Are We Leaving Liberals Behind?

Pondering wrote:

Regardless of what happens this election the NDP has again proven itself a contender. I believe Singh's turban and beard caused him to lose a significant number of votes particularly in Quebec. Imagine how successful he would have been without that issue or the issue of his race. Or imagine if he had the boost Trudeau got through name recognition.

Imagine if the NDP leader was a progressive white poser from an entitled background. Wait the Liberals are already led by that kind of person. I think that Singh's beard and turban coupled with his ease of dealing with Canada's day to day racism is winning him votes. I would hope among social justice advocates in Quebec he is gaining ground as well as everywhere else in the country.

Pondering - I am surpirsed by this last post. The PC party of old contained all the yahoos and extremists that are now running the show in that party. Their supporters also contained the same minus whomever voted for a fringe right wing party. The only real difference is that the extremists are closer to power and are no longer constrained or contained.

As for Trudeau's choice I think it is complicated. Trudeau ran on a pipeline we in the NDP do not want. He can say that a deal with the Conservatives would allow it to get built since more voted for parties that wanted one than against (if it turns that way).

Trudeau will have a problem if he needs either the Conservatives or the NDP : many who supported him will be furious. A minority means he loses the chance to sit on a fence. I cannot say which side would be the more painful becuase he would also lose support to go to the NDP perhaps as much as to go with the Conservatives (even if not here).

the most politically asture thing Trudeau could do is to go first to the Conservatives and offer a deal giving them nothing but the pipeline and hoping they reject it. Then he can blame them and go to the NDP and shelve the pipeline at least for the term of the agreement and say it is the Conservative's fault. The NDP has to be careful as if the NDP asks for too much Trudeau will blame them and go to the Conservatives and build the pipeline and say the NDP could have stopped it.

I really do not think that Trudeau has the skills to pull this off without it backfiring but he has to find a way to blame the party that he does not side with for the lack of agreement. The NDP must know that  this is the plan and therefore cannot ask too much. If Singh says that the deal stops the pipeline and gives a future vote on PR then this is about the price he can exact. It is doubtful he will get more before the next election. If he tries the Conservatives and Liberals might between them build a pipeline before disolving their partnership.

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering:

I'm talking about people not politicians. People who voted PC in the past would not picket abortion centres. They were people who thought things were working fine and should not change or should only change gradually and with great caution.

Well, maybe, but that doesn't match the definition of "social conservative", which would indeed include people who picket abortion-clinics. I think something "social moderate" might be the better term for you to use, though its usage isn't as standardized as "social conservative".

The people who support the radical Conservative agenda today are part of who supported the more moderate agenda previously because it was as right wing as they could get. The only difference is that they are now in charge of the party.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I think it is the Conservatives that are on the way out. They have cobbled together an unholy alliance of social conservatives, free market extremists and a bewildered segment of the working class that blame immigrants and elites for the decline of their industries.

As evidenced by the fact that right now, the Premiers who have approval ratings above 50% (excluding Horgan) are all Conservatives?

I've heard the idea that as the older population dies off the yonger population will shift voting habits to the left. It didn't happen. The Conservatives are still here, and they appeal very strongly to people's desire to take care of themselves first and foremost. Even in the smaller communities where right-wing parties dominate, while it may be true that younger people there may lean more to the left, my experience is that younger people there also support right-wing politicians in great numbers characteristic of the rest of the population. Look to the small areas where right-wing politicians blow out their competition in large numbers. Even though demographics in these areas tend to tilt older, there aren't enough of them by themselves to blow out other parties by those large numbers. They are getting help from younger voters. Younger voters who disagree with this often end up in bigger centres, which are more left-leaning to begin with.

You are stuck in the left right axis. Climate change and wealth inequality are the big drivers of what is to come. Sure there are some young conservatives but I very much doubt they reach 30%. The Conservatives don't have to lose all of their followers to become the third party. I expect they will become the new NDP in terms of perpetual 3rd place. If the media sees the Conservatives as losers they will rally behind the Liberals.

Spoken like someone who has never been outside of a big city and learned that part of life. I spent most of my life in a smaller centre, and I can assure you that the conservatives are not going anywhere. Conservatives appeal holds much sway in small and mid-sized centres. There are also economic reasons why people choose the conservatives, mainly because people look up to the local business community as community leaders. They may not be socially conservative themselves, but it doesn't bother them enough to prevent them from voting for socially conservative candidates and parties. Even an influx of younger people and younger families into cities like Steinbach has not loosened the iron grip that the Conservatives have on Steinbach.

As for your cheering for PR specifically to give the rural areas less clout? That is a desire to effectively throw rural Canadians under the bus and not have their concerns met, or try to point out how the Conservatives are actually doing nothing meaningful to reverse the decline in those communities. After seeing how that resentment in the US expressed itself politically in 2016, do you really want to bring that into Canada? Not only that, but this loss of clout would also hurt Frist Nations communities as well.

I didn't say the Conservatives were leaving or dying. I said they are in the process of exchanging places with the NDP. Provincial politics are entirely different than Federal. Voters often vote one way federally and the opposite provincially. Electing a Conservative government, like CAQ, doesn't mean the majority of Quebecers have turned Conservative ideologically. For the most part they voted Caq because they and the Liberals are the only two non-sovereignist choices and they were fed up with the Liberals. Voting for Bloc doesn't mean separatist sentiments are up. It means they are uncomfortable with Singh's display of religion and don't like being judged by Canada over Bill 21. 

Toronto being forced to become a megacity has imposed the will of those who do not live in the city on those who do. 

As I understand it ridings were gerrymandered in Alberta portioning bits of city to the surrounding rural areas.

Part of my reasoning for resisting PR has been that Canada is designed to give more votes to some regions than others and that would be lost. Now you say it would not be lost. Doesn't make sense to me. 

I approved Dion's model because it maintained the same number of seats giving each region the same weight it has now. The version I most read about here would add seats. With 338 seats, PEI's 4 seats have more weight than they would if X seats were added. They would have the same number of seats but a lower percentage of them.

The popular vote is not counted by riding for PR is it? Isn't that the point?

I think Trudeau made some law that projects need to be evaluated from the perspective of equality for women or something to that effect. I'm sure it was an empty gesture with no funding but I like the idea if it were real. Legislation should be publicly evaluated for its impact on indigenous peoples, women, rural areas, immigrants, etc. by people representing those groups. Fat chance of that I know. But also fat chance that PR would force the parties to work together for the benefit of Canadians. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The people who support the radical Conservative agenda today are part of who supported the more moderate agenda previously because it was as right wing as they could get. The only difference is that they are now in charge of the party.

Agreed.  I remember campaigning against the attempt to resurrect the death penalty in 1987 and there were some real troglodytes on the fringes of Mulroney's caucus, private members bill-sponsor Bill Domm being one of them.  Mulroney had to put a quiet squeeze on the Quebec caucus to defeat Domm's bill.  But much of the PC Cabinet voted for it.  And I owe a brief shout out here to rural Alberta PC MP Walter Van De Walle, who voted against it based on his Christian principles even though it would have been overwhelmingly popular in his Pembina riding.

Approximately half of the members of my extended family favour the Conservatives with some of them now thinking about voting for the new PPC but nearly all of them won't because they don't want to split the right of centre vote. Their major issue is lowering their taxes. Because of that they support shrinking the size of government. I think almost 1/3rd of voters are also in this camp and they are all here to stay so I think the Conservatives, or any future right of centre replacement to them, are going to be one of our top-two parties for the foreseeable future. I think if the NDP ever move permanently into a top-two position, it will have to be the Liberals that move into third party status. I am also not sure that given the current dynamics of Canadian politics, that the NDP could win an election without the Liberals being pushed back under 20% in the polls. Because of FPTP, I think the Conservatives current path to victory depends on the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and, BQ, splitting the non-Conservative vote.

There is an important point to be made here - maybe with a little less hostility. People can speak to their home provinces without being angry at others who speak for their own in terms of examples. Nobody should assume that their experieince is universal even where they live.

That said Canadian politics is very regional. It always was. The perception that some particularly in central Canada have that nothing else matters is a serious denial of the reliaty of other place. The response hopefully is to encourage other voices and to challenged on generalizations but people will always speak for what they know and we are individuals not parties so being upset that some speaks from their knowledge is hardly fair. Being upset that national policies, political parties speak from a single regional point of view (central Canada) is very natural. Central Canadians should not expect everyone to agree to their universal view. However, on this site, attacks on people for living east of whatever point they choose while reading posts with hostility rather than any understanding is not helping matters and it is not helping people in other parts of the country feel warmer towards them. If the goal is to shout down others then that might work but I cannot see any other point.

I am not taking sides in the present thread since there are a number of posts on both sides that make points that are not being heard.