The decline of the Conservatives

371 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The point is that Conservative ideology in Canada is not in decline and supported by vast amounts of money.

I am talking about the federal Conservative Party not ideology.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals are in trouble as they have been for a while due to the difficulty of appealing to both right and left flanks. One bad leader and the Liberals are on life support again due to this division.

They are in trouble because Trudeau is a bad leader but even he couldn’t lose the election. There is no right/left division within the party. The Liberals don’t even have party members anymore so they aren’t a problem. The MPs tend to do what they are told. They appeal to the left through social policy and the right through fiscal policy. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-brand-survey-1.5411086

When asked which words people associate with the Conservative Party, the three most common terms volunteered were "old," "tradition," and "closed."

The report also found that voters associate the Conservative brand with the oil and gas industry, the military and religion, but not with diversity, equality or climate change.

(The survey deserves greater focus so I will address the non-existent evidence within later.)

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  We do not care about the label.

Is that a royal “we”?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But there is no decline that can be predicted in all seriousness. Again the premise of the thread is ridiculous.

Ok boomer.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

The report also found that voters associate the Conservative brand with the oil and gas industry, the military and religion, but not with diversity, equality or climate change.

I think unfortunately there are very many voters who value the oil and gas industry and other industries that contribute to climate change. I think very many Canadians also highly value religion and the military. I think unfortunately many Canadians are opposed to diversity. Many Canadians support income inequality because they feel capitalism requires inequality and capitalism generates wealth. Unfortunately very many Canadians also feel climate change is a hoax and even more Canadians feel that even if it is real Canada can't change it because our population is very small and climate change is caused mostly by other countries like the US, China, and, India. Very many Canadians also unfortunately believe that social programs make people weak and dependent. One example is the PC government political in Manitoba who's against school breakfast programs.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
 You are the only person I can think of who believes the Conservatives are heading toward third party status. Do you know of anyone else who thinks the Conservatives are heading toward third party status?

I don't see anyone else expressing opinions about what is coming 10/15 years down the line. There is evidence that the Conservatives are worried about more than just the next election. 

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

The report also found that voters associate the Conservative brand with the oil and gas industry, the military and religion, but not with diversity, equality or climate change.

I think unfortunately there are very many voters who value the oil and gas industry and other industries that contribute to climate change. I think very many Canadians also highly value religion and the military. I think unfortunately many Canadians are opposed to diversity. Many Canadians support income inequality because they feel capitalism requires inequality and capitalism generates wealth. Unfortunately very many Canadians also feel climate change is a hoax and even more Canadians feel that even if it is real Canada can't change it because our population is very small and climate change is caused mostly by other countries like the US, China, and, India. Very many Canadians also unfortunately believe that social programs make people weak and dependent. One example is the PC government political in Manitoba who's against school breakfast programs.

I hope somebody else wants to take this one. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

I hope somebody else wants to take this one. 

I think since you are probably the only one here who thinks the Conservatives are heading toward third party status, you are the only one here who has any reason to respond to my post that stated that many Canadian voters are on the same wavelength with conservative parties. Like it or not, many Canadian voters want small government and less social programs. They want lower taxes. They support economic inequality. They feel that climate change is not an important issue. Many of these voters are sexist, racist and homophobic. I wish it wasn't so but I think that's the world we live in where right of centre parties have and will likely continue to have significant support from segments of the electorate.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The point is that Conservative ideology in Canada is not in decline and supported by vast amounts of money.

I am talking about the federal Conservative Party not ideology.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals are in trouble as they have been for a while due to the difficulty of appealing to both right and left flanks. One bad leader and the Liberals are on life support again due to this division.

They are in trouble because Trudeau is a bad leader but even he couldn’t lose the election. There is no right/left division within the party. The Liberals don’t even have party members anymore so they aren’t a problem. The MPs tend to do what they are told. They appeal to the left through social policy and the right through fiscal policy. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-party-brand-survey-1.5411086

When asked which words people associate with the Conservative Party, the three most common terms volunteered were "old," "tradition," and "closed."

The report also found that voters associate the Conservative brand with the oil and gas industry, the military and religion, but not with diversity, equality or climate change.

(The survey deserves greater focus so I will address the non-existent evidence within later.)

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
  We do not care about the label.

Is that a royal “we”?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But there is no decline that can be predicted in all seriousness. Again the premise of the thread is ridiculous.

Ok boomer.

I don't want to spend much time responding to this especially as it ends with a silly comment given that from what you have said befre I think you are older than I am. 

I already said that the Conservatives in the last election lost becuase of Ford not becuase of Scheer. A swing towards the Conservatives happened everywhere but Quebec and Ontario. There has been many studies about why it did not happen in Ontario but they all come back to Ford. If the Conservative swing that happened elsewhere had been replicated in Ontario Trudeau would have lost. The Conservatives historically have never done that well federally when they had a wall of Conservatives in power provincially. 

The we is the people saying your focus on the party over the ideology is silly and that the ideology is secure in both support and funding to be a second or first party. Pretty much the we is everyone in this thread but you.

Your link to the branding article does not really support your thesis with any good read. The party is due for a brand update says the article. Nothing there suggests this cannot be done. As well the Conservative supporters "see the party as "trusting, caring, honest, realistic and good."" The opposition to them will see them as negative. So really not much there other than the need to convert perhaps another 5% which is not something we did not know already.

These associations as well as the industry ones are subject to branding changes that the Conservatives have a tremendous amount of money to initiate.

 

 

Pondering

"Ok boomer" is about mindset not just age. Thinking that because something has always been it will always be so is part of it. The "argument" you are presenting is rooted in that thinking. 

Arguing from the perspective of ideology when the argument being presented is about the political party is called using strawman arguments. 

I have long argued that red Tories will move to the Liberals so claiming it will happen is not refuting my argument it is supporting it. (Unless you think the Conservatives can win without red Tories.)

I am also curious about which Conservative ideology you are referring to. So con ideology? Free market ideology? PC ideology? 

A party that admits it needs a branding change is a party that is admitting they can't win an election. Needing one doesn't mean one with the potential to succeed will be found.  A party that used to win elections and can no longer win elections is in decline by definition. They should have won the past election and they know it.

Is there a brand that both the base and new voters will both support? I say there is not and money can't buy one just like money can't force EE through Quebec. 

You say there is a brand that will satisfy the base and bring in new voters so spit it out. 

I have presented the argument that red tories will move to the Liberals drawing the Liberals farther to the right multiple times. That would leave the Conservative party with the so cons and free market libertarians.

The first stage will be the Conservatives remaining in second place and the Liberals with a tenuous minority or a majority depending on current events during the election period. The Conservatives have one more shot at a minority.

The insistence of so-cons pushing their agenda and oil types hostile to any movement on climate change unless it includes pipelines is at odds with majority Canadian sentiment. Canadians are not necessarily against pipelines but they don't tie climate action to them no matter how many times Trudeau intones "the economy and the environment". The desire for legislation on abortion drives away centrists. 

There is a chance we will go close to a 30/30/30 type split with Conservatives unable to win and the Liberals winning minorities. There is a chance the Liberals will win multiple massive majorities.

There will be more fires, more floods, more tornadoes, more invasive species, more crop failures. Canada is well placed to deal with it in comparision to other countries but that will not comfort farmers or the people who are being burnt or flooded out of their homes. They are not going to want to be told there is no hope. They will expect a whole lot of socialist help adjusting to the reality of climate change not just low taxes especially not for corporations.

The biggest wildcard is the NDP. They may remain as they are, cautious and on the fence, which will send voters to the Greens. They could get honest about climate change and commit to transitioning. That would take voters from the Greens. Refugees from the ever more right wing Liberals could pull the NDP more to the centre or prevent progressives within the party from pulling the party left. I could see the NDP splitting to create a more progressive party leaving the rump to the Liberals and moderates. 

https://abacusdata.ca/get-the-next-10-reflections-and-data-on-how-the-conservatives-can-grow/

In order to win in 2019, the Conservative will need to find a way to hold their current support base together while finding a way to convert about half of those who are currently open to voting for them but are either committed to another party or undecided....

They did not win in 2019 because they didn't achieve the above. I don't think it can be done anymore. They cannot win without becoming Liberal Lite and they can't hold their base if they do become Liberal Lite. 

There is no room for the Conservatives to move left without bumping into the Liberals and offending their base. Alberta is land-locked, at the mercy of others to get oil to market. From what I have read Trans Mountain does not guarantee a new oil boom. Their western base is becoming more militant not less so. They will insist on the party rejecting the carbon tax federally. 

I don't see a longterm viable path for the Conservative Party.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

"Ok boomer" is about mindset not just age. Thinking that because something has always been it will always be so is part of it. The "argument" you are presenting is rooted in that thinking. 

Arguing from the perspective of ideology when the argument being presented is about the political party is called using strawman arguments. 

I have long argued that red Tories will move to the Liberals so claiming it will happen is not refuting my argument it is supporting it. (Unless you think the Conservatives can win without red Tories.)

I am also curious about which Conservative ideology you are referring to. So con ideology? Free market ideology? PC ideology? 

A party that admits it needs a branding change is a party that is admitting they can't win an election. Needing one doesn't mean one with the potential to succeed will be found.  A party that used to win elections and can no longer win elections is in decline by definition. They should have won the past election and they know it.

Is there a brand that both the base and new voters will both support? I say there is not and money can't buy one just like money can't force EE through Quebec. 

You say there is a brand that will satisfy the base and bring in new voters so spit it out. 

I have presented the argument that red tories will move to the Liberals drawing the Liberals farther to the right multiple times. That would leave the Conservative party with the so cons and free market libertarians.

The first stage will be the Conservatives remaining in second place and the Liberals with a tenuous minority or a majority depending on current events during the election period. The Conservatives have one more shot at a minority.

The insistence of so-cons pushing their agenda and oil types hostile to any movement on climate change unless it includes pipelines is at odds with majority Canadian sentiment. Canadians are not necessarily against pipelines but they don't tie climate action to them no matter how many times Trudeau intones "the economy and the environment". The desire for legislation on abortion drives away centrists. 

There is a chance we will go close to a 30/30/30 type split with Conservatives unable to win and the Liberals winning minorities. There is a chance the Liberals will win multiple massive majorities.

There will be more fires, more floods, more tornadoes, more invasive species, more crop failures. Canada is well placed to deal with it in comparision to other countries but that will not comfort farmers or the people who are being burnt or flooded out of their homes. They are not going to want to be told there is no hope. They will expect a whole lot of socialist help adjusting to the reality of climate change not just low taxes especially not for corporations.

The biggest wildcard is the NDP. They may remain as they are, cautious and on the fence, which will send voters to the Greens. They could get honest about climate change and commit to transitioning. That would take voters from the Greens. Refugees from the ever more right wing Liberals could pull the NDP more to the centre or prevent progressives within the party from pulling the party left. I could see the NDP splitting to create a more progressive party leaving the rump to the Liberals and moderates. 

https://abacusdata.ca/get-the-next-10-reflections-and-data-on-how-the-conservatives-can-grow/

In order to win in 2019, the Conservative will need to find a way to hold their current support base together while finding a way to convert about half of those who are currently open to voting for them but are either committed to another party or undecided....

They did not win in 2019 because they didn't achieve the above. I don't think it can be done anymore. They cannot win without becoming Liberal Lite and they can't hold their base if they do become Liberal Lite. 

There is no room for the Conservatives to move left without bumping into the Liberals and offending their base. Alberta is land-locked, at the mercy of others to get oil to market. From what I have read Trans Mountain does not guarantee a new oil boom. Their western base is becoming more militant not less so. They will insist on the party rejecting the carbon tax federally. 

I don't see a longterm viable path for the Conservative Party.

Ok boomer is a dsimissive comment about an older mindset based on age. A mindset that I do not ahve and is not relevant. This is based on facts and argument -- you pick insults and I won't get back into the pissing contests with you but I won't bother to read any more right now from you either. I am too pissed off to read anything you wrote in this last post after it. Your choosing this way of responding made it clear that you had nothing of value to say.

So maybe you wrote it for others who may read it but your approach does not make me want to waste the time.

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok boomer is a dsimissive comment about an older mindset based on age. A mindset that I do not ahve and is not relevant. This is based on facts and argument -- you pick insults and I won't get back into the pissing contests with you but I won't bother to read any more right now from you either. I am too pissed off to read anything you wrote in this last post after it. Your choosing this way of responding made it clear that you had nothing of value to say.

So maybe you wrote it for others who may read it but your approach does not make me want to waste the time.

Rather than dealing with arguments presented you fall back on insisting the premise of the thread is ridiculous and pointless, and yet here you are.  Your idea of facts and arguments is "I can prove this was therefore it will always be."  That is the textbook meaning of "Ok boomer". 

The "me and my gang agree so we must be right" is a particularly weak argument. Being in the majority doesn't make one right particularly when it is a majority of 2, or maybe 3, I'm not counting.

Participate, don't, I don't care. Treat me with respect and it will be returned. Give me attitude and that too will be returned. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ok boomer is a dsimissive comment about an older mindset based on age. A mindset that I do not ahve and is not relevant. This is based on facts and argument -- you pick insults and I won't get back into the pissing contests with you but I won't bother to read any more right now from you either. I am too pissed off to read anything you wrote in this last post after it. Your choosing this way of responding made it clear that you had nothing of value to say.

So maybe you wrote it for others who may read it but your approach does not make me want to waste the time.

Rather than dealing with arguments presented you fall back on insisting the premise of the thread is ridiculous and pointless, and yet here you are.  Your idea of facts and arguments is "I can prove this was therefore it will always be."  That is the textbook meaning of "Ok boomer". 

The "me and my gang agree so we must be right" is a particularly weak argument. Being in the majority doesn't make one right particularly when it is a majority of 2, or maybe 3, I'm not counting.

Participate, don't, I don't care. Treat me with respect and it will be returned. Give me attitude and that too will be returned. 

I dealt with you on topic and you threw out the ok boomer personal dismissiveness. 

I did present arguments. You have reverted to your previous habit of going personal and then pretending to be a victim and I declined to go down the rabbit hole. Nothing I said was an attack on you -- all was on your argument. You left the topic to throw this at me and any chance I would read the following post from you went down the toilet.

I suspect you are a boomer who had this thrown at you. 

IT is not about how people treat you. It is about how you earn disresepct. Throwing out that comment in this context is only going to get the other person to shut down on you -- especially since it was nothing to do with a generational argument and our ages had nothing to do with the topic. 

Our difference of opinion is based on my contention that the Conservative party has enough advantages to prevent it from falling to third place. This is due to the fact that they remain the party of capital interests. The details about positions that can be changed are not serious enough to drop them to third place (from their present first) any time soon.

Don't be rude to people and then expect respect. Not going to happen becuase it would be fake.

Sean in Ottawa

By the way Pondering here is the first interenet found meaning of the insult you threw at me:

The phrase "OK Boomer" is a pejorative retort used to dismiss or mock perceived narrow-minded, outdated, negatively-judgemental, or condescending attitudes of older people, particularly baby boomers.

Let me explain this carefully: my response to you was very respectful given what a normal response could be for having that thrown out in this conversation.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

A party that used to win elections and can no longer win elections is in decline by definition.

Do you think the Liberals would have been able to barely hang on to government if Kathleen Wynne was still the premier of Ontario during the election?

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

...my contention that the Conservative party has enough advantages to prevent it from falling to third place. This is due to the fact that they remain the party of capital interests. The details about positions that can be changed are not serious enough to drop them to third place (from their present first) any time soon.

I think it's obvious that currently there is no reason to believe that the Conservatives are likely heading to 3rd party status. A good case can be made that the Conservatives are the least likely party to be a 3rd party as the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and BQ eat into each other's vote and that could possibly bring the Liberals down into a weak 2nd place position or even 3rd place like they were in in 2011. And if you include the provinces, a small-c conservative party is in a top-2 position in all of the provinces. Currently small-c conservative  parties are the provincial governments for more than 4/5ths of Canadians.

JKR

I do think a good case can be made that the Conservative Party of Canada is for the foreseeable future likely stuck in second place with a narrow route to forming a federal government.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

By the way Pondering here is the first interenet found meaning of the insult you threw at me:

The phrase "OK Boomer" is a pejorative retort used to dismiss or mock perceived narrow-minded, outdated, negatively-judgemental, or condescending attitudes of older people, particularly baby boomers.

Let me explain this carefully: my response to you was very respectful given what a normal response could be for having that thrown out in this conversation.

It's a pretty common insult from the generation eating tide pods and stepping out of moving cars to dance to a song. So there's that.

Pondering

Yes Sean, that was the definition I intended to express. Nope, no one has ever used it on me. I don't think victims spend as much time laughing as I do. Of course it is referring to boomers, an age group. "Boomer" is right there in it. Consider it a promotion. 

Time will tell. 

Let's get specific.

To get back to the topic at hand. I think people are underestimating the impact that climate change and western alienation will have on Canadian politics as well as income inequality. 

The following is an optimistic analysis on what the Conservatives need to do to be successful. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/to-win-the-next-election-conservatives-need-a-credible-climate-plan/

Let’s start with the bad news. A greater emphasis on climate change by the Conservatives would cost them some of their votes: just under one in 10 Conservative voters say that a credible climate change plan from the Conservative campaign would make them “less likely” to vote Conservative. The good news, however, is that 28 per cent of accessible voters would be “more likely” to vote Conservative if the party had presented a more credible climate change plan. And most interestingly, if you look at the subsample of accessible Conservatives who didn’t rule out voting for the party, that number increases to 32 per cent of  voters.

Thus, of the most accessible Conservative voters in the 905, 32 per cent would be “more likely” to vote for the party if it had a more credible climate change plan. And such a plan wouldn’t affect the vote of over 90 per cent of existing Conservative voters in the 905. This suggests that one path for the Conservative Party in the 905: to make climate change a higher priority, and to present a plan to do so.

The devil is in the details. Define "credible climate plan".   Canadians support carbon pricing. Will the MPs in the Conservative party accept and defend keeping carbon pricing? Will they have the same definition of "credible climate plan" as people in the ridings they need to win? I say they won't. I say radicalization in Alberta will prevent it. 

For the NDP to win either the Conservatives or Liberals have to fall to 3rd place. 

The Liberal party has the largest potential voting pool. They have governed more than any other party in Canadian history. They have lots of Bay Street support. 

The Overton window is sliding left. 

The next election will either leave us with another minority government, possibly Conservative but more likely Liberal, or a Liberal majority. 

My bet is the next election will result in another Liberal minority. If not that, a Conservative minority, if not that a Liberal majority. There is no chance of a Conservative majority. The NDP will be static or a little stronger. 

Place your bets if you dare.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Place your bets if you dare.

- Peter MacKay will win the Conservative June leadership election.

- Peter MacKay will establish a climate change policy.

- Many Conservative voters will not be happy with the new policy but they will stick with the Conservatives because winning power is their first priority.

Pondering

I agree that Peter MacKay will likely win but I don't think it will be an overwhelming win.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/peter-mackay-winnipeg-rally-1.5483334

"Hard work. Principle. Recognizing that there's dignity in a job. Getting more people active in the economy. Because this is where we're starting to stumble," he said. ...

MacKay vowed to restore growth, emphasize security and safety and contribute internationally in order to "leave things better than we found them."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-carbon-tax-for-mackay-government-paris-climate-targets-aspirational-1.4823430

Conservative leadership hopeful Peter MacKay says a government under his rule would scrap the carbon tax yet would still “try” to meet the Paris climate targets....

“Canadians can be innovators and be big contributors to the global effort because we’re not the problem,” said MacKay. “We have an obligation to do our part, but I think we can be bigger in our vision and bolder in our effort to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.”...

As for meeting the Paris Agreement – the international pact to curb global temperature rise thatCanada signed in 2015 – MacKay said his government would “try” to get there.

“It’s aspirational,” he said, doubling down on the idea that putting a price on carbon isn’t the way to do so. “A carbon tax does not lessen [emissions]; it gives license to pollute.”

Hello 2005. No carbon tax. Contribute by developing green tech we can offer other countries to reduce their emissions because we aren't the problem. Law and order. Increased military spending. 

Yeah, I think Peter MacKay will win because ridings are weighted equally to prevent Alberta from dominating the party but they are still dominant. MacKay sounds like Harper 2.0. Scrap the carbon tax and export green tech is not a credible climate change plan. Or perhaps he thinks we are helping the planet by exporting natural gas to replace coal. 

MacKay is the more centrist candidate. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Yes Sean, that was the definition I intended to express. Nope, no one has ever used it on me. I don't think victims spend as much time laughing as I do. Of course it is referring to boomers, an age group. "Boomer" is right there in it. Consider it a promotion. 

Time will tell. 

Let's get specific.

To get back to the topic at hand. I think people are underestimating the impact that climate change and western alienation will have on Canadian politics as well as income inequality. 

The following is an optimistic analysis on what the Conservatives need to do to be successful. 

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/to-win-the-next-election-conservatives-need-a-credible-climate-plan/

Let’s start with the bad news. A greater emphasis on climate change by the Conservatives would cost them some of their votes: just under one in 10 Conservative voters say that a credible climate change plan from the Conservative campaign would make them “less likely” to vote Conservative. The good news, however, is that 28 per cent of accessible voters would be “more likely” to vote Conservative if the party had presented a more credible climate change plan. And most interestingly, if you look at the subsample of accessible Conservatives who didn’t rule out voting for the party, that number increases to 32 per cent of  voters.

Thus, of the most accessible Conservative voters in the 905, 32 per cent would be “more likely” to vote for the party if it had a more credible climate change plan. And such a plan wouldn’t affect the vote of over 90 per cent of existing Conservative voters in the 905. This suggests that one path for the Conservative Party in the 905: to make climate change a higher priority, and to present a plan to do so.

The devil is in the details. Define "credible climate plan".   Canadians support carbon pricing. Will the MPs in the Conservative party accept and defend keeping carbon pricing? Will they have the same definition of "credible climate plan" as people in the ridings they need to win? I say they won't. I say radicalization in Alberta will prevent it. 

For the NDP to win either the Conservatives or Liberals have to fall to 3rd place. 

The Liberal party has the largest potential voting pool. They have governed more than any other party in Canadian history. They have lots of Bay Street support. 

The Overton window is sliding left. 

The next election will either leave us with another minority government, possibly Conservative but more likely Liberal, or a Liberal majority. 

My bet is the next election will result in another Liberal minority. If not that, a Conservative minority, if not that a Liberal majority. There is no chance of a Conservative majority. The NDP will be static or a little stronger. 

Place your bets if you dare.

Why do you do this obviously stuff? Your playbook as it is executed here and in the past:

1) Put out a way out there indefensible idea

2) After it is easily blown out of the water, you stand by it and argue anyway until you are blue in the face -- many people leave the thread so that it is only you blowing hard against repeated doses of reality.

3) You engage in personal attacks like the one above with the remaining people still not letting you away with it-- the people commenting how ridiculous the opening assertion you made is -- or what the thread degenerated to

4) You play mind games with your attack- pretending to be the victim and trying to recast what it means -- even though your attack had no relevance to the topic, it  lets you draw the focus away from the original content you posted

5) You come back saying that you are talking on the topic like your last post which is nothing like the assertion that you started with (in this case that the Conservative party was flirting with oblivion and will at least drop to third) -- trying to reset the conversation away from your original theory. --

To me your tactics seem like a lot of effort to avoid admitting that your idea went down like a lead balloon. It costs you goodwill with everyone. You fight with the only people left engaging with you while the others avoid contact. For a while you stopped doing this. Please, please, go back to not doing this. It drives people crazy. Here is why:

You start with one assertion and then all kinds of people invest in a response. Then you stoop to attacks and volume so that most find it not worth it. The people who engaged the most are frustrated becuase they are the ones most invested in the conversation that includes other people, meanwhile, never admitting you might not have been on point, you just slowly slide away with rearguard attacks designed to make sure others leave the conversation. People who were invested become furious.

People can learn. They can change their position. Still, with experience some positions may be harder to dislodge-- not becuase they are stubborn (ok boomer) but becuase they have been challenged so many times that if they were not robust to begin with they would have fallen. Some more experienced people hang on and will not defend their positions to new information -- and those may deserve the ok boomer comment. Others have given up the more weak understandings and are left with fewer risks. In this case as you throw out the boomer epithet you insult probably half the people on this board who actually are boomers and still engage and learn having done so for years.

Just stop. You used to do these tactics in multiple threads at once and it never worked for you. It will not work magically now.

This is not a personal attack on you -- it is a plea to have you rethink going over the edge where you fought with the same tactic with everyone on this board who would talk to you at all. 

Sean in Ottawa

On that last comment of Pondering's, nobody would disagree that one of the other parties has to drop to third for the NDP to be first (just think of the mathematical possibilities of three parties -- if 3rd becomes 1st someone else has to be third....) However, the only parties able to drop to third for any extended period are the Liberals or the NDP unless the Conservatives take the Liberal brand and make that the conservative party. The reason is Conservativism is too entrenched to drop this far except as a branding issue. There will be, for the foreseeable future, a Conservative party taking on either a centre or a centre-left party.

People have pointed out that the Conservatives could stagnate in second, however. A close split between the centre and centre left would have the Conservatives go to first. The only way for the NDP to be first or consistently second is to drive through the Liberal party. The reason is that the NDP and Liberals fight over enough of the same ground in rhetoric and politics (even considering their ideology and policies are very, very different). This is why the NDP and Liberals often fight harder with each other than with the Conservatives to the frustration, often, of supporters, who want them to concentrate on challenging the Conservatives -- even through cooperation.

You can understand this best if you calculate the number of basic binary directions you either are for or against. The Conservatives are consistenly on the side of small government, traditional values (even though those do change over time, fiscal and social conservativism. The Liberals flirt with conservative policies but mostly oppose Conservative positions politically if not in policy. This is why the NDP are seen, particularly by Conservatives, as Liberals in a hurry -- or more extreme Liberals.

The Liberals present more spending, more compassion (maybe not real but this is what is sold), bigger more involved government, etc.

The NDP often consider the Liberals to be pointing in the correct direction, waving at it, but determined not to venture down that path. 

The reality is that the true "conservative" party today is the Liberals. They represent where things got to a couple generations ago. The Conservatives want to "reform" back to where things were four generations ago. The Conservatives used to be the stagnation party. Now that is the Liberal party while the Conservaatives are activists for a change back to a distant past before the progress of the 20th century. In this sense the NDP is closer to the Liberals who are at least advocating for the policies of living memory. The NDP represents an equality and future that has never been. The Liberals represent the compromises of the 20th century while the Conservatives oppose those compromises and want radical shifts back to the 19th century, a time before women voting, of slavery and exploitation, of no unions. Just with a modern packaging.

Liberals represent the establishment, the Conservatives are always pushing for more radical take over by capitalists. The Conservatives often do more while the Liberals take tepid steps unless the New Democrats give them a shove. By shoving them the electorate takes it as cooperation and further blur understanding of the difference between the parties. 

Still, take position after position -- apart from degrees, you can be for or against: immigration loads of policies but mostly for or against. Lower taxes: same thing. The Conservatives, unless they effectively take over the Liberals are distinct in a sound-bite. The NDP and Liberals require more knowledge than the average voter to distinguish except by degrees. The NDP philosophy is something that is not understood by many except as to mean greater compassion, more spending and more involvement -- all on things the Liberals claim to do more moderately. It is true that the NDP is grounded historically in the concept of the working person while the Liberals are in the concept of the "middle" -- but even these can be seen to overlap. The Conservatves? The owners, the money, the investors. No clear overlap there. In policy the Liberals and the Conservatives are often the closest in political campaign rhetoric, to the frustration of the NDP, it is the NDP and Liberals.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party has the largest potential voting pool. They have governed more than any other party in Canadian history. They have lots of Bay Street support. 

The Overton window is sliding left. 

But we were hearing all this same stuff throughout the mid-90s to early 2000s. Remember?

"Well, the Liberals definitely have their finger on the pulse of the nation, and they know Canadians aren't interested in all this culture-war stuff from south of the border, and meanwhile we've got the Reformacons saying black people should work in the back of the shop and why don't we just let the 'moral prisoners' take care of the pedophiles, so, sheesh, is it any wonder the Grits are back in their historic role as the great moderating force of Canadian politics?"

By 2006, the Cons were back in power, and by 2011, they had a majority. And, no, that's not neccessarily because everyone suddenly agreed that racist workplaces or vigilante-mobs were a good thing. Rather, they were just so sick and tired of the Liberals, that outrage over right-wing idiocy ceased to be a primary motivating factor.

Pondering

However, the only parties able to drop to third for any extended period are the Liberals or the NDP unless the Conservatives take the Liberal brand and make that the conservative party. 

Yes, that is exactly what I foresee happening. The Conservative party is becoming more and more extreme.

The reality is that the true "conservative" party today is the Liberals. They represent where things got to a couple generations ago. The Conservatives want to "reform" back to where things were four generations ago. The Conservatives used to be the stagnation party. Now that is the Liberal party while the Conservaatives are activists for a change back to a distant past before the progress of the 20th century. In this sense the NDP is closer to the Liberals who are at least advocating for the policies of living memory. The NDP represents an equality and future that has never been. The Liberals represent the compromises of the 20th century while the Conservatives oppose those compromises and want radical shifts back to the 19th century, a time before women voting, of slavery and exploitation, of no unions. Just with a modern packaging. 

Yes exactly, except the electorate has been too stupid to see it. The continued radicalization of the Conservative Party will doom them again in 2023. After reading about MacKay's point of view on climate change I take back the possibility of a Conservative minority. Within the next couple of elections the red Tories will flip and take over the Liberal party which as you noted is all but the old PC party anyway.

We will be left with the Reform-Cons, Con-Libs, and ?NDP.  The NDP is the big wild-card. They are running out of time to get in front of the parade and label themselves the party of climate change. They can't stay on the fence like the Liberals. 

I can't see the west going Liberal so they will dominate the reform-Cons. They will also keep the so-Cons and anti-immigrant set. 

Danger to the NDP is that the left-liberals will go to the NDP and drag it back to the centre. I see it as crucial for the NDP to rebrand itself. 

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party has the largest potential voting pool. They have governed more than any other party in Canadian history. They have lots of Bay Street support. 

The Overton window is sliding left. 

But we were hearing all this same stuff throughout the mid-90s to early 2000s. Remember?

"Well, the Liberals definitely have their finger on the pulse of the nation, and they know Canadians aren't interested in all this culture-war stuff from south of the border, and meanwhile we've got the Reformacons saying black people should work in the back of the shop and why don't we just let the 'moral prisoners' take care of the pedophiles, so, sheesh, is it any wonder the Grits are back in their historic role as the great moderating force of Canadian politics?"

By 2006, the Cons were back in power, and by 2011, they had a majority. And, no, that's not neccessarily because everyone suddenly agreed that racist workplaces or vigilante-mobs were a good thing. Rather, they were just so sick and tired of the Liberals, that outrage over right-wing idiocy ceased to be a primary motivating factor.

I remember, and they were wrong unless you're referring to social policy. The Liberals were sliding right economically. They outflanked the NDP on the left because of cannabis legalization and willingness to run deficits. 

In my opinion in 2005 Canadians were tricked into voting for the Reform Party when they thought they were voting for the Conservative Party. They probably still do. It is climate change and the waning of the oil industry that will do them in. 

Peter MacKay actually had the nerve to say that we aren't the problem because we only represent 1% of global emissions. And he is their more centrist candidate.

voice of the damned

 It is climate change and the waning of the oil industry that will do them in. 

Percentage, by country, of people in 2015 agreeing that "Climate Change Is A Very Serious Problem"...

Canada 51%

And even with that, it's almost certainly the case that not all of the 51% will be voting with climate as their top issue.

(By the way, the rest of that chart makes for some very instructive reading. I know it's a few years old now, but for the United Freaking Kingdom to be as low as 41% at so recent a date...)

https://tinyurl.com/tenvgxd

 

 

 

Pondering

 It is climate change and the waning of the oil industry that will do them in. 

Percentage, by country, of people in 2015 agreeing that "Climate Change Is A Very Serious Problem"...

Canada 51%

And even with that, it's almost certainly the case that not all of the 51% will be voting with climate as their top issue.

(By the way, the rest of that chart makes for some very instructive reading. I know it's a few years old now, but for the United Freaking Kingdom to be as low as 41% at so recent a date...)

https://tinyurl.com/tenvgxd  

Ten years ago it was probably 20%. Times are changing rapidly. The economy will probably always be the top issue but climate change will be right up there with it and income inequality coming up the rear.  

The Conservatives aren't just "not as good" on climate change they are in dinosaur territory. If climate change were the number one issue the Greens would be winning. The Liberals offer just enough to appear credible for now. 

Liberals and Conservatives are roughly evenly trusted on the economy but the Liberals have always had the edge. The Conservatives don't win on policy they win when the Liberals are weak, or they used to. That is why they are so upset that Scheer didn't win. It's why they are saying they have to "rebrand" and ditch the homophobia. Notice they haven't done the same on the abortion topic even though they knew it caused them trouble in 2019. They are still trying to sweep it under the rug by saying they won't act to pass legislation but followers, even mainstream pundits want it debated. 

Climate change means more government intervention due to floods and fires but it doesn't end there. Farmers are being impacted. They will have to change crops or worse. They are going to want government help as will many others. The impacts of climate change are accelerating and that will continue for many years even if we stop dead in our tracks now. The insurance companies know. 

After decades of cuts in spending and taxes there is no where left to cut that won't impact services. Ford is being forced to back down. Kenny's plan will fail because he is not going to get the oil prices he wants. 

MacKay is running on little to no action on climate change because we aren't the problem. Increased military and law enforcement spending, lower taxes. Apparently the "rebranding" is attending Pride parades. 

JKR

I think MacKay is a relatively savvy politician so in the next election the Conservatives will likely have a policy on climate change included in their election platform that will gain a lot of support from Canada's centre and centre-right voters. The Conservatives will probably stress innovative Canadian technologies and some increased regulations and getting rid of the "carbon tax." I think the Conservatives first priority is to win power and that will insure that they innovate with the times. That's what has happened in Canada since Confederation. Canada's economic elite that lead the Conservatives will insist that the Conservatives have a credible policy on climate change in order to have a good chance at forming government at the next election.

northwestern_lad

This Conservative Leadership race has really been a gong-show so far, and man did yesterday prove that again. It looks like a so-con might be kingmaker again if MacKay can't win on the first ballot and another candidate did the Canadian political TV tour, tripled-down on a lot of stuff they were supposedly trying to move on from & left an impression but not a good one. Crazy stuff to watch from the sidelines 

https://magpiebrule.ca/2020/03/05/conscious-political-dehydration/

 

Debater

Jason Kenney endorses Erin O'Toole for Conservative leadership

Mar 05, 2020

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney — one of the most prominent voices in Canada's Conservative movement — has thrown his support behind Erin O'Toole's bid to become the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

---

"No one will have their deeply-held beliefs dismissed as 'stinking albatrosses' under Erin O'Toole's leadership."

More at link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kenney-otoole-conservative-leader-1.5487456

Pondering

From January 29th..

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/opinion/national-perspectives/john-ivison-...

MacKay said his starting point is that Canada is not a major polluter.

He reiterated Scheer’s position that Canada could make a major difference in addressing global warming if it could get its “highly regulated and affordable” liquified natural gas to countries like India, China and Pakistan, displacing the use of coal to generate electricity in those places.

“Instead, and perversely, we are bringing oil and gas in large volumes into this country from countries like Iran, like Saudi Arabia, like Venezuela, like Algeria,” he said. “These are countries to which we are philosophically opposed in terms of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. Yet arguably we are enabling the worst regimes in the world, bolstering their economies by buying their energy, when we have it under our feet. It’s like owning a bread store and buying bread.”

MacKay's starting point is that Canada isn't a major polluter and Quebec should buy only Alberta oil. Same ol Alberta centric view. I fear for Alberta  I just read that if Alberta had the same taxes as the next lowest taxed province they would have billions resulting in a surplus. Yet Kenny is cutting taxes and services. That's ideological not economic. All the pipelines are being blocked and investors are pulling out of the sands. From what I am reading the economic argument for the pipeline may be false and predicated on the price of oil going up. I'm not surprised the rhetoric from Alberta is getting heated. 

There is no doubt that from the moment Scheer lost the pundits and Conservative elites trumpeted that the next leader would have to go to Pride and be more moderate/centrist. 

MacKay is from the maritimes which is also in oil and would profit from Energy East. It's really just Quebec standing in the way. Alberta/MacKay still seem to be under the impression that EE can be forced through Quebec based on federal law or that Quebec can be bought. EE will never happen. 

I agree that MacKay is the front runner and could definitely become leader. Without knowing what his climate policy will be it is anybody's guess. I don't have a crystal ball. To me his words suggest he won't have a credible policy but right now he is trying to win the leadership not the country. As I so often say swing voters don't tune in until the last few weeks. Canadians accept Trudeau's plan which still leaves us missing targets so if MacKay proposes something that sounds good he may convince enough voters to bite. 

JKR

I think all MacKay has to do to propose something that sounds good to many people on the centre and centre-right is to come up with a plan that stresses technological innovation and a few moderate environmental regulations. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

I think all MacKay has to do to propose something that sounds good to many people on the centre and centre-right is to come up with a plan that stresses technological innovation and a few moderate environmental regulations. 

That's all the Liberals do, so yeah, it would be enough.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think all MacKay has to do to propose something that sounds good to many people on the centre and centre-right is to come up with a plan that stresses technological innovation and a few moderate environmental regulations. 

That's all the Liberals do, so yeah, it would be enough.

My guess is the Liberals will do more soon.

The Liberals follow the middle. They do not lead. However, I believe that in the next couple years the effects of climate change that is visible to even the ignorant will continue to become more obvious and less deniable. Public demand will push the Liberals. Let's face it this conversation exists becuase public demand is starting to push the Conservatives.

Our problem is that the public is moving too slowly.

Forget the politicians for a moment -- they follow gutlessly. You need better strategies to influence public opinion. We are not going to elect any government that will lead (they will be destroyed by the opposition). But they all will follow to some degree. You have to increase all measures to go around the politicians. 

Climate deniers and the right have had the advantage becuase simplistic solutions and dramatic stories travel faster than truth. The environment is in collapse in a number of areas. This is making change impossible to ignore. People have to really go after the mindset and means that move opinion. Go  after more stories like this:

https://time.com/5318245/coffee-industry-climate-change/

No coffee can be lived without. My point is not to declare a coffee emergency. The point is that it is further evidence that strikes home that something is happening.

People need to stop assuming that climate change can be mitigated at the ballot box. Politicians will do nothing untill a critical mass of people demand it. We have rising numbers but there is no critical mass at the intensity required. People have to consider the methods of communication -- news, stats, reports are not cutting it. Look how the denial campaign works. Answer it.

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think all MacKay has to do to propose something that sounds good to many people on the centre and centre-right is to come up with a plan that stresses technological innovation and a few moderate environmental regulations. 

That's all the Liberals do, so yeah, it would be enough.

The Liberals and NDP also put a price on carbon which I think is a crucial step in the right direction. I think the next step for many countries will be carbon tariffs where countries place tariffs on countries like the US that are not putting a price on carbon. I think the EU will be the first to implement carbon tariffs. Hopefully Canada will follow suit.

Pondering

https://thinkpol.ca/2020/05/05/petition-calling-derek-sloan-resign-gathers-momentum/

“Does she work for Canada or for China?” Sloan, who’s running for Conservative Party leadership, asked on a Facebook video posted on April 21.

“Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, has failed Canadians,” the MP says in the video caption. “Dr. Tam must go! Canada must remain sovereign over decisions. The UN, the WHO, and Chinese Communist propaganda can never again have a say over Canada’s public health!”

https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/conservative-party-announces-leadership-debates-to-be-held-june-17-and-18-in-toronto-456450/

OTTAWA — The first debates of the Conservative leadership race will be held June 17 and 18 in Toronto after being delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The French-language debate will be Wednesday, June 17, with the English-language debate to follow the next night. Both debates will be live-streamed on the party’s website; neither will have an in-person audience.

Four candidates have qualified to take part: Erin O’Toole, Peter MacKay, Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan.

The Conservative party has allowed Sloan to remain a leadership candidate. Canadians won't remember what he said. That isn't the issue. The issue is  that he represents a significant population within the party as do anti-abortionists. They actively work to elect pro-choice candidates and feel betrayed by Harper. Finally embracing the LBGTQ community and declaring their willingness to march in Pride isn't fooling anyone. 

TM is continuing construction but it won't bring investment back to the oilsands because the writing is on the wall. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/suncor-seeks-to-pivot-industry-to-produce-carbon-fibre-from-bitumen-1.5593105

The shift to electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies could disrupt crude oil demand on a similar scale to the coronavirus pandemic, Suncor Energy Inc's chief executive said on Monday....

"While Canadian oil and gas will remain a significant part of the global energy mix for some time, we have to take advantage of new opportunities that offer attractive growth prospects," Suncor CEO Mark Little said in an opinion article for Canada's Corporate Knights magazine, jointly written by Alberta Innovates CEO Laura Kilcrease.

Oil isn't going away but it will  become an ever shrinking portion of Canada's GDP. Alberta politics will get angrier and more demanding which will not go over well in Ontario and Quebec. The economic hardship is going to get worse even if we were to start recovery tomorrow. There are whole industries cut by 50% or more. People don't care about deficits. They will want government to me more generous not less. 

At heart modern "conservatism" is anti-government. They run on dismantling it. The challenges we are facing can only be addressed through government action. People will look to government for action. 

Conservatives will likely remain second for the next election but not the one after that because things are going to get worse. Climate change impacts are growing. The US is going bonkers for lack of a better description. Canadians will look to government for solutions. 

I'm not convinced that the NDP under Singh is ready for the opportunity, I know they are not. They are still playing old style politics trying to bargain votes for crumbs. The NDP needs to be offering and focusing on concrete solutions. They are too whisy washy.

Many jobs are gone for good. This years graduating class of airline pilots is screwed. The hospitality industry will take years to recover. We need massive investments in things that will pay off in the future. The NDP should be talking about the massive reduction in pollution. Funding the green shift not oil is a no brainer.  Education pays off for countries not just individuals. 

The Liberals winning the next election is almost inevidable not because Trudeau is popular but because the other two parties are even more unpopular.

What a  sad array of leaders we have before us. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

How Stephen Harper is destroying the Conservative party

As he climbed the stage to give his concession speech at the International Trade Centre in suburban Regina on election night last Oct. 21, Andrew Scheer was a dead man walking. He just didn’t know it. Scheer had entered the crowded auditorium wearing a crisp navy blue suit and carrying his daughter Mary in his left arm, trailed by his wife Jill and their four other children, looking buoyant.

His supporters, however, were noticeably subdued.

quote:

Scheer's social conservatisim alienated urban voters

MacIntyre is an urbanite who feels Scheer’s positions on same-sex marriage and abortion (both of which he opposes) hurt the party in cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which have a huge swath of seats — seats needed to win power. Yet the Conservatives were almost entirely shut out of those hubs. Meanwhile, they won only 10 seats in Québec, down from 12 the previous election.

And the attacks came fast and furious. Former Harper cabinet minister Peter MacKay quipped that Scheer’s loss “was like having a breakaway on an open net and missing the net,” while his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion “hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross, quite frankly.”

quote:

Tories looking for new leader again - and it's not going well

Right now, for the second time in three years, the party is looking for a new leader. And so far, it’s not going well.

For starters, none of the conservative movement's biggest stars threw their hats in the ring — Jason Kenney, Jean Charest, Rona Ambrose and John Baird. MP Pierre Poilievre lasted two weeks before he pulled the plug on his bid, ostensibly to spend more time with family. L. Ian MacDonald, a former speechwriter for Brian Mulroney and publisher of Policy Magazine says the caliber of candidates is much weaker than past eras. “Harper did not prepare succession,” he remarks.

What the race has revealed is a strong streak of bigotry and homophobia within the party.

Ironically, Scheer also alienated the party’s social conservatives after promising a Tory government would not ban abortions or same-sex marriage. “When he seemed to be abandoning the people who put him into leadership, that’s when he got into trouble after he lost the election,” explains Dean Del Mastro, a former Tory MP from Peterborough, Ont., and once Harper’s parliamentary secretary. “He didn’t have a constituency anymore in the party to fight off the attacks that came against his leadership.”

quote:

Meantime, the two frontrunners, MacKay and former minister of veterans affairs Erin O’Toole, have embraced the Harper-Scheer platforms that lost the Tories two straight elections — namely cutting taxes, developing the oilsands, free trade deals, weakening environmental rules to build more pipelines, opposing carbon taxes, noncommittal on climate change and eschewing gun control. O’Toole says he would defund the CBC if elected prime minister, criminalize protesters involved in blockades, bring back mandatory minimum sentences (which the Supreme Court has ruled are unconstitutional) and has embraced Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s false claims about the “foreign-funded sources of influence” over critics of the oilsands.

Neither man speaks French fluently. When announcing his candidacy, MacKay managed to mangle a common French verb tense.

Combined with Scheer making tone-deaf gaffes during the COVID-19 shutdown — such as questioning the wisdom of paying out-of-work Canadians federal funds — polls show the party is languishing at 25 to 28 per cent support, which would mean a loss of up to 40 seats if an election were held today. The Liberals, by contrast, are up to 40 to 46 per cent.

“The Conservatives are in trouble,” says Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University in Calgary. “While they still have got money and volunteers and electoral support, there are cleavages in that party — regionally especially, as well as ideologically. And they are just flummoxed on how to deal with Trudeau.”

Pondering

This is about the Republicans but the Conservatives of Canada are their shadow since the Reform party took over.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/larry-hogan-betting...

Throughout our conversation, Hogan repeatedly talked about the need to build a more “inclusive” Republican Party, one that reaches out to voters beyond its base. But his failure to answer the obvious follow-up questions—Who? How? With what kind of message?—speaks to the difficulties that lie ahead not only for him, but for the GOP.

While Hogan’s diverse, bipartisan support in Maryland is genuinely impressive, it will never be replicated at the national level as long as his party is tainted by Trumpism. If the president loses in November, after all, he won’t shuffle off into a quiet retirement and take up painting. The tweets will keep coming, the TV interviews will continue, and Trump’s insistent weighing in on everything will become only easier to indulge. Meanwhile, people such as Donald Trump Jr. and Tucker Carlson will give conservative audiences access to the red-meat diet they’ve become accustomed to. And the GOP lawmakers elected during Trump’s presidency—many of whom won their primaries thanks to his endorsement—will ensure that the “MAGAfication” of the party is not easily undone.

None of this is necessarily permanent, of course. Parties can change. But it will require a lot more than a single Republican speaking out.

It's going to take a lot more because Republicans and Conservatives south and north have been destroying themselves for decades by cultivating and magnifying social conservatism and free market economics. Free market economics has no solutions for what we are facing and people know it. People want government action on climate change and now covid has laid bare the need for massive government involvement in the economy and health care.

It's been said here before, that the Liberals of today are the Conservatives of yesteryear. Also, that the Overton window has been shifting right. I think both are true. What I didn't see coming is that the Conservative party has moved so far to the "right" that they are the extremists. They have no choice but to move left which they are desperately trying to do both in the US and Canada but a minority of their supporters won't allow it and the majority "moderates) can't control the social conservatives or the racists.

The Republican party is trying to shove all their shit on Trump but Trump did not create the movement that elected him leader of the party. Neither did Scheer create the conditions that made him leader. Now the party is desperately trying to veer towards the centre with McKay but it won't work for them anymore than getting rid of Trump will work for the Republicans.

It won't work because anti-immigrant conservative extremists will not shut-up and will harangue their MPs until they say something stupid or are trapped in "no comment" responses that offend centrists.

The Liberal Party is already so far right they might as well be called the Progressive Conservatives. They are privatizing everything they can. Big business might prefer the Conservatives but they will easily flip to the Liberals if they see that the Conservatives can't win.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:,

"Big business might prefer the Conservatives but they will easily flip to the Liberals if they see that the Conservatives can't win."

Really?

Pondering

Well I think so. The Liberals are just as eager to privatize as the Conservatives. Morneau is Bay street all the way.  The oil industry may prefer the Conservatives but that is just one industry and he bought them a pipeline. Many oil industry execs support the carbon tax. Liberals have frequently lowered corporate taxes. The Conservatives talk a more extreme game but when it comes down to it there is very little light between the (federal) Conservatives and Liberals on fiscal policy.

Sure the Liberals are more open to putting money into social programs but business knows that as long as it isn't too generous social programs help business. The Conservatives increased the child tax credit and the Liberals increased it more. The Liberals aren't proposing universal phamacare even though they know that it would be the best option for Canadians. Leadership is resisting calls for basic income from within the party as well as from the NDP.

So yeah, big business is satisfied with the Liberals. The Conservative party of Canada might as well be called the Republican party of Canada. They hide it well but the party is extremist and putting Peter MacKay at the helm won't change the core makeup of the party and supporters.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/peter-mackay-conservative-leadership-ra...

MacKay has stated that as Conservative leader he’ll accomplish two things simultaneously—attract “more moderate, more centrist” voters in a general election, and preserve the party unity that’s lasted 17 years. Social conservatives are wary of that latter commitment from a candidate who’s avowedly pro-choice and supports LGBTQ rights. MacKay says he’ll make sure they feel listened to, and points to several so-con MPs who support him, such as former minister Ed Fast (one of several MPs who backed Erin O’Toole in the 2017 race). Fast says Conservatives in his riding, in B.C.’s Fraser Valley, often ask about MacKay’s stance on moral issues like abortion; he tries to stress other policy issues where they’re likelier to agree with MacKay. “The majority of voters in our party are themselves pragmatists,” he says.

That 17 year unity was predicated on the assumption that once Harper had a majority he would support, or at least allow, socon issues to come to the forefront. Instead Harper wouldn't allow even the smallest debate. They aren't going to fall for that again.

Many Conservative supporters are pragmatists but many are not and they are not willing to trade their anti-LGBTQ2+ nor their anti-abortion and anti-immigrant and anti-government sentiments. Republicans south and north riled them up and they can't put them back in the box now. So cons in Canada have gotten pro-life MPs elected and they expect them to speak up. The media will be happy to amplify their voices to create controversy. That repels moderates.

For all the Liberal corruption most Canadians know we need big government now not lower taxes and we need to transition to a green economy.

jerrym

According to some Conservatives, social conservative Leslyn Lewis is picking up support and could possibly even finish  second in the first ballot (see the next post for more details about their comments). Below is a sketch of her politics. 

She is the first-ever woman of colour vying to lead the Conservative Party of Canada. But some have argued that, because of her policy positions, the Toronto lawyer poorly represents her own Black Canadian constituency. Others have told her that because she is Black, she should not hold conservative beliefs at all. She is unabashedly socially conservative and expounds on the merits of traditional family values. But many in the party’s anti-abortion contingent would like her to go much further than the slate of policies she proposes, which are designed for broader appeal. ...

There is plenty to suggest that her candidacy has resonated with party members, too. Her campaign has raised more than $1.2 million as of the end of the second quarter. Her social media engagement (a measure of how much attention her posts get) has gone “sky high,” according to campaign manager Steve Outhouse. Despite being a relative “outsider,” she has secured endorsements from seven MPs. A cross-section of Conservative sources, including people working on other campaigns, say they are seeing a surge in her popularity. “She’s so articulate, and very intelligent and calm. And she has an understated, powerful way of communicating with people that makes her very relatable,” says Melanie Paradis, who is heading up communications for Erin O’Toole. “There are a lot of things about her that members of our party really like, and I think she’s going to play a role in the party for many years to come.” ...

Lewis’s leadership platform emphasizes fairness within the Conservative Party, its nominations and conventions; a pushback against political correctness; and a repeal of Liberal policies including the carbon tax, the firearms ban and Bills C-69 (which overhauled the federal environmental assessment process) and C-48 (which banned tanker traffic along a stretch of B.C. coastline). She is, to put it charitably, a beginner in French. ...

It is no secret that the Conservative Party struggles with how to stay a mainstream electoral option while satisfying its “big tent” of supporters, some of whom, in their wildest dreams, would like to see abortion fully banned in Canada and the debate on gay marriage reopened. Any leader of the party will have to grapple with that dynamic and sustain attacks from across the aisle. Because she identifies as a social conservative, Lewis would face even more of an uphill battle. A Leger poll of 1,554 Canadians in January found 60 per cent of respondents felt a Conservative leader should be pro-choice and 53 per cent felt the leader should be in favour of same-sex marriage. Among Conservatives, 47 per cent wanted a pro-choice leader and 36 per cent wanted a leader who supports same-sex marriage.

The best way to avoid being attacked for having a “hidden agenda” is to not hide your agenda, Lewis says. “I don’t think you need a ploy to get into the broader debate” over social conservative issues, she tells Maclean’s. “The broader debate has already been there. It’s always been a part of our society. I’m not an activist. I’m looking to effect policy, and that means I’m looking to effect policy that the majority of Canadians can agree with. I don’t hide who I am as a person who believes in the sanctity of life, and I don’t hide my views on abortion, but as a policy-maker, my goal is to find things that unite us and that we can agree on.”

In messages to supporters, Lewis has spoken openly about how her own unplanned pregnancy during law school informed her opinions. The policies she proposes include banning sex-selective abortion, measures to protect women from coerced abortions, an increase in support for pregnancy care centres and redirecting foreign aid away from groups that offer abortions.

Lewis also promises to repeal the Liberals’ Bill C-16—legislation that added “gender expression” and “gender identity” as grounds for discrimination protection in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act—because she believes it could threaten people for using “incorrect speech,” a controversial reading of the bill popularized by University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson. ...

And she expresses concerns about legislation on the table to ban conversion therapy. Attempting to force someone to change their sexual orientation is “an atrocious thing,” she says. “I actually believe that children who are struggling with their sexuality should be left alone and given support to find out who they are.” But she says the bill, as drafted, doesn’t contain a clear definition and risks penalizing talk therapy or conversations with religious leaders.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/leslyn-lewis-social-conservative-party-...

jerrym

On Power and Politics today, a three member Conservative panel discussed their leadership race, noting that while Peter McKay is ahead, social conservative Leslyn Lewis has growing support that could put her ahead of Erin O'Toole on the first ballot. They also discussed some of the problems this could create. 

Kory Teneycke, former Harper Director of Communications, said his visit to Saskatchewan makes him believe that Lewis has a good chance of coming first in the province and that in this province her support is not coming primarily from social conservatives but from the Wexit group, who Teneycke say already have one foot out of the Conservative party. 

Jenni Byrne, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Harper, agreed that Lewis is "picking up steam, has a broad range of support, and is taking momentum away from O'Toole". She agreed with Tenenycke that she might even finish second, even though O'Toole is pitching himself to the right of McKay by focusing on issues such as asylum seekers crossing the Quebec border. She sees the voting possibly going three ballots, the maximum possible in a four person race.

Shakir Chambers, senior policy consultant at Navigator, agreed that support for Lewis is growing. 

Teneycke said that Lewis's growing support is a concern for the party in that it reflects the growth of Wexiters, "who already have one foot out of the party." He felt the divisions within the party created during the campaign could be hard to heal. 

I am certainly no expert in Conservative internal politics and the Conservative panel members could have their leadership race campaign reasons for arguing that Lewis might be climbing past O'Toole, but it seems to me that feeding the social conservative beast for decades is coming home to roost for the Cons, creating divisions in the party that will be hard to heal and making the party lose voters who might otherwise might vote for them in some circumstances because these voters see the party moving further and further to the right on the spectrum and well outside the political mainstream in a poltical time warp.

Pondering

jerrym wrote:
I am certainly no expert in Conservative internal politics and the Conservative panel members could have their leadership race campaign reasons for arguing that Lewis might be climbing past O'Toole, but it seems to me that feeding the social conservative beast for decades is coming home to roost for the Cons, creating divisions in the party that will be hard to heal and making the party lose voters who might otherwise might vote for them in some circumstances because these voters see the party moving further and further to the right on the spectrum and well outside the political mainstream in a poltical time warp.

 

 

 

The Conservatives will keep a core base so as Sean used to point out they aren't about to vanish. The thing is the more moderates they lose the more weight the so-cons have within the party.  She also touched on the migrants coming over the border in Quebec. That is another area the Conservatives have a major problem with. They also cultivated racists and anti-immigrants. Kenny had done such a good job wooing immigrants. Conservatives were banking on immigrants being more so-con on issues such as lgbtq and abortion and they were making some progess until the 2015 election when they did some dog-whistling. Immigrants and their children are forming an ever increasing portion of the Canadian population. Immigrants are not going to vote for a party with anti-immigrant MPs. The Conservatives at the top have tried to embrace immigration because it is what business needs and what Canada needs to avoid a shrinking population. Nevertheless a significant portion of their members/supporters are anti-immigrant and won't be quiet about it.

Rex Murphy and Chris Selley both support at least debating abortion in the house. The current line in Canada is very low key. Canada is the only developed nation in the world without limits on abortion. A large majority of Canadians actually agree that there should be limits on 3rd trimester abortions when polled.

To Conservative followers that it can't even be discussed is political correctness. They look south and see all the progress pro-lifers are making there and in Canada it can't even be discussed.

In truth it has nothing to do with political correctness it is just that all the party executive and leaders know that opening any discussion at all is a can of worms that can only cause them to lose votes on both sides.

I don't see the Liberals getting popular out west because even buying the pipeline didn't help Trudeau. Maybe if it is completed it will.

Is there any chance the NDP could make headway against the Conservatives in the west? 

josh

Decision tonight. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

And the winner is...???

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Coming soon. The machine that was supposed to remove the 175K ballots from their envelopes actually damaged 3-4K ballots so severely that they had to be manually recopied onto fresh ballots before the counting machines would accept them. Latest ETA, 11:45pm EDT, in about 9 minutes as I type.

Douglas Fir Premier

josh wrote:

Decision tonight. 

It's already tomorrow in six provinces and parts of Nunavut.

Douglas Fir Premier

Where's Trudeau to grab a Conservative by the arm and get things moving when you need him?

;-)

Misfit Misfit's picture

Well, it doesn't look good for Peter MacKay so they say. He didn't get the strong first ballot numbers he wanted.

How long for the next results?

jerrym

CBC is saying that 63% of Sloan's supporters were saying in polls had Lewis at 20% as a second choice so she will likely gain the most but not overtake O'Toole at 31%, who is the likely winner on the third ballot. This leaves the Cons with the same dilemma as before how to broaden their base with such a large part of the base being social conservatives. Cory Tenyke just said if Lewis spoken even a little French she might have won. 

NDPP

Putin obviously.

jerrym

NDPP wrote:

Putin obviously.

Does that he'll be Canada's leader for 36 years, as in Russia.

Pages