner would have been Christine Elliott, who is known to the right wingers as Christine Elliott Trudeau. So it's more a matter of two factions ebbing and flowing.

brookmere

For Quebe any party would have to support Bill 21, hence, the Bloc.

Actually the Bloc received less than 1/3 of the popular vote in Quebec and was behind the Liberals in both popular vote and seat count.

Pages