The decline of the Conservatives

369 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

brookmere wrote:

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.

Thanks for filling in some of my blanks on Ontario politics. Still, though, acknowleding that the Ontario Tories are not a monolith, I think it's safe to say that, examined as a whole, they are well to the right of what they were during the heyday of the Big Blue Machine. And that this shift was accomplished with no significant input from the Reform Party.

And one thing...

My recollection of Patrick Brown was that he wasn't a Red Tory at all, and wikipedia seems to back me up on this(eg. endorsed by Campaign Life, supported re-opening debates on same-sex marriage and abortion). Though I gather that, now at the municipal level, he's been pushing a few anti-poverty measures.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Here's something about  your dimply faced 12 year old would be PM

https://globalnews.ca/news/6183388/dagenais-quits-conservative-senate-ca...

He's so bad that the rats are jumping ship already. And this is the leader and party you all would rather than Justin Trudeau.

If this SoCon motherfucking Howdy Doody puppet gets his way he'd ban both aboirtion and same sex marriage --- just for starters.

But hey. At least he's not a Liberal. Pffff.

kropotkin1951

alan smithee wrote:

Here's something about  your dimply faced 12 year old would be PM

https://globalnews.ca/news/6183388/dagenais-quits-conservative-senate-ca...

He's so bad that the rats are jumping ship already. And this is the leader and party you all would rather than Justin Trudeau.

If this SoCon douche bag gets his way he'd ban both aboirtion and same sex marriage --- just for starters.

But hey. At least he's not a Liberal. Pffff.

Alan you need to pick insults for this asshole that are not misogynist.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Here's something about  your dimply faced 12 year old would be PM

https://globalnews.ca/news/6183388/dagenais-quits-conservative-senate-ca...

He's so bad that the rats are jumping ship already. And this is the leader and party you all would rather than Justin Trudeau.

If this SoCon motherfudcking Howdy Doody puppet gets his way he'd ban both abortion and same sex marriage --- just for starters.

But hey. At least he's not a Liberal. Pffff.

Alan you need to pick insults for this asshole that are not misogynist.

Sorry. I don' t agree about my comment being misogynist but I know the rules here.

I made the appropriate adjustments.

Debater

I didn't see anything misogynist, alan.

What I don't get about Scheer is why right-wing trolls were trying to sell him on gay message boards.  I noticed it on some of the gay forums I visit.  Did right-wing trolls really think a giant marshmallow dough boy with an anti-gay voting record would be more attractive to gay men than a good-looking pro-gay leader like Justin Trudeau?

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

brookmere wrote:

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.

Thanks for filling in some of my blanks on Ontario politics. Still, though, acknowleding that the Ontario Tories are not a monolith, I think it's safe to say that, examined as a whole, they are well to the right of what they were during the heyday of the Big Blue Machine. And that this shift was accomplished with no significant input from the Reform Party.

And one thing...

My recollection of Patrick Brown was that he wasn't a Red Tory at all, and wikipedia seems to back me up on this(eg. endorsed by Campaign Life, supported re-opening debates on same-sex marriage and abortion). Though I gather that, now at the municipal level, he's been pushing a few anti-poverty measures.

None of that changes the fact that the federal Conservatives are dominated by former reform party types focused more on the oil industry than climate change. 

It isn't necessary for Conservatives to lose all their support in order to be unable to win nationally. 

I guess it comes down to why you think they lost the election this time.  I think Ford had an impact. He will still be in power to 2022 so I don't see that impact lessening. I think Conservative attitude to climate change hurt them and that even if they come up with a good plan they lack credibility. I think not marching in pride and allowing "pro-life" candidates makes them seem like dinosaurs. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

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 agree that we may have reached a point where the odds of the Conservatives winning a majority is small. The Conservatives/PC's have won only one majority over the last 9 elections covering the last 30 years. They have also only won 3 majorities over the last 19 elections covering the last 60 years. I think to increase their chances of winning a majority the Conservatives should pick a leader from Ontario or Quebec. I think they still have a good chance at winning minorities as long as the BQ is a factor in Quebec. I think the Conservatives will continue to win minority governments whenever the Conservatives and BQ combined get a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.

melovesproles

There have only been two Majority governments since the Conservative parties merged. One of those was a Conservative government. Pretending the Conservatives are the only party that is having difficulties winning a majority has no basis in fact. 

Pondering

No point in picking a leader from Quebec. Because of the National Energy Corridor idea Conservatives can't win Quebec. A leader from Ontario would help their chances, or even one from the maritimes, but they would have to have more centrist policy to go along with the leader. 

I really am worried about how Alberta and by extension Canada will do as the oil industry inevidably declines even if it takes decades. I don't believe Wexit is a serious threat but violence/terrorism is definitely a possibility. 

I can't even guess if a pipeline will ever go through. I assume that eventually the court cases will be exhausted and that time is coming within the year. Then there is the determination of protesters, in particular the Tiny House Warriors. Depends on how many are willing to be arrested, how much of an international splash they can cause. 

The longer it takes for the pipeline to pass all hurdles the angrier Albertans will become. Once any pipeline has the green light all the way with no doubt whatsoever on its timely completion it will take some pressure off but only if the industry recovers, wells come back, and that may not happen.

Pondering

melovesproles wrote:

There have only been two Majority governments since the Conservative parties merged. One of those was a Conservative government. Pretending the Conservatives are the only party that is having difficulties winning a majority has no basis in fact. 

I think its a great thing that they are both having trouble gaining majorities in recent history but I think you have to look at the specific reasons why that was for each election. The Liberals had a string of particularly bad leaders. Trudeau was a lucky break but the shine is off that particular gem. After that blackface photo on top of everything else he should have been toast. 

Sure all he could rustle up was a minority but he shouldn't have won at all. Conservatives should have had this one in the bag. 

This could still herald an age of minorities because while I don't see the Conservatives managing to make themselves more popular I think the Liberals will do the same. That is, I don't think the Liberals can get a majority next election. They might, but not likely. 

People did vote strategically, some always do, but the pleas of Scheer and Trudeau fell on mostly deaf ears. Scheer raising the horror of a Liberal/NDP coalition didn't help him. 

For me the only better outcome would have been the NDP keeping all their Quebec seats but I don't blame the party at all for losing their Quebec seats. Bill 21 was a booby trap. No one wearing a hijab, turban, or skull cap could win in Quebec right now. If Quebec voted for Singh it would be admiting that the bill is wrong. 

I really wish I could say my province will become more enlightened and some people probably will but if I am honest I don't believe Quebec is about to be woke. 

It does go to show the unpredictability of politics. If it were not for CAQ the Liberals and NDP would probably have kept most of their Quebec seats. Blanchet could do something criminal or some other dramatic event could happen that totally upsets the apple cart. 

brookmere

voice of the damned wrote:
My recollection of Patrick Brown was that he wasn't a Red Tory at all, and wikipedia seems to back me up on this(eg. endorsed by Campaign Life, supported re-opening debates on same-sex marriage and abortion).

Yes I agree Brown has ties to these types but the PC election platform which was released while he was still leader was pretty progressive (for Conservatives) concerning economic and environmental issues.

Ford disavowed it and ran with no platform. I don't think Ford is really an ideological conservative in the mould of Harris, I think the only thing he really believes in is his own infallibity. Of course he grew up rich and he thinks what's good for his type is good for everyone.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

I really am worried about how Alberta and by extension Canada will do as the oil industry inevidably declines even if it takes decades. I don't believe Wexit is a serious threat but violence/terrorism is definitely a possibility. 

I just don't understand this fear except that Canadians have been bombarded with oiligarchy propaganda so long they don't get the actual facts.  Oil and gas is not a job producer compared to just about every other industry and it is being automated as fast as Suncor can.

While the fuel and electricity industry employs a large number of people by virtue of its size, especially in the oil and gas producing provinces, it is a capital intensive and technologically sophisticated industry and its share of employment is low compared to its share of GDP, especially for the upstream extraction and refining activities.  Compared to its 9.7% share of GDP, the energy sector generates only 2.6% of direct employment in the Canadian economy, or about 391,000 jobs in 2012.  For the fossil fuel-related industries, employment is heavily concentrated in the producing provinces (except for gas station employment, which is spread evenly throughout the country).  Employment in the electric power industry is also spread evenly throughout the country.

The travel and tourism industry is one of the largest in the world, it is also a dominant industry in Canada, where the contribution of tourism to the gross domestic product (GDP) totalled 35.37 billion Canadian dollars. The majority of this came from leisure travel spending which accounted for 62 percent of the direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP in Canada. The industry is not only beneficial to the country's GDP but also the job market, in 2017, travel and tourism generated over 738,000 jobs across Canada.

Oil and gas jobs are not the only jobs in the economy and are no more important than jobs in other industries. Alberta's econmy is driven partly by oil and gas but employs only 140,300 people. BC's tourism industry which is based primarily on selling Supernatural BC to the world employs more than double the number of people.

Total employment (the total number of employees and self-employed people, 15 years and over) in 2017 was 3.3% higher than its level in 2016. Over the last 10 years, employment fell by 11,500 from 2007, an 8.2% decrease. There were 140,300 employed in the industry in 2017, of whom 96.8% were full time and 3.2% were part time.

British Columbia’s tourism industry ranks as one of the province’s largest economic sectors in terms of employment and revenue, with more than 302,700 jobs in the industry, and generating $18.4 billion in visitor revenues in 2017.

 

Debater

Andrew Scheer fires his Chief of Staff and Director of Communications

Chief of Staff Marc-André Leclerc and Director of Communications Brock Harrison both ousted

November 23, 2019

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservative-leader-scheer-dismisses-two-top-staff-in-wake-of-election-loss-1.4699257

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I really am worried about how Alberta and by extension Canada will do as the oil industry inevidably declines even if it takes decades. I don't believe Wexit is a serious threat but violence/terrorism is definitely a possibility. 

I just don't understand this fear except that Canadians have been bombarded with oiligarchy propaganda so long they don't get the actual facts.  Oil and gas is not a job producer compared to just about every other industry and it is being automated as fast as Suncor can.

While the fuel and electricity industry employs a large number of people by virtue of its size, especially in the oil and gas producing provinces, it is a capital intensive and technologically sophisticated industry and its share of employment is low compared to its share of GDP, especially for the upstream extraction and refining activities.  Compared to its 9.7% share of GDP, the energy sector generates only 2.6% of direct employment in the Canadian economy, or about 391,000 jobs in 2012.  For the fossil fuel-related industries, employment is heavily concentrated in the producing provinces (except for gas station employment, which is spread evenly throughout the country).  Employment in the electric power industry is also spread evenly throughout the country.

The travel and tourism industry is one of the largest in the world, it is also a dominant industry in Canada, where the contribution of tourism to the gross domestic product (GDP) totalled 35.37 billion Canadian dollars. The majority of this came from leisure travel spending which accounted for 62 percent of the direct contribution of travel and tourism to GDP in Canada. The industry is not only beneficial to the country's GDP but also the job market, in 2017, travel and tourism generated over 738,000 jobs across Canada.

Oil and gas jobs are not the only jobs in the economy and are no more important than jobs in other industries. Alberta's econmy is driven partly by oil and gas but employs only 140,300 people. BC's tourism industry which is based primarily on selling Supernatural BC to the world employs more than double the number of people.

Total employment (the total number of employees and self-employed people, 15 years and over) in 2017 was 3.3% higher than its level in 2016. Over the last 10 years, employment fell by 11,500 from 2007, an 8.2% decrease. There were 140,300 employed in the industry in 2017, of whom 96.8% were full time and 3.2% were part time.

British Columbia’s tourism industry ranks as one of the province’s largest economic sectors in terms of employment and revenue, with more than 302,700 jobs in the industry, and generating $18.4 billion in visitor revenues in 2017.

 

Yes, oil and gas produces more wealth than jobs in this dysfunctional economy. The argument of its extreme importance is based on discredited trickle down theories.

It does create a number of well paying jobs in an economy that does not have enough of those. We need to face the fact that this paucity of well-paying jobs is a decision. Certainly changes can be made to the economy to replace these jobs and to value other employment better.

Yes losing the oil and gas income will be a negative for the economy if you consider this in a vacuum. However, if you assume any replacement at all -- including renewables -- then the loss is limited. 

There are many new and more promising technologies both for jobs and the economy. It would take some government incompetence to let those pass by but then we should blame incompetence and not the decision to reduce reliance on oil and gas.

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I really am worried about how Alberta and by extension Canada will do as the oil industry inevidably declines even if it takes decades. I don't believe Wexit is a serious threat but violence/terrorism is definitely a possibility. 

I just don't understand this fear except that Canadians have been bombarded with oiligarchy propaganda so long they don't get the actual facts.  Oil and gas is not a job producer compared to just about every other industry and it is being automated as fast as Suncor can.

In provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland, the oil and gas industry may not produce that many jobs but the oil and gas industry in those provinces provides a lot of royalty revenues to those provinces that reduces the tax levels in those provinces and that in turn considerably bolsters those provinces economies. The royalties from the oil and gas industry particularly in Alberta during recent boom times were enormous and many Albertans want to return to that situation known there as the Alberta Advantage. Many Albertans still dream of returning to times like they had in the 2000's, when Alberta had huge surpluses, zero debt, low taxation, and "prosperity bonuses" being mailed by the Alberta government to every single Albertan. That dream, which may be completely unrealistic, depends on increasing Alberta's output of oil. Many Albertans will probably be very disappointed if that dream dies, which it most likely will have to if our planet has any chance of surviving global man-made climate change.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the conservatives appear to be transforming into disaster capitalism.

The long Conservative decline

quote:

Austerity regimes exemplify the resulting strategic malaise: very lucrative for the very rich, but as a response to crisis there is little historical evidence that such pro-cyclical fiscal contraction is an effective way of stimulating long-term growth. Lacking the ability to conceive of any viable and stable accumulation strategy, the Conservatives are instead blown between a series of wildly contradictory and purely tactical ideological positions: Cameron’s initial pledge to match Labour spending, following by years of insistence on the necessity of cuts; Theresa May’s doomed flirtation with a half-baked Christian Democratic ‘Red Tory’ authoritarianism, followed by Boris Johnson’s incoherent melange of One Nationism and disaster capital.

....

Albertans' retirement funds don't belong to Kenney gov't

quote:

In other words, the supposedly “free-market” UCP wants to create a government monopoly.

The thing that all of these changes have in common is power. The UCP wants to control the billions of dollars that millions of individual Albertans have been saving diligently for their own retirements.

In response to this blatant grab for money and control, we, the representatives of more than 300,000 working Albertans, have a three-part message for the premier and his government.

First, this isn’t your money. It belongs to the Albertans who saved it month after month. How can a party that styles itself as a champion of individual rights and property rights think it’s appropriate for government to essentially seize control of other people’s savings?

Second, you don’t have permission. You never mentioned sweeping changes to Alberta’s retirement system in the recent election so, you do not have a mandate for any of this.

Third, you don’t have the confidence of the people who this money really belongs to.

Working Albertans did not ask the UCP to interfere in the administration of their pensions, nor do they have confidence that they will run those plans in a fair or responsible way.

In fact, we’re worried that what you’re attempting to do is use other people’s money to create a huge slush fund to finance an agenda that has not yet been articulated to the public and which most people would not feel comfortable using their life savings to support.

....

Ontario’s healthcare spending lowest in Canada — but going lower

quote:

Even more damaging may be the Ford government’s embrace of further privatization, evident in recent legislation creating a health superagency with vast new privatization powers.

Let’s quickly clarify that there are no savings to be had from such privatization. Quite the contrary.

While government spending on the public portion of health care — doctors and hospitals — has held steady at about 4 per cent of GDP for the past 40 years, the costs of the private parts of the system — drugs, physiotherapy, dentistry, home care, etc. — have risen dramatically.

But Ford seems less concerned about controlling health costs than about pleasing business interests, which have long pushed to open our health care system to more privatization, so they can get in on the spectacular profits reaped in private health care south of the border.

Debater

A rising chorus of Conservative voices are raising doubts about Scheer’s leadership

Sun., Nov. 24, 2019

By Chantal Hébert

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/11/24/a-rising-chorus-of-conservative-voices-are-raising-doubts-about-scheers-leadership.html

Debater

Kory Teneycke:  “Being asked if you want to be Andrew Scheer’s chief of staff right now is probably like asking someone if they want to be the captain of the Titanic”

Video clip from Power & Politics:

https://twitter.com/PnPCBC/status/1199096858854989830

Pondering

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-strategists-scheer-lgbtq-social-issues-1.5366770

"For the Conservative movement to grow, unequivocal support for LGBTQ people cannot be up for debate," they wrote.

They said the party "should consider breaking from the past" and adopting "a more contemporary conservatism that resonates more broadly across the country," adding that LGBTQ rights "ought not to be a question at all."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-quebec-failed-candidates-1.5373743

"Andrew Scheer isn't the man for the job. He lost the moral authority with his candidates, with Quebecers," said Maikel Mikhael, who ran for the party in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. He spoke to Radio-Canada, CBC's French-language arm, outside the meeting.

"He cannot win the next election in Quebec, I will not get involved in the riding if he stays," said François Desrochers, the party's former candidate in Mirabel.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/andrew-scheers-divided-party/

But social conservatives will never accept that their views are the problem. They typically think a better sales job or a more honest approach is all that is required. LifeSiteNews’s Jack Fonseca, for instance, concluded in a post-election column that ‘Scheer compromised beliefs, giving Trudeau an easy win.’

The party sent Genuis to deliver a similar message on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday, saying that the party needs to work harder to get Scheer’s message out. He also suggested that anti-Catholic bigotry was behind the media coverage on these issues, referencing attacks on John F. Kennedy, a not very persuasive argument to be making in 2019....

Conservatives who would like to get rid of Scheer are afraid now that he will appeal to social conservative activists to try to win the leadership review vote. Christians opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage have played an important role in the party in recent years, helping give both Scheer and Ford their leaderships. Thanks in part to organizational work by pro-life activists, the Conservative social conservative caucus is more powerful than before.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/solving-the-conundrum-at-the-heart-of-canadian-conservatism/

Because Scheer’s fate ultimately lies in the hands of the Conservative membership and they’re not exactly representative of the Canadian population as a whole. ...

The simple truth is that no existing or prospective Conservative leader can ignore the fact that the movement includes an overwhelming segment of the minority view on issues like abortion, gay marriage and immigration. Nor, however, can the leader ignore the fact these views are a big part of the barrier to growth. More to the point, the country isn’t likely to get more conservative on culture or social issues. To put it in terms that might not be well received by the base: if the mountain won’t come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go the mountain....

At present, however, Scheer is taking fire from evangelicals, Red Tories and Quebec nationalists. In other words, from pretty much everyone. If Scheer gets a cool reception from the rabid conservatives of the United Conservative Party at their convention it will be curtains. He needs to get on the front foot.

Scheer isn't the problem. Members will elect another social conservative because they have the most power not the moderates. Social Conservatives have been emboldened by the strength of the movement in the US. The Conservative Party has cultivated social conservative votes. They have MPs that are openly "pro-life" and anti-LBGTQ2. People who feel strongly on those issues are not going to give them up for other Conservative values just as people who are pro-choice will not give up their ideals for political expediency. Once Harper had his majority he still didn't allow any debate which was a betrayal of the social conservatives. Now they know being quiet will give them nothing. 

Social conservatives could go to another party but they don't need to. Staying home would sink the Conservatives. 

Last time the members were choosing between Scheer and Bernier not some more progressive option. The party has some powerful moderates that would be a real threat but they will never win the leadership because the ridings choose the leader.

It is a conumdrum because social conservatives are driven by religious faith. Evangelicals are not going to admit defeat and give up.

How much of their base can Conservatives afford to give up and still win even a minority government?

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

Members will elect another social conservative because they have the most power not the moderates. Social Conservatives have been emboldened by the strength of the movement in the US. The Conservative Party has cultivated social conservative votes. They have MPs that are openly "pro-life" and anti-LBGTQ2. People who feel strongly on those issues are not going to give them up for other Conservative values just as people who are pro-choice will not give up their ideals for political expediency. Once Harper had his majority he still didn't allow any debate which was a betrayal of the social conservatives. Now they know being quiet will give them nothing. 

The thing is, though, the details of what constitutes social conservativism can vary with the times.

In the 1980s, SoCons opposed extending human-rights protection to gays and lesbians. But after that had been accomplished nationwide, they didn't continue to fight on that issue, because otherwise, yes, they would have become unelectable.

Instead, they switched to opposing same-sex marriage. And let's not forget, Harper was able to win several elections, including the one that gave him his majority, AFTER he had spoken out and even voted against same-sex marriage.

Now, if Harper in the early 2000s had been talking like a mid-1980s SoCon(eg. "Why should landlords have to rent an apartment to a bunch of raving queens?"), he likely would have been laughed out of the discussion. So, he switched to the slightly more respectable "I'm not telling anyone what to do in their bedroom, but marriage should still only be between a man and a woman."

And you can bet that when opposition to marriage-equality becomes a deal-breaker for most Canadians, the Conservatives will switch to some other still-respectable form of anti-gay policy, eg. private members' bills affirming the rights of churches and other religious groups to refuse to marry gay couples(even though that's not in dispute), and frame it as "just protecting everyone's religious freedoms". And I'd be willing to predict that a lot of the SoCons who had previously opposed SSM, but given up on that one as now unwinnable, will jump onto the "religious freedom" bandwagon as if it was exactly the same battle.

TL/DR: By abandoning issues that have made them unelectable, while picking up others that are still within the realm of respectability, SoCons can continue to maintain their basic political identity, and at the same time bring in whatever levels of support they'd previously been garnering.

Pondering

That was before the rise of the evangelicals and Harper's failure to do anything once he finally won a majority. While he had a minority he had an excuse. Once he had a majority evangelical voters expected more. They expect the pro-life MPs they elect to stand up for the protection of the unborn. That is why the party dare not silence them. 

That is why when this happened Scheer had to say it wasn't true. "In the interview, Rayes said Scheer has confirmed that he “would not let one of his members present an anti-abortion bill."

For evangelicals on abortion there is no other reason to elect Conservatives. They will elect an independent who can put member's bills forward or they won't vote at all. They are emboldened by the strength of the movement in the US. 

So sure, there are moderates in the party, but they don't get to choose the leader. Scheer was the moderate choice that evangelicals would accept, Bernier the extreme one. 

The media is counselling moderation as the only path forward for Conservatives to win. I agree, but I don't think the base will. 

The April leadership review will tell us which way the wind is blowing but if they dump Scheer we may have to wait for the new leader to be elected to see whether or not the social conservatives keep power. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

That was before the rise of the evangelicals and Harper's failure to do anything once he finally won a majority. While he had a minority he had an excuse. Once he had a majority evangelical voters expected more. They expect the pro-life MPs they elect to stand up for the protection of the unborn. That is why the party dare not silence them. 

That is why when this happened Scheer had to say it wasn't true. "In the interview, Rayes said Scheer has confirmed that he “would not let one of his members present an anti-abortion bill."

For evangelicals on abortion there is no other reason to elect Conservatives. They will elect an independent who can put member's bills forward or they won't vote at all. They are emboldened by the strength of the movement in the US. 

So sure, there are moderates in the party, but they don't get to choose the leader. Scheer was the moderate choice that evangelicals would accept, Bernier the extreme one. 

The media is counselling moderation as the only path forward for Conservatives to win. I agree, but I don't think the base will. 

The April leadership review will tell us which way the wind is blowing but if they dump Scheer we may have to wait for the new leader to be elected to see whether or not the social conservatives keep power. 

Indeed. It does look like parties are increasingly searching for ways to motivate a base while building more alienation towards all others.

I agree that this coming review will send signals about whether the party will moderate to seek power or move to a more extreme posture than they already have. I think the Conservatives are really in a similar place as the NDP now.

Supporters do not want to compromise as winning in a compromised position is not worth it.

The difference is that while Conservatives know they are not attractive to most, they expect that power will fall to them eventually even if they are nowhere near the people becuase eventually anger builds up at the party in power. This is the difference being the presumed alternative.

Due to the economics, I do not see the NDP supplanting the Conservatives for role of government in waiting. This means that we will likely have mostly Liberal governments and once in a while an extreme Conservative one.

The NDP has to find a better way.

JKR

Preferred PM:

Trudeau 36.6 

Scheer 22.0 

Singh 15.4 

Unsure 14.6 

May 7.0 

Blanchet 3.1 

Bernier 1.4

December 6, 2019

Pondering

Liberals and Conservatives are not the only two choices. It is astonishing how close Singh is to Scheer. 

If the Conservatives go moderate, sure they can win at least a minority, but if they don't, and I don't think they will, they can't win. Once they can't win the alternative to the Liberals will be someone else. 

As the Liberals absorb the red tories progressives will reject them and move left. That is, the federal Liberals will become what the BC and Quebec Liberals already are. The Liberals will no longer be considered on the left by any but the most right wing. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Liberals and Conservatives are not the only two choices. It is astonishing how close Singh is to Scheer. 

If the Conservatives go moderate, sure they can win at least a minority, but if they don't, and I don't think they will, they can't win. Once they can't win the alternative to the Liberals will be someone else. 

As the Liberals absorb the red tories progressives will reject them and move left. That is, the federal Liberals will become what the BC and Quebec Liberals already are. The Liberals will no longer be considered on the left by any but the most right wing. 

I think with Bernier taking a chunk of activists and extremists on the right, the Conservatives will want to try to win and there is a real chance the Conservatives will try to go towards a win with a moderate. 

I would call the odds almost even.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Liberals and Conservatives are not the only two choices. It is astonishing how close Singh is to Scheer. 

If the Conservatives go moderate, sure they can win at least a minority, but if they don't, and I don't think they will, they can't win. Once they can't win the alternative to the Liberals will be someone else. 

As the Liberals absorb the red tories progressives will reject them and move left. That is, the federal Liberals will become what the BC and Quebec Liberals already are. The Liberals will no longer be considered on the left by any but the most right wing. 

I think with Bernier taking a chunk of activists and extremists on the right, the Conservatives will want to try to win and there is a real chance the Conservatives will try to go towards a win with a moderate. 

I would call the odds almost even.

I can't argue with that. My gut tells me the base will refuse to go moderate but it's just a sense of the mood of people not based on specific knowledge. I won't be shocked if what I think is happening doesn't. 

Just for the sake of argument, how much would they have to lose to prevent them from winning even a minority?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Liberals and Conservatives are not the only two choices. It is astonishing how close Singh is to Scheer. 

If the Conservatives go moderate, sure they can win at least a minority, but if they don't, and I don't think they will, they can't win. Once they can't win the alternative to the Liberals will be someone else. 

As the Liberals absorb the red tories progressives will reject them and move left. That is, the federal Liberals will become what the BC and Quebec Liberals already are. The Liberals will no longer be considered on the left by any but the most right wing. 

I think with Bernier taking a chunk of activists and extremists on the right, the Conservatives will want to try to win and there is a real chance the Conservatives will try to go towards a win with a moderate. 

I would call the odds almost even.

I can't argue with that. My gut tells me the base will refuse to go moderate but it's just a sense of the mood of people not based on specific knowledge. I won't be shocked if what I think is happening doesn't. 

Just for the sake of argument, how much would they have to lose to prevent them from winning even a minority?

I think you are asking the key question that nobody can answer but many are seeking to know.

It is clear the Conservatives have a base of about 30% and do not need all that much to carry them across the finish line. At 35% they could have a minority. So they only need 4-5 points over their base to win.

They can do this by one of two things: either a sizeable scandal or fatigue with the Liberals (they almost got there) or a moderate bilingual leader capable of getting more support in Quebec. The reason I do not want Scheer replaced with a hard to elect person is that they almost won with one and the Liberals could give them the opportunity in the next election. I fear that the Conservatives have a good chance in the next election regardless of the decision they make and that it is only a question of how good.

On the other hand the Liberals have an opportunity here to repair and consolidate somewhat and they may recover if everything does go well from them. The NDP is another question - we do not know if the next election will be better or worse for the NDP and how that might affect the balance between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

There is no certainty that the Conservatives are choosing a PM but there is a serious risk that they may be. this is true regardless - becuase of other factors - of how appealing and moderate that person may be.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Liberals and Conservatives are not the only two choices. It is astonishing how close Singh is to Scheer. 

If the Conservatives go moderate, sure they can win at least a minority, but if they don't, and I don't think they will, they can't win. Once they can't win the alternative to the Liberals will be someone else. 

As the Liberals absorb the red tories progressives will reject them and move left. That is, the federal Liberals will become what the BC and Quebec Liberals already are. The Liberals will no longer be considered on the left by any but the most right wing. 

I think the Conservatives are going to pick a relatively popular person like Peter MacKay or Rona Ambrose and they will continue to be in at least a strong second place while the NDP will continue fighting just to stay in a distant fourth place position.

Pondering

The NDP almost won under Layton with the Orange Crush; they almost won under Mulcair; and yet they have inexplicably turned left losing seats under Singh and yet seem to be staying the course.  Why would the NDP do this when liberal lite worked so well for them?  

Harper won 2 minorities before voters trusted him with a majority. He can't entirely be blamed for his subsequent loss because he was at the 10 year mark. Still, he almost won again, as a social conservative. True he stepped on any attempts to reopen the abortion debate but he didn't attend Pride either and he wasn't any more concerned with climate change than Scheer so why did Scheer lose? He was pretty much Harper 2.0 with dimples. Trudeau was a train wreck. 

If the NDP had stuck with liberal lite they might have won this election given the disgust with Trudeau's leadership. Why is the party supporting a leftward tilt?

I have a theory. We have crossed a critical threshold and the Conservative Party knows it. Social conservatism is waning. The party's only path to viability is to openly support LBGTQ2 and to completely ban any talk of reviving any sort of abortion or right to life type legislation. There are pro-life MPs that are elected on that position. Social conservatives represent a significant portion of the grassroots of the party that volunteers and financially supports the party. They shut-up to win under Harper, then Harper got his majority, and he screwed them over. He did nothing for them. Social conservatives are saying that Scheer failed to defend them. Social conservatives feel they are being discriminated against. They are being treated as though their views are no better than racism. They want the Conservative party to at least defend their right to exist. I don't know how much of the party they represent but Harper and Scheer were both elected as social conservative leaders. To say that it is not possible for a social conservative to be PM is to say that they are unwilling to fight discrimination against social conservatives.

Bernier is the more libertarian side. He almost won the leadership of the Conservative Party. How well known were his views then? Did he just come out as an extremist? Seems to me he was pretty well known. His party failed to significantly split the Conservatives because he isn't a social conservative. 

If social conservatives weren't strong Harper and Scheer wouldn't have won the leadership races even with reassuring moderates that they would keep the lid on the issues. Moderates have now stepped forward and declared social conservatism dead. They not only ditched Scheer, who did improve their seat count, they have specifically stated the party must support LBGTQ2. That is they have declared opposition to any social conservative winning the leadership even if they say they won't promote their personal beliefs. 

That is akin to telling NDP members they must support all pipelines and that any new leader has to support pipelines because that is the only way they can win an election. 

What you seem to be acknowledging is that IF big IF the Conservatives lost 5-7% of their base they would become unelectable because more than any other party the Conservatives are dependent on their base showing up. 

I will be watching the leadership race with avid interest. 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

They say in politics as well as war that most fight the previous battles.

The idea that a single direction is the right one for a party (for the purpose of power - not principle) is incorrect. There is an oscilation of popularity of ideas including left-right/nationalism/ deficit fighting/job creation/immigration etc. Parties are slow learners and often screw up doubly by being wrong the first time and then learning that lesson and being wrong again while trying to be right for the last campaign.

Being consistently the same actualy gives a better chance of the people coming to you than trying to follow the people as you will keep being where they were instead of where they are.

Very often you see the NDP running picture perfect campaigns for the previous election and then not understanding why they failed.

In 2015 this was a classic example. The message of 2015 was the best one for 2011. The campaign for 2019 was actually what should ahve happened in 2015. It was not terrible for 2019 as we did not move as far from 2015 as 2015 had from 2011. Mulcair's campaign (when it comes to seats) might be closer to what could work in the next campaign than what was done just now.

The problem is this is less authentic coming from the NDP.

I do not advocate flopping around like this. I do advocate going with the principles of the party and trusting that if these are properly communicated over multiple elections, with the trust in them to continue, the time will come for the NDP and the people will believe the party. this flopping around means that even if the party managed to get the oscilation correct and land on the right message for the right election, the people might not believe them.

In my view the next election is going to be a retraction and shift right federally. This is a good time for the NDP to keep left. By doing so the party will suffer in the short term - perhaps. (They may not if the Liberals oportunistically shift right.) The short term suffering will earn the party trust and credibility when they remain left the following election when the people will start to come round to them and the one after that the party could win if they were left consistently over three elections.

By being left - I do not mean as far left as most here. You still have to meet the people part way. How you do this is by selecting the life changing key platform positions. You can still avoid painting yourself into a corner rhetorically where you would get lenlled extreme. You can reach out to the people in several ways while eraning the trust of consistently in others.

Singh is not rhetoricaly to the left but some of his positions are very good. This is a way of meeting the people part way. Avoid the BS rhetoric and show concrete examples.

BTW since this is the day after the UK election, I think some of what happened there illustrates this. Corbyn is seen as scary left by some in the UK who are centrists but this is not due to policies. It is due to unnecessary rhetoric more strident thean the policies. Know that the people are not as left as we are when it comes to rhetoric (despite the delusions we sometimes like to have). To win them over you show them concrete proposals grounded in practicality without excessive ideological wrapping. This way you can be more left than you sound while giving confidence.

Back to the Conservatives as this thread is about them. It is hard to know which way they will turn and if they will get the oscilation correct themselves. The NDP should not be overly concerned about this. This is a communications and strategy issue. The NDP due to money has limited bandwidth. I have long been a fan of the NDP (when running from third) not spending energy attacking the other parties except very strategically - on issues that point to NDP strengths and where a point needs to be made about the NDP position or where the same attack can be credibly used on both parties. As far as damage, the NDP can count on the wealthier parties to consume some energy beating each other up. The NDP can let them do this and spend NDP energy promoting the alternative. This is the kind of campaign that the NDP does best. This is not about taking the high road (although that is a byproduct) it is about better use of resources to not duplicate the others and to not help another major party by attacking their rival in a way that does not help the NDP. Put another way: the first two parties are the default winners in damage to the other. The third party has to be strategic to benefit from damage they do to either of the first two parties to make sure the benefit comes down to them. It is an example of doing what one party does is not always going to work for another.

Debater

Conservative Party fires executive director, launches internal review over private-school fees

December 13, 2019

The Conservative Party has fired its executive director and is launching a review of how expenses are handled following revelations the party approved payments for the private school tuition fees of some of Andrew Scheer’s children.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservative-party-fires-executive-director-launches-internal-review/

Pondering

They did an internal poll and found out supporters were angry about it. 

I don't mind that you are talking about the NDP Sean. It's not like babble is good at staying on topic and it does relate. 

I think you are completely right about the NDP. Authenticity is important and getting more important. The NDP will gain credibility by staying the course on climate change and inequality. 

The Conservatives can't stay the course and can't be authentic. 

Pondering

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/the-future-of-social-conservatism-in-canada-1.5344868

Campaign Life said 48 candidates who got the organization's "green light" due to their views on abortion won their seats in the general election.

That doesn't mean they would have lost without CF's support but it does say something that 48 MPS are openly "pro-life". 

It tells me the pro-life movement within the Conservative Party might be strong enough to prevent the election of a "moderate" leader willing to attend Pride marches and be welcomed at them. Even if they do manage to elect a Pride attending leader what happens in those 48 ridings that elected pro-life MPs? I assume that many of them will remain Conservative anyway, and certainly won't go Liberal, but could they go independent or NDP or Green? 

They have a total of 121 seats. 48 out of 121 is a lot. It may not be 50% but it suggests they have a lot of clout in the party. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

They did an internal poll and found out supporters were angry about it. 

I don't mind that you are talking about the NDP Sean. It's not like babble is good at staying on topic and it does relate. 

I think you are completely right about the NDP. Authenticity is important and getting more important. The NDP will gain credibility by staying the course on climate change and inequality. 

The Conservatives can't stay the course and can't be authentic. 

Indeed, every thread is about progressive politics since we are not Conservative-- it is always about our response. I like your synthisis about the NDP should stay the course which I had said -- and then adding that the Conservatives can't which I think it true.

I fear they are still a threat even when repugnant and that scares me. I cannot dare to hope for moderation as that brings them to power or extremism as that is no guarantee that they won't win anyway.

We are in new times where for the majority of voters truth is no longer relevant.

kropotkin1951

I found this old article about Scheer from 2017 very interesting. His bio says he was raised Catholic but he has been sending his kids to evangelic schools which are I thought were considered the devils work to an RC. Getting to send his kids to be indoctrinated by Christian fascists seems reasonable especially when as a taxpayer I helped fund it. I can't understand why regular folks in the Tory party don't get it. It highlights the total lack of oversight of party expenditures despite the fact that 75% of many peoples donations are paid for by a reduction in how much in taxes they pay thus leaving otheer taxpayers to pay more.

As for Scheer, nothing exemplifies his place on the political spectrum better than his proposal to provide a tax credit of $1,000 per child for home-schooling and a $4,000 per child tax credit for parents who send their children to private (typically faith-based) schools. Like all of the justly-maligned boutique tax credits instituted by the late Jim Flaherty, both measures would be a distortion of the tax system, designed solely to cater to the chosen few for crassly partisan purposes.

Favouring faith-based schools and home-schooling also would be a huge intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over education, something you would think Conservatives would wish to avoid. Some provinces may feel that home-schooling and religious education undermine the public system and wish to take measures to discourage the practice. What business is it of Ottawa’s to determine educational policy?

And there’s Scheer’s flagrant conflict of interest. He and his wife have small five children, with those of school age attending Regina Christian School, an evangelical private school. At $4,000 a crack, the credit would be a nice gift for a career politician earning $255,000 a year.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/02/andrew-scheers-got-some-tiny-ideas-hed-l...

 

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I found this old article about Scheer from 2017 very interesting. His bio says he was raised Catholic but he has been sending his kids to evangelic schools which are I thought were considered the devils work to an RC.

A quick check appears to indicate that there are no private Catholic elementary schools in Regina. Not surprising as Sk has a publicly funded Catholic system (like Ontario) and given the size of Regina there probably aren't enough extreme Catholics with deep pockets to support a private school. Also these days many exteme Catholics regard liberal members of their own church the enemy more than Protestants, and vice versa.

I think I read that his kids do go to a private Catholic school in Ottawa, although I'm not completely sure. Scheer himself attended publicly funded Catholic schools in Ottawa.

Misfit Misfit's picture

If you want your kids to properly learn French in Saskatchewan you have to send your kids to a Catholic French immersion school.

Pondering

https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/now-is-the-time-for-ideas-calgary-mp-michelle-rempel-breaks-silence-on-future-of-tory-party

“And in order to broaden their base, they’re going to have to find bridges across the things that divide many of the Conservatives.”

Noting that credible climate policy, or balancing energy and the environment could be ways to do so, Williams said they need to be done in a way that doesn’t further alienate Westerners.

“It depends on what those policies are and if they can be framed in such a way to avoid alienating those who have a strong vision for what the policies should look like in one direction or another,” she said. “For example, if you did want to have a good climate policy or environmental policy, how do you frame that in such a way as not to further alienate Westerners? If you want to look at, say, family policy, how do you do that without alienating social conservatives?

“I think policy could divide, and has divided the party in the past, and I think the thing that makes it possible to unite across those divisions is a leader that has a vision that could bring people together to compromise on some of these policies.”

Harper and Scheer were the compromises. They agreed not to reopen the debates but at the same time supported the rights of social conservatives to disagree. 

 https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/conservatives-after-scheer-the-revolution-eats-its-own/

Conservatives’ opponents are quite sure every Conservative is the same, but in fact the party is a diverse coalition whose only successful leader, in its current incarnation, has been Stephen Harper. ...

Forty-seven Conservative MPs are from Alberta and Saskatchewan. If the upcoming leadership campaign hands those MPs’ supporters a Halifax lawyer, will they think the party has pulled a fast one?

Can Toronto consultants and Saskatchewan evangelicals agree on the leader’s proper position on reproductive rights, equal marriage and Indigenous reconciliation? If the faction that ousted Scheer gets its preferred new leader, will the rest of the party stick around?

Is the towering contempt for serious climate action that greeted Mike Chong when he ran for the leadership only three years ago still a tenable position for a party that wants to make inroads in parts of the country where people insist on believing in science and the evidence of their own eyes?...

It was sadly appropriate that in the end, Scheer was brought down using the only tools the modern Conservative Party, under Harper and a generation that learned at Harper’s knee, can be said with any confidence to have mastered: attack ads, sneering disdain and targeted leaks. Scheer had no compelling story to tell about Canada. Neither did his tormentors. To me that looks like a problem. Over to you, Conservatives.

The Conservatives are screwed. "The west" and the rest of Canada are on a collision course even if TM gets through. The "libertarian" free marketers want a free market solution to climate change. 

I see the plan...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/do-you-give-money-to-the-homeless-1.5395744/no-room-for-bigotry-on-same-sex-marriage-in-conservative-party-says-party-insider-1.5397368

As the Conservative Party grapples with its future in the wake of Andrew Scheer's resignation, former party strategist Kory Teneycke says there's room for social conservatives among its supporters — but opposing same-sex marriage is off the table.

"If people get a whiff that you think that being a homosexual is sinful ... I think that is an opinion that is unacceptable in the mainstream of Canadian politics today. And I think that's a good thing," Teneycke told Cross Country Checkup.

When it comes to party member's perspectives on abortion, however, Teneycke said those with opposing views should still feel comfortable within the party.

"I think there are a myriad of views that are acceptable within a big tent, but one of them can't be bigotry," he said comparing opposition to same-sex marriage to racism.

Just about every article talks about the division within the party between social conservatives and free marketers. PCers aren't even in contention. Bernier is not a social conservative so that he failed to divide the party is meaningless. Harper and Scheer were chosen because they are social conservatives. 

Pondering

Pundits are all insisting that opposition to same-sex marriage has to be off the table. High level Conservatives are inferring the same. The narrative is that the social conservatives have had their chance and now the only sensible thing to do is to get out of the way so they can win the next election. 

The following is from Rex Murphy. He refers to the people who orchestrated Scheer's downfall as GTA activists and insiders. 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-all-conservatives-deserved-a-say-in-scheers-fate-not-just-gta-activists?video_autoplay=true

(Stockwell) Day is a polite man not given to rant or anger. But there was a very strong edge to his voice when he spoke of the “so-called smart Tory activists and insiders” who obviously went after Scheer with a vengeance and were now claiming his departure as a “victory.” He made the fundamental point in all this: that if there was disenchantment with Scheer’s performance (and there was), with a Conservative convention on the horizon the proper thing was to wait for it. And at convention allow the membership of the Conservative party — from all corners of Canada, not just the Toronto-to-Ottawa “insiders and activists” — to have a full debate and open vote on the leadership....

Day recounted the good points in Scheer’s favour. He nearly doubled the seats in ‘leftish’ B.C. He stripped Justin Trudeau of his majority. He fully captured the disenchantment of Western Canada. “He increased the money. He increased the votes.” But the “GTA activists” weren’t content with that and so mounted “a very concentrated move to get Andrew out of there.”...

Why should a core of “high influencers” be in a place where they can take advantage of circumstances and impose their view (that’s what this amounts to) on what the party is, or where it should go? ​...

All the criticisms of his performance stand. That he was not aggressive enough in going after the Liberals and particularly Trudeau for their various and multiple flaws. That he was not “inspirational” or that he was “Liberal” lite. Have at him on these points and others.​

There is so much anti-central Canada and anti-activist rhetoric in Alberta and Saskatchewan that referring to other Conservatives as GTA activists and insiders is really strong language.

The Conservatives cannot afford to have the social conservatives split off into the Reform party again. If Rex Murphy is any indication social conservatives are not going to fall in line. 

JKR

There are 100 or so safe Conservative ridings across Canada so the Conservatives are going to remain a top-two party for the foreseeable future. Getting rid of Scheer will improve the Conservatives chances of winning the next election. This thread is silly at best.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

There are 100 or so safe Conservative ridings across Canada so the Conservatives are going to remain a top-two party for the foreseeable future. Getting rid of Scheer will improve the Conservatives chances of winning the next election. This thread is silly at best.

Doesn't that depend on who replaces him and whether or not social conservatives accept the back seat? 

The division in the party is as stark as it was when the Reform party was formed. The sides haven't mellowed. 

You have the GTA insider activists Rex Murphy refers to (who are they?) vs prairie social conservatives. 

The so called "GTA activists" are probably the ones saying being against homosexuality is like being racist and the ones saying climate change policy has to get serious. 

The party split before. In what way are they more united now? Which side is willing to back down? 

JKR

They are infinitely more united now because they are working with each other within one party instead of opposing each other within two parties. The social conservatives are going to back the Conservatives as they always have because they know that splitting the vote will just elect Liberals. They understand how FPTP works.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Quote:

"There is so much anti-central Canada and anti-activist rhetoric in Alberta and Saskatchewan that referring to other Conservatives as GTA activists and insiders is really strong language."

Rex Murphy is not Alberts or Saskatchewan.  He is from Newfoundland. I know that you have this hate thing going against western Canada, but try to realize that pretty much all of Canada outside of southern Ontario and southern Quebec have deeply rooted issues against central Canada and Toronto especially.

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:

Quote:

"There is so much anti-central Canada and anti-activist rhetoric in Alberta and Saskatchewan that referring to other Conservatives as GTA activists and insiders is really strong language."

Rex Murphy is not Alberts or Saskatchewan.  He is from Newfoundland. I know that you have this hate thing going against western Canada, but try to realize that pretty much all of Canada outside of southern Ontario and southern Quebec have deeply rooted issues against central Canada and Toronto especially.

Plus, the word "activist" is in such wide usage, with connotations usually shading between neutral and moderately negative(depending on who is using it), I really doubt that Day or Murphy was directing it specifically at western Canadians. To the extent that it would be used as a dog-whistle, it probably has as much appeal to Conservatives everywhere as to the ones in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:
....I really doubt that Day or Murphy was directing it specifically at western Canadians.   

He wasn't referring to the west. He is referring to GTA activists and insiders. He is saying Greater Toronto Area activists and insiders engineered Scheer's departure.  He is saying it should have been left to the members to decide in April.

Who do conservatives have a grudge against?  Central Canada (GTA) elites (insiders) and activists. 

Conservatives don't want to be turned into Liberal Lite any more than NDPers. 

voice of the damned

Pondering:

Sorry, my post was somewhat unclear. I know he was talking about people in the GTA, not in the west. But you implied that the word "activist" was chosen because of all the anti-activist rhetoric in the west, or at the very least, the word becomes a lot stronger because of that rhetoric.

I'm saying that the word "activist" was likely used because it's long been in wide usage for describing a certain type of political actor, not because of any extra negativity now being attached to it in the west.  

Pondering

Misfit, I don't hate the west or Alberta.  The prairies are more socially conservative than most of the rest of the country. I heard there is a 20% unemployment rate among young men in Alberta. I feel very bad for them. I am happy all the provinces are supporting Alberta's demand that the 60$ a head program for provinces suffering unusual financial hardship be raised. 

While I think social conservatives are usually very nice people I remain 100% opposed to their views and I do think supporting discrimination against homosexual people is akin to racism. If I believed abortion was murder I too would be opposed so I don't judge people who believe that to be bad people. I don't hate them. I disagree with them. 

The east also has a lot of social conservatism, especially more rural areas. Even so the Conservative Party is dominated by Alberta. 

JKR wrote:

They are infinitely more united now because they are working with each other within one party instead of opposing each other within two parties. The social conservatives are going to back the Conservatives as they always have because they know that splitting the vote will just elect Liberals. They understand how FPTP works.

They were one party under the PC banner. Didn't the social conservatives back then know that splitting the party would result in losing? Why did they then go Canadian Alliance instead of returning to the Conservative fold? 

They only returned to the Conservatives under Steven Harper, a social conservative. When he lost they chose another social conservative in Scheer.

Free marketers and fiscal conservatives are not the same thing. Fiscal conservatives still want medicare, solid K-12 education, reasonably affordable public transit, good roads, strong regulations on food production and safety etc. 

The new Conservative party went free market social conservative to try to give everyone a little bit of what they want.  Satisfy free marketers through lower regulation, fiscal and FM through lower taxes, social through tough on crime and allowing pro-life MPs to speak and vote pro-life.  That's not unity. That is giving disparate groups each a little something.

Social conservatives wanted Scheer to do more to defend them and their views even if no laws changed. That does not sound like people willing to put their principles aside for the sake of expediency. 

Fiscal conservatives are red tories. They prefer the Conservative party but the Liberal party still delivers. 

The various factions came together to win but they didn't unite. They made a deal. They are splintering under this loss because the deal isn't working anymore. Social conservatism is interfering with the ability to win. An added irritant is the predicament of the oil industry. If TM goes through that will open a major pressure valve but until it breaks through BC it is increasing frustrations in general.

 

 

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering:

Sorry, my post was somewhat unclear. I know he was talking about people in the GTA, not in the west. But you implied that the word "activist" was chosen because of all the anti-activist rhetoric in the west, or at the very least, the word becomes a lot stronger because of that rhetoric.

I'm saying that the word "activist" was likely used because it's long been in wide usage for describing a certain type of political actor, not because of any extra negativity now being attached to it in the west.  

Maybe so, but I think the west has extra sensitivity to environmental activism which is dominating worldwide closely followed by protests against inequality desiring government intervention against free market capitalism. He could have just said GTA insiders. Bet he wasn't referring to pro-life activists. Eastern conservatives aren't as sensitive at the moment although I am sure Rex wouldn't be adverse to whipping up sentiment there too. 

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
He is saying Greater Toronto Area activists and insiders engineered Scheer's departure.  He is saying it should have been left to the members to decide in April.

Scheer had every right to let the members decide in April. Instead he ran away with his tail between his legs after the private school scandal broke. Murphy should have criticized Scheer himself rather than some unnamed "GTA activists" if he thought the members were still behind Scheer.

Also it seems to be pretty clear to almost everyone except Murphy that the name connecting those "activists" trying to oust Scheer is Stephen Harper.

Pondering

So does any of this indicate Conservative unity? I'm convinced the leadership wants social conservatives to pipe down and priorize fiscal conservatism. I'm not convinced social conservatives intend to cooperate. 

Pages