Our logo is bigger now

What is the future of the Conservative party?

20 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Fri, 2015-05-15 13:42

#1

Sean in Ottawa

What is the future of the Conservative party?

I ask this not out of any affection but as a means of understanding the future political landscape. The question does have some bearing now in terms of how we communicate our opposition. Is it to Harper? The Conservative Party? or to the Right Wing Failed Ideology that should be our real target?

The latter is the common element. The first two can be rebranded making our opposition efforts less efficient over time if we do not firmly reject the latter on principle. Historically conservative parties in Canada hide the fangs of their corporate agendas behind a dressing of an establishment avuncular mask. The word progressive was meant to reassure us that the party had not forgotten the people they really were screwing on behalf of the party's true ownership. Harper understood that a lot of their agenda could be accomplished for a while with the fangs exposed, without any pretense about what they were. And the party de-cloaked and gave us the "Harper government." But that phase will end. Maybe this October.

If the Conservatives lose badly in October they will re-tool. When they do this they will be aware that they have a branding problem. I believe this will be seen to be more than Harper. (To that end we must avoid *only* demonizing Harper while leaving the CPC unscathed as we want more than a leadership change before that gang gets to come back.) If the party is damaged enough, they will see the need to re-cloak in their former Progressive Conservative persona. They may even take back that name.

I suspect that in the post Harper leadership convention a new voice will come from Conservative ranks and it might be aided by Harper's unpopularity (if he loses in October he will be unpopular among Conservatives as well). It is easy to see what this new voice will look like. It will look like the old voice even if that was always a lie.

Canadians have said that the Conservatives are NOT the Progressive Conservatives. There is much longing for the Progressive Conservatives as most recently represented by the more balanced Red Tory Joe Clark. A fast revival of the Conservatives, rebranded again as the Progressive Conservatives remains a real risk. Taking the old name back would be the cleanest, easiest way to set aside the Harper leadership and strike into the future. It would provide a moderate face to the party to help cover the Harper scars. And it would be a whitewash.

The Progressive Conservatives of 2016 would be nothing more than the Conservatives of 2015 but without Harper. They would have all the others and they would have all the nasty views, just under the surface like they used to be. Under this coat of paint they might not be so in your face and blatant, but they would be a contender for power, dangerous and with the same motivations they always had. To those who long for the Progressive Conservatives, remember -- that party contained all that became Reform, CRAP, and Harper Conservative.

It is essential therefore to be clear that what we are rejecting is not just Harper. Not just The Conservative Party. But any incarnation of the same gang of people.

It is not enough for them to go back to PCs -- once more hiding their fangs.

And among our community let's reject any notion NOW that the Conservatives are not the same as the Progressive Conservatives. They are. If you get that wrong, you are inviting the Conservatives back re-cloaked as the Progressive Conservatives.

Be careful what you ask for.

Issues Pages:

Politics in Canada

Political Action

Fri, 2015-05-15 14:49

#2

socialdemocrati...

If you want to talk about the future of the Conservative party, you have to talk about the future of Canada. A lot of that begins with demographics.

Every generation is different. But there are three things we can objectively say about the next generation of Canadians compared to their older counterparts:

They are financially worse off
They are less religious
They are more racially diverse

Those three things don't really jive well with the traditional Conservative base, who are nothing like the changing face of Canada. Which is why you've seen Conservatives from Jason Kenney to Patrick Brown make huge efforts to reach out to "cultural communities". Hitting churches and community centers. Finding overlap with first and second generation Canadians on values like "family", "hard work", "tradition", "tough-on-crime". (Whatever those things actually mean when they actually hit policy.)

But it's a new and fragile coalition for them. Diversity doesn't come easily to the Conservatives. They might try to put a brave face on their policies, and say "just because we're anti-Islamofascist doesn't mean we're racist". But even their leaders let it slip that "this is a tradition that is anti-woman". Now just imagine the rotten shit that their supporters continue to say about anyone who isn't white. There isn't a tent strong enough to hold together a coalition of immigrants and anti-immigrants, racial minorities and racists.

As their coalition frays, the circular firing squad becomes a real problem. You see it with the Wildrose vs the PCs in Alberta, or even the constant PC leadership battles in Ontario. Half the Conservatives feel like they've become too ideologically rigid, and need to re-discover the soft pink social services and good government that Canadians really need. Of course, the other half think they're not Conservative enough, and they're frustrated that Harper has been in government for almost ten years without lifting a fingers on gays or abortion.

It takes a rare figure like Stephen Harper to unify them. He has the bonifides of calling Canada a failed european welfare state, but also the good sense to put on a sweater and quietly ignore the polarizing social issues. I genuinely wonder if there will be another conservative leader that can ever do that again. The Conservative base will demand fealty to a socially conservative agenda. If they don't get their way, they'll boycott, or even split the party as in Alberta. And if they do get their way, they get Tim Hudak, who is so unelectable and tone deaf as to lose against even the most tired of governments.

Funny enough, the most successful right wing parties in Canada are in BC, Saskatchewan, and Quebec. There's a coalition of PC, Liberal, and Reform who all generally hate each other, but hate their opponents just that much more. In Quebec, it's usually about how much they hate the separatists. But in BC and Saskatchewan, it's about a relatively effective NDP.

Which is why I'd go even a little further than what you said. You're right that it's not just about the Conservatives, but about a failed ideology. Which is why the election has to be about rejecting bad ideas like Bill 51, and corporate giveaways, and shpiping raw bitumen across the border as fast as possible. If we replace Harper with someone who is still going to execute the same policies, that would be the biggest victory of the Conservative party: forcing the other parties to follow their script.

Fri, 2015-05-15 15:27

#3

Sean in Ottawa

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If you want to talk about the future of the Conservative party, you have to talk about the future of Canada. A lot of that begins with demographics.

Every generation is different. But there are three things we can objectively say about the next generation of Canadians compared to their older counterparts:

They are financially worse off

They are less religious

They are more racially diverse

Those three things don't really jive well with the traditional Conservative base, who are nothing like the changing face of Canada. Which is why you've seen Conservatives from Jason Kenney to Patrick Brown make huge efforts to reach out to "cultural communities". Hitting churches and community centers. Finding overlap with first and second generation Canadians on values like "family", "hard work", "tradition", "tough-on-crime". (Whatever those things actually mean when they actually hit policy.)

But it's a new and fragile coalition for them. Diversity doesn't come easily to the Conservatives. They might try to put a brave face on their policies, and say "just because we're anti-Islamofascist doesn't mean we're racist". But even their leaders let it slip that "this is a tradition that is anti-woman". Now just imagine the rotten shit that their supporters continue to say about anyone who isn't white. There isn't a tent strong enough to hold together a coalition of immigrants and anti-immigrants, racial minorities and racists.

As their coalition frays, the circular firing squad becomes a real problem. You see it with the Wildrose vs the PCs in Alberta, or even the constant PC leadership battles in Ontario. Half the Conservatives feel like they've become too ideologically rigid, and need to re-discover the soft pink social services and good government that Canadians really need. Of course, the other half think they're not Conservative enough, and they're frustrated that Harper has been in government for almost ten years without lifting a fingers on gays or abortion.

It takes a rare figure like Stephen Harper to unify them. He has the bonifides of calling Canada a failed european welfare state, but also the good sense to put on a sweater and quietly ignore the polarizing social issues. I genuinely wonder if there will be another conservative leader that can ever do that again. The Conservative base will demand fealty to a socially conservative agenda. If they don't get their way, they'll boycott, or even split the party as in Alberta. And if they do get their way, they get Tim Hudak, who is so unelectable and tone deaf as to lose against even the most tired of governments.

Funny enough, the most successful right wing parties in Canada are in BC, Saskatchewan, and Quebec. There's a coalition of PC, Liberal, and Reform who all generally hate each other, but hate their opponents just that much more. In Quebec, it's usually about how much they hate the separatists. But in BC and Saskatchewan, it's about a relatively effective NDP.

Which is why I'd go even a little further than what you said. You're right that it's not just about the Conservatives, but about a failed ideology. Which is why the election has to be about rejecting bad ideas like Bill 51, and corporate giveaways, and shpiping raw bitumen across the border as fast as possible. If we replace Harper with someone who is still going to execute the same policies, that would be the biggest victory of the Conservative party: forcing the other parties to follow their script.

I agree with all you say here. Great points too.

I do think that a fair distinction can be made between what they actually are and how they will represent themselves but you are right this will be strained as they have to present something to the base that it recognizes. Still the base was there back in the more cloaked PC days. Many of them understand what it takes to win. For this reasons even the base may be open after a loss to a party that at least in opposition tries to look more progressive than it actually is. And we all should be wary of that.

Sat, 2015-05-16 03:02

#4

Doug Woodard

I think that the current Conservative Party can survive defeat under the current electoral system. I think that proportional representation would either blow it up or force it to move toward the centre.

Sun, 2015-05-17 18:36

#5

Debater

Good point.

I think the seat distribution system is one of the reasons why Harper is running again and why he doesn't usually fear the consequences of moving to the right or the fact that his party has been involved in so much corruption.

He knows that even though he's never hit 40% in an election and has never gotten the level of support of Chrétien, Mulroney, etc. that as long as the Conservatives win a lot of seats in Western Canada and Ontario with pockets of support in the Maritimes and Québec that the CPC can end up with a decent number of seats even on a bad day.

While it would be nice to see the Conservatives fall to 3rd, the worst they can probably do is 2nd. That's unfortunate, but that's the system we have right now.

Sun, 2015-05-17 18:47

#6

jerrym

The young are more concerned about the environment, not only because they tend to be more idealistic, but practically, because those who see what is happening environmentally know they will suffer the consequences to a far greater extent than older generations. Many of those young people who aren't yet aware will have it shoved in their face as multi-millions of climate change refugees (already a major cause of the wars and deaths in Africa and the Middle East as crops fail and water sources disappear due to drought, and people fight over dwindling resources and the inability of governments to deal with these issues), as well as catastrophic storms, sea level rise, the spread of tropical diseases northward, melting of Arctic ice, increased number and intensity of forest fires, etc. hit home in the upcoming decade.

While so-called full labour mobility is a right-wing economist's wet dream, as well as that of their corporate masters, it means there will be no economic stability for the vast majority of individuals and families, as people are continually released from their jobs in a just-in-time labour market. It is not surprising that 18-34 year olds in Vancouver ranked housing, poverty, and homelessness as a major political issue now. I suspect that is or will become a major issue for young people in all the major Canadian cities, since ever owning a home is fast becoming the impossible dream for this generation.

The rigidity of institutionalized religions of all types offers little appeal and no solutions to most young beyond martyrdom or waiting until the afterlife.

Growing up in a diverse society has made them much more supportive of racial, gender, and sexual orientation differences than any previous generations.

In this soil, conservatism will have a hard time until a counterrevoultion (there is always one but it will be different in form from previous iterations) develops somewhere down the line.

Sun, 2015-05-17 20:18

#7

Sean in Ottawa

I am suprised that more don't see the Conservatives trying to re-cloak themselves more to the centre if they lose this election.

I do not agree that Harper has reason not to be worried. The new seats are mostly swing seats that the Conservatives would have had last time but based on current polling may not go to them this time.

Harper is doing all he can now-- I think he expected that the budget would ahve done more for him than it has and I expect he may still think economic advantage may help but while this can give him an advantage it cannot withstand a wave of people wanting to throw his party out. And I think we are about to see that wave.

In any case when he does go there are really to paths for his party -- to remain on the right with little room for growth for a long time or to move closer to where the PC party used to be. I expect that this is what may happen. This is where they might appear more electable.

Of course it also depends on what sleaze may be uncovered once they are no longer in office to supress it.

Sun, 2015-05-17 23:28

#8

Doug Woodard

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am suprised that more don't see the Conservatives trying to re-cloak themselves more to the centre if they lose this election.

I do not agree that Harper has reason not to be worried. The new seats are mostly swing seats that the Conservatives would have had last time but based on current polling may not go to them this time.

Harper is doing all he can now-- I think he expected that the budget would ahve done more for him than it has and I expect he may still think economic advantage may help but while this can give him an advantage it cannot withstand a wave of people wanting to throw his party out. And I think we are about to see that wave.

In any case when he does go there are really to paths for his party -- to remain on the right with little room for growth for a long time or to move closer to where the PC party used to be. I expect that this is what may happen. This is where they might appear more electable.

Of course it also depends on what sleaze may be uncovered once they are no longer in office to supress it.

Sean, I don't think there are alternative paths for all of Harper's party together. There are for segments of it, but the whole thing is an alliance. The extreme right wingers have learned to shut up and obey the leader in order to move toward their goals by stealth. They have come to realize that he's pretty much one of them but is far more patient and cunning. If part of the Conservative party really wants to compete for the centre after Harper goes (I don't think it can happen before he goes) then I think it likely that the right wing will part company, especially under proportional representation. The likelihood of this happening will prevent a movement toward the centre, unless the centrists are sure of their survival as a group through PR.

A couple of questions that interest me are:

1. Suppose the Conservatives end up with the second largest number of seats but well short of a majority, and the NDP have the second largest number. Wll the Liberals support a motion of no confidence in Harper's government?

2. Given an NDP minority government or an NDP-led coalition, will the Liberals support a bill to bring in proportional representation?

Mon, 2015-05-18 00:03

#9

Sean in Ottawa

These are good questions-- I suspect the Liberals will have no choice but to do what their supporters expect which is not to support Harper.

I don't think the Liebrals support PR and their support for reform is vague and noncommittal.

Mon, 2015-05-18 00:03

Orangutan

Rebirth of the PCs... not going to happen! Politics have shifted to the right globally because Reagan/Thatcher. While we are slowly starting to see a shift back towards the left-wing, too many right-wing conservative fan boys who run the braintrusts of Conservative parties and think tanks rather ideologically purity at the alter of Ayn Rand rather than the good goverance that many red tory governments once provided.

Mon, 2015-05-18 07:34

Doug Woodard

Doug Woodard wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am suprised that more don't see the Conservatives trying to re-cloak themselves more to the centre if they lose this election.

I do not agree that Harper has reason not to be worried. The new seats are mostly swing seats that the Conservatives would have had last time but based on current polling may not go to them this time.

Harper is doing all he can now-- I think he expected that the budget would ahve done more for him than it has and I expect he may still think economic advantage may help but while this can give him an advantage it cannot withstand a wave of people wanting to throw his party out. And I think we are about to see that wave.

In any case when he does go there are really to paths for his party -- to remain on the right with little room for growth for a long time or to move closer to where the PC party used to be. I expect that this is what may happen. This is where they might appear more electable.

Of course it also depends on what sleaze may be uncovered once they are no longer in office to supress it.

Sean, I don't think there are alternative paths for all of Harper's party together. There are for segments of it, but the whole thing is an alliance. The extreme right wingers have learned to shut up and obey the leader in order to move toward their goals by stealth. They have come to realize that he's pretty much one of them but is far more patient and cunning. If part of the Conservative party really wants to compete for the centre after Harper goes (I don't think it can happen before he goes) then I think it likely that the right wing will part company, especially under proportional representation. The likelihood of this happening will prevent a movement toward the centre, unless the centrists are sure of their survival as a group through PR.

A couple of questions that interest me are:

1. Suppose the Conservatives end up with the largest number of seats but well short of a majority, and the NDP have the second largest number. Wll the Liberals support a motion of non confidence in Harper's government?

2. Given an NDP minority government or an NDP-led coalition, will the Liberals support a bill to bring in proportional representation?

Mon, 2015-05-18 12:34

Newfoundlander_...

I don't see the Conservatives losing that badly in October that the Conservatives would have to completely to rebrand themselves to the point that they'd look at changing the name of their party and trying to get the public to forget that Harper has ever existed. As was pointed out, FPTP is benefitting Harper and the Conservatives. There are seats throughout the west and in Ontario that they'll easily win unless there is a huge shift in the political landscape. Whatever people may think of Harper he's been quite successful with regards to building a political party that is successful in elections.

It will be interesting to see what direction the party goes in after Harper. There is a group in that party that will vote based soley on ideology and for the candidate whose values line up most closely with their's. There is another group who will want to elect a leader who they feel is best able to win. A moderate leader from Ontatio or Quebec would probably be seen as having the best shot of winning over voters. While Jason Kenney would win over the right-wingers in the party whose sole purpose is to elect someone who they feel have their values.

Mon, 2015-05-18 14:22

Sean in Ottawa

FPTP is a system that prefers minor leads across many ridings. There is nothing inherently biased towards the CPC in the FPTP system when it comes to winning seats. The false majorities do give that party a chance to govern when a truly representative House would create a coalition to prevent them. But if the CPC drops below an efficient level they can also lose many seats and come below their proportion of popular vote.

In this case there should be cause for their concern: if they come second in many ridings and lead in a smaller number of strongholds by wide margins they could face a loss in seats far greater than the reduction in popular vote. This is in fact what I anticipate. They are polling about 75% of what they had in the last election -- if you apply this across the seats they won in the last election along with a transfer of that vote to other parties you can see just how devastating such a drop could be. At this level they start to lose the efficiency required in the FPTP system. Any further reduction would see them with a respresentation in the House well below their popular vote.

Mon, 2015-05-18 14:26

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

montrealer58's picture

The Liberals are positioning themselves to be the centre-right party. To the right of them will be the scary Conservative yokels.

Mon, 2015-05-18 14:37

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am suprised that more don't see the Conservatives trying to re-cloak themselves more to the centre if they lose this election.

I expect that some would attempt this. It happened in Ontario after Hudak's loss with some there supporting the less extreme Elliott. But she overwhelmingly lost.

Mon, 2015-05-18 14:39

mark_alfred

If the NDP wins a majority perhaps we'll see a unite the right attempt between the Conservatives and Liberals.

Mon, 2015-05-18 15:56

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

If the NDP wins a majority perhaps we'll see a unite the right attempt between the Conservatives and Liberals.

This is possible and the result would be a new PC party.

This is one variant on what I am saying. The right wingers won't be less right wing but they will brand themselves as moderate and work with whomever they can to get elected.

The warning I give is that it is essential to label the policies and ideology as failed rather than the leader or event he party.

This will not be the only time we meet this ideology it will have other leaders and other party names but underneath it will be the same.

We have to consider that when we choose the rhetoric. Overly personalizing this to Harper is a problem as he has limited time left.

Mon, 2015-05-18 23:29

Newfoundlander_...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

FPTP is a system that prefers minor leads across many ridings. There is nothing inherently biased towards the CPC in the FPTP system when it comes to winning seats. The false majorities do give that party a chance to govern when a truly representative House would create a coalition to prevent them. But if the CPC drops below an efficient level they can also lose many seats and come below their proportion of popular vote.

In this case there should be cause for their concern: if they come second in many ridings and lead in a smaller number of strongholds by wide margins they could face a loss in seats far greater than the reduction in popular vote. This is in fact what I anticipate. They are polling about 75% of what they had in the last election -- if you apply this across the seats they won in the last election along with a transfer of that vote to other parties you can see just how devastating such a drop could be. At this level they start to lose the efficiency required in the FPTP system. Any further reduction would see them with a respresentation in the House well below their popular vote.

You're correct with regards to FPTP. What I was thinking about was if they maintain the support they've largely had over the last number of years they are able to wins seats. I guess most parties with 30-odd percent of the vote would do quite well. Some seat count estiamtes have predicted that the Conservatives could still win more seats even with a second place finish in popualr vote.Their support has been in the right places for them to win a good number of seats. They could lose a lot of seats to the NDP or Liberals if their support fell, even if it was still in the mid-twenties for instance.

I am excited to see what the future will hold for the party post-Harper; who might step up for the leadership, what kind of ideological divides there will be, and what kind of direction the party will take.

Mon, 2015-05-18 23:31

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

montrealer58's picture

I think many of us would like to see doom, doom, and doom for the Conservative Party.

Tue, 2015-05-19 08:21

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

I think many of us would like to see doom, doom, and doom for the Conservative Party.

I am okay with annihilation, destruction or obliteration. Really any one of the three would be fine.