The Conservatives are not going to win a minority. If they even come close strategic voting will come into play to keep the Liberals in power.
The narrative that the Liberals are struggling to that extent is very bad for the NDP.
Gotta manage that 33% "democratic mandate."
Erin O'Toole is originally is from Montreal, Quebec, and is the MP for Durham, Ontario.
It doesn't matter because his talk is still western centric and ideologically conservative.
It doesn't matter because his talk is still western centric and ideologically conservative.
I can tell you as some one who actually lives in the West his talk is not "Western centric" any more than Bernier's is "Quebec centric."
It doesn't matter because his talk is still western centric and ideologically conservative.
I can tell you as some one who actually lives in the West his talk is not "Western centric" any more than Bernier's is "Quebec centric."
You may not think so but as someone who lives in the East he is. Not west coast, western.
It doesn't matter because his talk is still western centric and ideologically conservative.
I can tell you as some one who actually lives in the West his talk is not "Western centric" any more than Bernier's is "Quebec centric."
You may not think so but as someone who lives in the East he is. Not west coast, western.
I think I've finally cracked the decoder ring on how you use these geographic terms:
I'll just do that substitution now and I think your posts will make more sense.
It doesn't matter because his talk is still western centric and ideologically conservative.
I can tell you as some one who actually lives in the West his talk is not "Western centric" any more than Bernier's is "Quebec centric."
You may not think so but as someone who lives in the East he is. Not west coast, western.
I think I've finally cracked the decoder ring on how you use these geographic terms:
- The West = Alberta
- The East = Quebec
I'll just do that substitution now and I think your posts will make more sense.
Nope.
As much as I would like to see the Cons continue to decline, in this election not only are they growing in number, this is even more so for the more right wing PPC of Maxine Bernier, considering where they are starting from without much media attention. This raises the question of whether Covid has moved part of the problem even further to the right, perhaps frustrated business owners whose businesses have been shut down or significantly had to decrease operations or libertarians who oppose increased regulation associated with Covid. The combination of the PPC and Con vote below now totals 40.3% of the vote, so is no longer hovering around 30% that we saw before. It also raises the question of whether the Cons will push further right during the election or if they should get elected to power to attract some of the PPC vote, as well as the Maverick party independistes in the West. It is far from what I want, but I think it is time to raise this question. Paul has also done more to sink Green fortunes than anyone would have thought possible a year ago.
Averaging the last 6 polls on Wikipedia (Sept 1-2) and with the PPC now ahead of the Greens the results are
Cons 35.1
Libs 30.6
NDP 19.5
Bloc 5.4
PPC 5.2
Grn 3.5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_fede...
This raises the question of whether Covid has moved part of the problem even further to the right, perhaps frustrated business owners whose businesses have been shut down or significantly had to decrease operations or libertarians who oppose increased regulation associated with Covid.
I think both of those factors are true to an extent. I think the fact that the 'economy' was going to be an issue that the Conservatives would be able to tap into is based on a lot of their issues gaining currency with the public: deficits, inflation, labour shortages, government regulations etc. I don't think that that narrative needed to be dominant though if there had been a strong left counternarrative based on government spending on fighter jets, pipelines and oil and gas subsidies but politically the electoral left platforms have been a lot quieter on these issues. This is a common problem with the electoral left: they like to ignore populist issues and let the right take over that space.
I also think a lot of people underestimated O'Toole. When he was dropping in the polls, it was pretty clearly in regions where Conservative seats were safe. He was clearly priming the arugment that he was not so 'extreme' for Ontario voters and willing to take a hit with his base. Which was not dumb. Ditto with the narrative on 'mandatory vaccinations.' The idea that he was going to get smoked on this issue never made sense to me. A lot of people support vaccinations but balk at 'forced' vaccinations. That's not the same thing as 'mandatory' vaccinations for people who want to go to public events (which a far larger number of people support) but the language can be easily conflated and confused. O'Toole's position that he got vaccinated but doesn't want to 'force' others to do the same is not as much of an outlier as the media was trying to say. I know a lot of people who fall into that category. Sometimes being willing to take a hit from the media can have a payoff which is rarely something I see the NDP cognizant of.
The combination of the PPC and Con vote below now totals 40.3% of the vote, so is no longer hovering around 30% that we saw before. It also raises the question of whether the Cons will push further right during the election or if they should get elected to power to attract some of the PPC vote, as well as the Maverick party independistes in the West. It is far from what I want, but I think it is time to raise this question.
I think that would be really hard to pull off this election and I highly doubt the Conservatives go there. The Conservative success has been because they've been able to convince enough Canadians they aren't that scary and that they might be better than an antidemocratic Liberal party that doesn't know how to count to 169. In a lot of ways having the more extreme rightwingers in a separate party has been really beneficial to them. I'm not saying you are wrong about step 2 of their plan though. I could imagine a Conservative minority government that is a little more entrenched making an appeal to those voters in the next election.
Paul has also done more to sink Green fortunes than anyone would have thought possible a year ago.
Sorry, but that sounds like hyperbole. When Paul was elected as leader, I assumed they would have a terrible election. She came off as extemely arrogant and condescending in the leadership debates and offered nothing that was in any way significantly different than the other parties. I'm not surprised the Greens are having a very bad election. They have no reason to exist if they aren't offering a real alternative.
I meant to add this to the end of the my previous post but I created another one.
Edited to Add: I feel like things can come off the wrong way very easily on discussion forums so I want to make it clear that I'm not attacking you as a person by disagreeing with some of your points here. Your threads on money laundering in BC and Climate Change are the some of the most informative things I've read on Canadian political sites over the last couple of year and I've forwarded them to several people.
The Conservative Party will never win another federal election because this is what they must do but can't do.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8209741/canada-election-results-what-happens-...
O’Toole gambled big by swinging the Conservative Party to the centre of the political spectrum, but was not able to oust Trudeau from the Prime Minister’s Office....
But unlike with Scheer’s election loss, there are already strong voices from within the party speaking out about the need to rally around O’Toole rather than kick him to the curb, and search for a new leader.....
Matthew Conway, one of the Quebec representatives on the party’s national council of members, said Conservatives will need to do a post-mortem to figure out what could’ve been done better.
But he said in a minority government, changing leaders after each election simply isn’t realistic......
A former Conservative candidate and ex-political staffer, Conway said the post-mortem on the election results will need to take a hard look at why some Liberal attacks over things like the party’s positions on abortion access and firearms control resonated with voters.....
“The Liberals will play the fear game and we need to be ready to defend ourselves on that. We need to realize also that the Morgentaler abortion decision was in 1988,” he said, adding more can be done to make it clear O’Toole is pro-choice.
“But also people in our party need to stop fighting battles that were fought many years ago. It’s 2021. … Continuing to fight these battles just allows Justin Trudeau and his corrupt government to continue getting elected, and that doesn’t serve Canada.”....
Skogstad also noted O’Toole may be able to stave off leadership challenges with the fact that the People’s Party of Canada, the far-right group led by ex-Tory Maxime Bernier, didn’t win a single seat in the House of Commons in the election....
If O’Toole can demonstrate he has a plan to keep building on the pivot to the centre and turn that into more votes, he may have a chance to stay on that Scheer did not get, she suggested.
“A little more than a third of his caucus is going to be from Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we can expect those MP’s to take issue with the kind of campaign that he ran, which is to try to move the party to the centre, make it look much more like an old Progressive Conservative Party,” she said.
“I think he can justifiably argue that the pathway to a national government in Canada does have to be to hold much more toward the centre.”
He is absolutely right but a large portion of the party's members and supporters don't consider winning as the PCs a win. They certainly don't consider abortion and gun control to be closed issues. Not even close.
The Conservative strategists know that they can't win as the reform party in sheep's clothing. They can only win as the PCs, but the PCs no longer exist. They are no more united than when the Reform party split off. They came back and took over. Pretending to be the Conservative party didn't work.
The Conservatives would have had a great chance at forming the government if they had won just 20 more seats. That sounds very doable to me. They are still at least in a strong second place position like they've been in for 100 years or so.
Of course they are capable of forming government (thank goodness for Maxime Bernier), and O'Toole appears to know the drill of what is required, which is moving the Conservatives towards the middle, and which is how elections are usually won in Canada.
Of course they are capable of forming government (thank goodness for Maxime Bernier), and O'Toole appears to know the drill of what is required, which is moving the Conservatives towards the middle, and which is how elections are usually won in Canada.
If Bernier followers were part of the Conservative party they would have done even worse. Pushing even more to the centre simply won't be allowed by the membership. They will split off again into another Reform Party. The Conservative "floor" of about 26% is not delivered by moderates. If that were the case Peter MacKay would be leading the party.
The party executive desperately wants to put away the LBGTQ2 and abortion issues aside by declaring the leader's support and acceptance while allowing opponents "freedom of conscience" because that means there is no threat of legislation being passed. That should take the issue off the table. Same goes with promoting vaccination but not rquiring candidates to make their status public.
That might have been good enough 10 or 20 years ago but it isn't anymore. Now they are the equivalent of the mark of the beast for educated people. It's like being racist. You can't say a party isn't racist if it has racist MPs. You can't say a party is pro LBGTQ2 while having MPs who are not.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/erin-otoole-canada-conservative...
“There is an open question about whether there's a kind of structural problem built into the Conservative Party's voter composition,” he said.
It isn't an open question. There is. Free marketers (otherwise called libertarians) and fiscal conservatives fed social conservatism, evangelicalism, as part of their formula for winning. Social conservatism and calls for freedom of religion was their tactic for gaining immigrant support. Unfortunately a core constituency is white and anti-immigration. Dog whistling to them have damaged their changes with immigrants.
Demographics are dooming the Conservatives. Climate change and income/wealth inequality are THE issues of the century. The baby boomer parents are dying off and so are boomers. That great big bulge of voters that favored Conservatives, Liberals and don't rock the boat governments are losing power.
Every generation coming up now is that much more freaked out over both climate change and income inequality. The latest are coming of age during Covid. Housing independence from their parents is going to be huge. We are increasingly depending on immigration to increase our population and economy. Housing is high on the list for them as well.
The Conservative philosophy has no means of addressing current challenges because by their nature solving them demands massive government intervention.
Pondering, it seems to me that what you're saying is that the Conservatives no longer have a chance at winning. If that is true aren't you basically saying that the Liberals are going to be in power indefinitely?
Pondering, it seems to me that what you're saying is that the Conservatives no longer have a chance at winning. If that is true aren't you basically saying that the Liberals are going to be in power indefinitely?
I hope not but yes I do see the Liberals in power indefinitely during which they will continue their rightward drift as fiscal conservatives lose all faith in the Conservative Party. This could lead to Liberal majorities but sooner or later there will be a flip left. How far left I do not know. Could just be the NDP or could be a new eco-socialist party with or without Lascaris.
Separatism will grow in Alberta as it hits home the oil industry is in permanent decline and there will be no rescue forthcoming that can return Alberta to the boom times. They will have to learn to pay for government services and they won't like that. The rest of Canada will have to learn to live without major equalization payments.
We have hard times coming. We got lucky that Trudeau didn't get his majority and that the NDP is in a position to prevent the Liberals from turning hard right. I hope Singh will be a good negotiator and not promise to support the Liberals until the pandemic is over.
The Cons would be dumb to dump O'Toole. Canadians liked him more after the elction than they did before it and he managed to not suffer much electoraly even though the most toxic elements in his party left him for the purple party. The Cons have room to grow which hasn't been true in a while.
What really hurt them in the election was:
a) I think most Canadians were happy that we didn't have a Conservative government when Covid broke out. Covid is still going on.
b) That hokey Air Miles Personal Carbon Credit account idea is a complete joke. This is the most important issue facing humanity. The Liberals have shown the bar is low but it's not that low.
Where is the room left to grow for Conservatives? What constituency will they pick up? How will they make up for their ever shrinking percentage of support from young voters?
You're saying the loss of the toxic elements of the party hurt him electorally. Do you think their returning to the party would be helpful? I think they would further repel moderates.
O'Toole is very likeable. Having a likeable leader isn't the problem. Policy is the problem.
Concerning your point "a". Covid is not going away any time soon. The post-Covid recovery will require lots of continued spending.
His "hokey" climate plan was too far left for many within the party. The Conservative party will always drag their feet on climate change. They will continue to be too little too late. O'Toole might have won the 2019 election but times are changing.
Trudeau is the least liked of the leaders yet remains first choice as PM.
To grow, the Conservative party will have to stop being the Conservative party but if they ditch even 20% of their base they can't make up for it by winning moderates. The base doesn't have to vote for a different party. They just have to stay home. I forget which article but a very recent one from a Conservative put their base at 26% and their ceiling at 35%. That's a very low ceiling. A large number of NDP/Liberal voters will vote strategically to prevent another Conservative win.
Gathering socially and economically conservative immigrants into the fold was a good strategy that could have worked but for the anti-immigrant elements within the party that released dog whistles and remain within the party's support base.
Growing populations in Canada include young people coming of age and immigrants. The Liberals better watch out too because the young seem to be going NDP.
I'm not saying they are going to shrink a lot but they won't grow. The full seat count isn't in yet but didn't they just lose two more seats against the likes of Justin Trudeau? He stumbles from gaffe to gaffe if he goes off script.
Climate change cares not a jot about politics. It can't be wished away or swept under the carpet. It will get exponentially worse. Fires? You ain't seen nothing yet. Heat waves? We haven't really felt them yet. Give it another 5 or 10 years. Death count will increase. For at least the next 30 years climate change will increase exponentially not linearly.
We are going to have a much harder time viewing ourselves as moral while we prevent desperate refugees from reaching our shores while we pat ourselves on the back for accepting those who risk their lives trying to get here.
Ecosocialism is going to have to rise fast because there is a chance Canada could go extreme right as the need for security increases. We will either share our water with the US or watch the Great Lakes get drained.
Climate change money is going into mitigation because it can't be stopped over the short term. Without barriers New York will go under water. Personally I think New York and many other major cities will have to move over the next century. They will become underwater marvels.
Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels 100% tomorrow the above will still happen. What we do today to prevent climate change will only have an impact 30 to 40 years from now. So from now until then things would continue to get worse.
I think history will look back upon these times and judge us worse than Hitler's Germany and not just the wealthy. Worse than the Dark Ages even. We cannot plead ignorance nor helplessness. Greed and self-indulgence are portrayed as success and individualism praised for making it possible.
Where is the room left to grow for Conservatives?
In Ontario? If the Conservatives had won as many seats as the PC's did in the last Ontario election the Conservatives would be forming a federal government now.
Where is the room left to grow for Conservatives?
In Ontario? If the Conservatives had won as many seats as the PC's did in the last Ontario election the Conservatives would be forming a federal government now.
A majority Harper government included a few Vancouver Island seats and all of Richmond and the Fraser Valley. These areas are right wing strongholds and the voters are not going to any other party. A few thousand votes in key ridings and the Conservatives gain at least a half a dozen seats. In this region there is no place for the Liberals, the Central Canadian ruling party, to grow but plenty of room for the Conservatives to go back to Harper era voting patterns.
Where is the room left to grow for Conservatives?
In Ontario? If the Conservatives had won as many seats as the PC's did in the last Ontario election the Conservatives would be forming a federal government now.
Well that's my point. They aren't winning those seats. There is no reason for me to believe they ever will. The Liberals lost power because they were incredibly long in the tooth. It's a wonder they didn't lose sooner. With a different leader they might have still won. Most people are not voting on ideological lines. They are voting on the issues that matter to them. Climate change is right up there and rising for everyone.
Harper won because of the sponsorship scandal and coming across as a boring bookkeeper who would follow through on promises of transparency. He won his minorities because the Liberals offered up Dion and Ignatieff. Trudeau won once he proved he could stumble through a debate and had some campaign promises.
Ontario will vote for the party they believe will give them the most. I noticed that during the campaign Conservatives went silent on western alienation and the threat of separation. That means it is going over like a stone in Central Canada. The ever popular Legault endorsed the Conservatives. It still didn't help them. The Conservatives have offers Ligault likes but not that Quebecers like. All the provinces are looking for money.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/erin-otoole-canada-conservative...
xpanding the voter pool: Sean Speer, who was a policy adviser to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, said when it comes to voter support the Tories have the highest floor among the major parties.
For instance, Speer says the party's loyal base means a leader can pretty much count on getting at least 26 percent of the vote in any given election.
On the other hand, he said the party also has the challenge of a relatively low ceiling with an approximate maximum, on a good day, of about 35 percent support.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/erin-otoole-conservatives-popular-vote-...
Tory candidates across the country received 34.1 per cent of the total number of votes cast in the 2021 federal election as of 1:10 a.m. on Tuesday, amounting to 35.8 per cent of the total number of seats (121 seats). The Liberals finished behind their rivals with 31.8 per cent of the total number of votes cast, but were able to take 46.2 per cent of the total seats (156 seats).
Put those two together. 35% ceiling, and 34.1% delivering a loss by a lot of seats. There is extremely little space for the Conservatives to pick up seats. By far the majority of voters are Liberal/NDP and do vote strategically to block the Conservatives.
You're saying the loss of the toxic elements of the party hurt him electorally.
No, I'm saying it barely hurt them at all. Scheer pandered much more to these elements and got pretty much the same results. I get that O'Toole didn't win but this is addition by subtraction. I think having the fringe leave for the PPC and not doing that much to damage the seat count gives O'Toole room to grow. I get that he didn't win and there will be an internal move to oust him but I think he has room to grow the party that wasn't there with Scheer.
The fluctuation in the polls during the election showed enough Canadians were willing to give the Conservatives a look for a potential minority government. Uncertainty about how they would handle Covid and the Cons' ridiculous climate plan meant a lot of these voters ultimately went with the devil they knew. It also didn't help that the NDP were so focused on the Liberals. The NDP doesn't seem to get that one of the things that would make voters who are worried about a Conservative government less worried is knowing the NDP is prepared to take that Conservative agenda on. By ignoring the Cons in the campaign it reminds Liberal/NDP swing voters that the NDP were ineffective at controlling the debate during the Harper years.
No, I'm saying it barely hurt them at all. Scheer pandered much more to these elements and got pretty much the same results. I get that O'Toole didn't win but this is addition by subtraction. I think having the fringe leave for the PPC and not doing that much to damage the seat count gives O'Toole room to grow.
He lost two seats and didn't gain much room to grow from it. He just lost less because those are the anti-immigrant, pro gun, anti-vaccine, anti-mask types that repel moderates. That isn't growing it is just stopping the bleed.
I get that he didn't win and there will be an internal move to oust him but I think he has room to grow the party that wasn't there with Scheer.
The executive and PC part of the party desperately want the rank and file and caucus to accept O'Toole and the shift left because it is the only way to win. Everyone knows it. The Reform part doesn't care and neither do social conservatives.
The fluctuation in the polls during the election showed enough Canadians were willing to give the Conservatives a look for a potential minority government.
Yes, and when they take a look they see the Alberta centric party and back away.
Uncertainty about how they would handle Covid and the Cons' ridiculous climate plan meant a lot of these voters ultimately went with the devil they knew.
That isn't going to change. The Conservatives are not going to come up with a plausible climate change plan. The Liberals plan is inadequate but appears more serious. Pressure on climate change action is only going to grow. The Conservatives will continue to be too little too late in the eyes of the public.
It also didn't help that the NDP were so focused on the Liberals. The NDP doesn't seem to get that one of the things that would make voters who are worried about a Conservative government less worried is knowing the NDP is prepared to take that Conservative agenda on. By ignoring the Cons in the campaign it reminds Liberal/NDP swing voters that the NDP were ineffective at controlling the debate during the Harper years.
Agreed. The emphasis on being the party that has done the best on balancing the budget is also unhelpful. It supports the Conservative narrative that not having a deficit is the be all and end all of good governance and wise financial management.
Next post, the knives out for O'Toole...
Conservatives are still dragging their feet on climate change (Liberals faking concern but this thread is about the Conservatives). That is issue one in which they are in the stone age. Thier plans will always be too little too late as they try to satisfy their base.
Now the latest:
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2021/10/20/ndp-will-vote-agains...
The Conservatives’ statement accused Trudeau of making vaccinations a wedge issue, while the Liberals’ statement simply noted that “the prime minister emphasized the need for all members of Parliament in the House of Commons to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Mr. O’Toole presented the prime minister with his party’s views on this topic ahead of the reconvening of Parliament on Nov. 22.”
Even if O'Toole survives he is already considered too far left. Vaccination is unlikely to be an issue in the next election but that isn't the point. It's the mindset of the Conservative bases.
Their bases are extremists on one issue or another but don't consider themselves as such.
You got the "i'm not racist just traditional" crowd that wants Canada to not change. They overlap with the anti-abortionists.
Then you got the free marketers that want low regulation low taxation and only the immigrants that business needs to fulfil their requirements. (policies that also attract some libertarians)
And finally the old PC types. Those are the ones the Conservatives are losing.
O'Toole is forced to argue against mandatory vaccination for workplaces and call it divisive. Canadians want widespread vaccination because that is what is giving us hope and allowing us to see family and friends. Most people see it as a perfectly reasonable health measure for specific activities not an infringement on bodily integrity.
By the time the next election rolls around vaccination probably won't be an issue but something else will be because this brand of conservative philosophy doesn't have the tools to deal with climate change or income inequality. They can't deal with the rapid advancement in moral values either. Again it will always be too little too late.
The knives are out for O'Toole. They may fail to get rid of him but that doesn't mean they will graciously accept loss for the good of the party. They will double down because it is about saving conservative philosophy not just winning elections.
Imagine if the NDP supported a decrease in benefits for any group or move towards a flat tax or an increase in criminal penalties for petty theft or support for privitization. Some supporters would accept it if it were seen as a bargain to get something else maybe, or to get elected. But there is a significant part of the party that would quit. It isn't worth winning if it means betraying the principles the party was founded on.
They are on the opposite side of the political spectrum but the same is true of Conservatives. There are lines O'Toole can't cross and he has to give the bases enough peanuts for them to think it is still worth while to support the party.
MPs like Niki Ashton would openly oppose NDP leadership if they drift that far right. Same goes for the Conservatives. They have MPs that will and are openly opposing the leadership for moving too far left. O'Toole pulled a bait and switch with the support of the party executive. They all want to move "left". It seems about 30% won't allow it. They aren't big enough to retake the party but they are big enough to doom the party if they don't get their way.
In their opinion "moving left" has been given years to work but it hasn't. They think the party needs to champion it's philosophy and causes not downplay them because they are right. They just need to convince Canadians.
The Conservative party is the mirror image of the NDP. Conservatives split up then reunited but it still isn't united. It is as if the NDP and Liberals merged. The more progressive members would be dissatisfied.
The MSM talks about exploiting the "split" on the left for the Conservatives to come up the middle. The thing is the Liberals don't need to merge with the NDP to win. If the Liberals and NDP did merge they would never lose an election. That is not true of the Conservative party. The right has to merge to have any chance of winning even a minority so Reform/CA and PCs had to reunite.
On the PC side, you do what it takes to get elected. The point is to win. On the Reform/CA side, there is no point in winning if it is as Liberal lite. Some were saying it isn't even Liberal lite. It's just Liberal.
The Conservatives "allow" their MPs to vote their conscience claiming it is because of their dedication to freedom. It's because they have no choice. If they could silence the pro-life anti-LBGTQ cohort without losing their votes they would do it in a heartbeat.
We all know there is no credible free market solution to climate change. It does not take an expert to understand that business left to its own devices will destroy the planet.
So O'Toole tried to sell a carbon tax as something else. It didn't work. Too little too late.
Yet another sign:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rupa-subramanya-how-the-conservatives-l...
While Chrétien’s hard-line stance against India had no electoral consequences — his government was handily re-elected in 2000 — in the recently concluded federal election, the Conservatives’ strong rhetoric against the Communist regime in China very likely cost them votes among the Chinese-Canadian community, and may have helped the Liberals return to power....
Quito Maggi of Mainstreet Research found in early polling that 43 per cent of Chinese-Canadians said they would vote Liberal, compared to 25 per cent who supported the Conservatives and 24 per cent who planned to cast a ballot for the NDP. As Maggi notes, two-thirds of the community lining up against the Conservatives was “highly unusual.”
Couple that with what I just saw in the demonization of China thread:
"Mr McKay said he is in favour of the Canada-China Relations Committee being reconvened. 'My own view is that China is an existential threat to our nation,' he said. 'All MPs and all Senators at all times need to be aware of the various threat levels and the ways in which China is deploying its resources - both in this country and against this country..."
There will always be another reason why the Conservatives lose because it is their whole mindset that is off. Canadians aren't happy about the whole Meng/Michaels thing but people aren't boycotting chinese products or no longer visiting China or even demanding that China's 5G network products be rejected. Editorialists might be but not people in general.
The demonization of China is not a vote getter.
The Liberal Mackenzie King / St.Laurent dynasty lasted 22 years. The next Liberal dynasty, the Pearson / Trudeau dynasty also lasted 22 years. The most recent Liberal dynasty, the Chrétien / Martin dynasty lasted 13 years. So it should come as no surprise that the Conservatives might have to wait considerably more time before they get another crack at government like Diefenbaker, Mulroney, and Harper did with their administrations that lasted 6, 9, and 9 years respectively.
For the sake of argument, I was going to ask, if I am right and the Conservatives can't win, what then?
There is a deep split between the pragmatists, we have to win, and the "true blue" conservatives that want to defend the philosophy of conservatism and the pro-life with which they overlap.
The pragmatists are the biggest group but the "true blue" have their heels dug in.
If you are right that the Conservatives can't win than the Liberals will likely be in power indefinitely. But eventually the voters wil grow tired of having the same party in power just like the voters finally got rid of the PC's in Alberta. Most people in Canada consider the Liberals to be centre-left so the heir apparents to the Liberals are the Conservatives, not NDP. The NDP's route to power would likely be having the Conservatives in power with the NDP and Liberals vying for second place status and the NDP moving into first place from there. The NDP was in this position in the late 1980's and 2010's when the PC's governed and the Liberals were led by an unpopular leader in Turner and Ignatieff. In order to have a chance at forming a government the NDP probably needs the Conservatives to form a government and the Liberals to have an unpopular leader.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/21/erin-otoole-canada-conservative...
On the other hand, he said the party also has the challenge of a relatively low ceiling with an approximate maximum, on a good day, of about 35 percent support.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/six-charts-to-help...
Popular vote for Conservatives was 33.7%.
Of their potential 35% they won 33.7, almost 100%, and didn’t even get a minority. Trudeau is a weak leader who makes constant serious gaffes. Why didn’t they win this election?
Think of BC. The Liberal party became the de facto conservatives and the Conservative Party barely exists. If BC still had a Conservative Party the Liberals would likely be in power now not the NDP. Why don’t you believe it can happen federally?
The party executive desperately wants to go back to being the PCs. The Reform elements of the party are in the minority but the majority PCs can't do without them so they try to make bargains. O'Toole was elected leader as the bargain candidate but it was bait and switch.
O’Toole became leader on false pretenses. He might as well be Peter MacKay.
The reform side may not be able to get rid of O’Toole but they can be loud enough to prevent him from winning elections by keeping up the attacks.
Bert Chen is a two-term member of the party's elected national council not some fringe member.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conseratives-split-erin-otoole-1.6187155
Chen said that, beyond the poor showing in Monday's vote, some party members feel betrayed by O'Toole — a man who presented himself as a "true blue" conservative in the party's leadership race only to abandon some of his promises on issues like carbon pricing, firearms and balanced budgets....
"Conservatives have an even higher standard for integrity — we're the party behind the Accountability Act and all these reforms — and Conservatives feel that for a leader to change their positions, like what was done recently, it requires a review of that leader."...
"Mr. O'Toole took a huge risk in this campaign by campaigning in the way that he did and that risk did not pay off. He needs to leave," the caucus member said, adding that the loss of urban and diverse MPs is "a huge concern."
Yes, the old paradigm was the Liberals and Conservatives endlessly trading back and forth but that doesn't mean it will stay that way for eternity. The Liberals have had a slew of unpopular leaders and they have one now. That hasn't helped the NDP.
Numbers in the next post
I don’t know which seats are up for grabs or anything like that. I am looking at the big picture only. There are so many moving parts and things like pandemics happen that impact individual elections sometimes at the last minute.
This is just an exercise in the possibilities. You have to admit it is at least possible for the Conservatives to never again win a federal election. O’Toole even said they can’t win unless they change. I don’t believe they can change enough on climate change and income inequality as well as the social issues to win.
The race is really between the top three so I will subtract 15% to attribute to “other” leaving 85% to the top three. Because it is easy I will assign a base of 30% to the Conservatives leaving 55% for the Liberals and NDP to divide between them.
That brings us to our current situation with voters going with the Liberals to beat the Conservatives except for during the famous orange wave which led to Conservative wins.
So what do I see changing?
O’Toole just acknowledged what everyone already knows. They can’t win unless they fundamentally change. They have to drop the social conservatism, match the Liberals on climate change and at least pretend to have a plan for income inequality. Conservative philosophy can’t deal with the last two and social conservatives have their heels dug in.
Red tories are going to shift to the Liberals as they begin to accept that the Conservative party is a lost cause. They will want to influence Liberal policy by joining it. I could see more floor crossers.
My point is that the Conservatives are in a long decline. The Liberals and NDP will start to share a larger and larger piece of the pie. How long it takes will depend on individual events.
We even discussed it in this election. The weaker the Conservatives are the more votes the NDP gets because people aren’t afraid they will win. The top three share 85% of the vote, divided by three equals 28.33.
If Conservatives drop to 28% they have virtually zero chance of winning. Once that happens the battle will be between the Liberals and the NDP. The NDP, not the Conservatives will become the alternative to the Liberals as it did in BC.
In effect small c conservatives will increase their influence in the Liberal Party bringing it farther right. We can already see their influence in the temporary nature of all Covid, the rejection of basic income even though the rank and file support it, and the lack of movement on pharmacare which is a no-brainer and would save the country money.
NDP positions are now quite similar to what we would have seen from the Liberals decades ago.
The parties used to be thought of as Conservatives centre-right, Liberal centre left, and NDP farther left. The Overton window got shifted to the right over the past half century but it has gone so far right the Conservatives are far right, the Liberals are centre-right, and the NDP is centre-left.
The Orange wave would not have happened if the NDP were not perceived as centre left. You are right that NDP votes will come from the Liberals. But it will only happen when the Conservatives weak enough that they are no longer a threat to win.
The situation provincially in BC was entirely different that the current federal situation. In BC the right quickly replaced the BC Social Credit with the BC Liberal Party between the provincial 1991 and 1996 provincial elections after the Social Credit brand became very tarnished with a financial scandal and arrogance.
I think people who vote Conservative are as likely to switch to voting Liberal as Maple Leaf fans are of switching their allegiance to the Montreal Canadiens.
You never heard of red tories? You don't think they will ever get tired of losing? you don't think they represent even 4% of the Conservative voting pool?
There are a lot of moderate Conservatives. The Liberals will likely never win in solid blue areas but there are many areas in which a small shift can make the difference.
There are lots of moderate Conservatives. They are the ones who supported MacKay. If the Conservatives trying to push the party closer to the centre fail they will desert the sinking ship. There represent a lot more than 4%.
Opinion polls have shown that very few people who vote Conservative have a second choice political party. On the other hand opinion polls show that many people are open to switching between voting for the Liberals and voting for the NDP.
It makes zero sense that so-called "Red Tories" stuck with the Conservatives under Harper and Scheer but are now going to flee the party because the party does not reflect their values.
The Conservative party has a solid floor, it's their ceiling which is the problem.
At some point the Conservatives will win power just because the Liberals will push their arrogance past the point that Canadians can stomach and the NDP does not present as a party that has thought seriously about governing at the national level. Singh couldn't fill 2 minutes talking about foreign policy plattitudes during the debate before trying to change the subject to long term care.
Opinion polls have shown that very few people who vote Conservative have a second choice political party. On the other hand opinion polls show that many people are open to switching between voting for the Liberals and voting for the NDP.
This is correct. Conservative voters tend to stick with their party and rarely consider voting for any other. Non-Conservative voters, however, often move between the Liberals, NDP & Greens -- what some pollsters have named "promiscuous progressives".
Greens -- what some pollsters have named "promiscuous progressives.
AKA “slutty socialists”
licentious lefties
lascivious lefties
<p>It makes zero sense that so-called "Red Tories" stuck with the Conservatives under Harper and Scheer but are now going to flee the party because the party does not reflect their values.
Not because the party doesn't reflect their values but because they want to win. Harper gave them hope.
They thought Scheer could win. The consensus was he didn't because he was socially conservative even though he promised no abortion laws.
Then they gave members a choice between MacKay and O'Toole with O'Toole supposedly "true blue". Instead he is as "leftist" as MacKay.
Now O'Toole has lost and is saying the party has to "change" more, meaning go even farther left.
Red tories will stick with the Conservative party until they realize the rank and file, the reform part of the party, still insists the party needs to defend conservative philosophy not move to the left.
Once red tories finally realize there is no hope of persuading reform members to be more moderate they will give up or the party will spilt apart again down the fault line between PC/red tories and reformers.
Harper managed to hold them together because he was winning but he lost right after winning a majority because he showed his true colors.
Here is another example of why they can't win.
OTTAWA – After first saying that he “will respect” the House of Commons’ internal management committee ruling that MPs need to be fully vaccinated to enter Parliament on Wednesday, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole now insists that the decision “infriges” on members’ rights.
“While we respect that the (Board of Internal Economy, or BOIE) has the jurisdiction to manage the parliamentary precinct, we do not accept that the BOIE has the jurisdiction to infringe on a Member’s right to take their seat in the House of Commons,” O’Toole spokesperson Mathew Clancy said in a statement Friday.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/otoole-does-about-face-on-vacc...
O'Toole doesn't want to fight the vaccine mandate for MPs. He would not being doing this if he didn't have to.
I'm willing to bet there are unvaccinated Conservative MPs, or they are getting heat from their constituents who are against "mandatory" vaccination.
Most Canadians are fed up with anti-vaxers and blame them for the continued spread. The Conservatives might as well be carrying a flashing sign saying "Dinosaurs".
Pro-oil, anti-vax, anti-green, anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-pharmacare, anti-basic income and anti-daycare is the growing Conservative brand. They are out of step with the times.
LOL, this will help the Conservative brand.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8289763/handful-conservative-mps-remain-unvac...
A “handful” of Conservative MPs remain unvaccinated against COVID-19, multiple sources tell Global News, setting up a potential showdown with their Commons colleagues when Parliament returns next month.
It’s not clear whether party brass know exactly which MPs have opted not to get vaccinated, or precisely how many have not had the shots. Some MPs flatly refused to tell the party leadership one way or another during the recent federal election campaign.
The Conservative party is about to declare itself the home of the anti-vaxxers and O'Toole doesn't even know which MPs are unvaccinated. It makes him look weak and out of control.
He is going to be forced to stand up for the rights of the unvaccinated to not even disclose their vaccination status on the basis of privacy.
Canadians will see Conservatives puting ideology above public health.
Red tories will stick with the Conservative party until they realize the rank and file, the reform part of the party, still insists the party needs to defend conservative philosophy not move to the left.
What’s your definition of a red tory?
My personal definition is a moderate fiscal/social conservative which is not the same thing as a free-market conservative which I perceive to to be more extreme. Former PC types. Basically don't rock the boat traditionalists who think things are fine they way they are and are suspicious of change. Protestants not evangelicals at heart. They may want fewer immigrants because they don't want Canada to change but they are the opposite of radical so will accept government decisions. They genuinely believe in good government, law and order, civic duty. They are fine with banning conversion therapy and don't want to reopen the abortion debate even though they may personally disapprove.
So then I looked up the definition which is of course much better than my weak description but is along the lines of what I imagine but can't articulate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
A Red Tory is an adherent of a centre-right or paternalistic-conservative political philosophy derived from the Tory tradition, most predominantly in Canada but also in the United Kingdom. This philosophy tends to favour communitarian social policies, while maintaining a degree of fiscal discipline and a respect of social and political order. It is contrasted with "Blue Tory" or "High Tory". Some Red Tories view themselves as small-c conservatives.
In Canada, Red Toryism is found in provincial and federal Conservative political parties. The history of Red Toryism marks differences in the development of the political cultures of Canada and the United States. Canadian conservatism and American conservatism have been different from each other in fundamental ways, including their stances on social issues and the role of government in society.[1]
Red Tory governments in Canada, such as those of John A. Macdonald, Robert Borden, R. B. Bennett, and John Diefenbaker, were known for supporting an active role for the government in the economy. This included the creation of government-owned and operated Crown Corporations such as the Canadian National Railway, and the development and protection of Canadian industries with programs such as the National Policy.
The adjective "red" refers to the economically left-leaning nature of Red Toryism in comparison with Blue Toryism, since socialist and other leftist parties have traditionally used the colour red. In Canada today, however, red is commonly associated with the centre-left Liberal Party. The term reflects the broad ideological range traditionally found within conservatism in Canada.
By my reading Red Tories would be perfectly comfortable in today's Liberal Party.
I think the radicals are a minority within the Conservative Party of Canada as they were within the Progressive Conservative Party, but they are a 30% or so minority that elects specific MPs giving them clout.
The PCs couldn't win without the reformers/CA so they reunited. Like the Liberals the primary goal of the PCs was to get elected. To get back together the PCs had to make concessions, like freedom of conscience for MPs.
The Conservative executive leans PC in the sense they first and foremost want to get elected. They want to keep O'Toole and modernize the party. They want to close the pro-life anti -LBGTQ2 chapter of the history of the party as a lost cause. They know they have to match the Liberals on climate change.
The thing is that issues like vaccination will continue cropping up because Conservatives cultivated evangelical support both here and south of the border. Conservatives cultivated the anti-immigrant, pro-life, anti-sex ed voters and encouraged them to think of themselves as a political force with righteous complaints.
Now the Conservatives are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can't win without the evangelicals and other extremists but they can't win with them either because they repel centrists.
How do we know that most Red Tories aren't already voting for parties other than the Conservatives?
How do we know that most Red Tories aren't already voting for parties other than the Conservatives?
Speaking of Conservatives
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/otooles-campaign-chair-walied-sol...
wrong thread
But it is the right thread for this:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-tories-to-form-mini-cau...
Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu says she and other colleagues are forming what’s shaping up to be a “mini-caucus” within the existing Tory caucus to advocate for Canadians concerned about the impacts of vaccine mandates.
She says the group is still sorting out logistics, but wants to make one thing clear: “This is not about Erin O’Toole’s leadership. Has nothing to do with that.”...
She estimated between 15 to 30 Conservatives, including senators, could join and imagines the group could function like a parliamentary committee, which would call legal or medical experts to speak at public meetings...
“Look, if people are losing their jobs right now, we really need to understand, you know, how can we get to a place where there’s reasonable accommodation?” she said.....
Besides employment, Gladu said, there are concerns about unvaccinated people being unable to travel and worries from parents about immunizing their children....
Despite emphasizing that their group isn’t about O’Toole,there’s a good chance it could create challenges for him as leader,given his recent federal election loss and internal divisions over what to do about vaccine mandates, including for MPs.
Former Conservative cabinet minister James Moore tweeted his opposition Thursday to the mini-caucus idea, which could shine an even brighter light on the issue for the party, at the expense of more pressing ones.
“Cost of living? National economic unity? Post COVID growth & pandemic recovery? Housing crisis? No no. Be a voice for those who reject consensus medical science and block getting past COVID and saving lives. This is not where Canadian public interest/opinion rests. Stop this,” he said on Twitter.....
Last week, following a four-hour caucus meeting, he announced that Conservative MPs will abide by a decision of the governing body of the House of Commons requiring anyone entering the Commons precinct to be fully vaccinated. But he said the party will also challenge that decision once the House resumes on Nov. 22....
Remember this:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservative-national-council-suspends-m...
So this group is saying it isn't about O'Toole. It does not matter. What is hurting the party is their position on mandatory vaccination and what this group is doing is highlighting.
They are driving the executive crazy.
Knives out for O'Toole.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8374556/erin-otoole-leadership-review-petition/
Prominent Tory Sen. Denise Batters has launched a petition calling for a leadership review within six months, specifically pointing to O’Toole’s loss of the 2021 federal election and his party policy reversals during the campaign.
“Conservative activists and members across Canada are supporting this petition because Erin O’Toole has reversed his own positions from his leadership campaign, betrayed Conservative principles, lost seats in the election, and cannot win the next election,” the petition states.
“As Leader, O’Toole has watered down and even entirely reversed policy positions without the input of party or caucus members. On the carbon tax, on firearms, on conscience rights, he has contradicted positions within the same week, the same day, and even within the same sentence!”
Just last week, the Conservative party pushed a member of its national council to turn over communication records related to a bid to oust O’Toole as leader in what the councillor’s lawyer has deemed an “unprecedented campaign” to “thwart dissenting views.”
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-the-friendly-face-of-erin-o-t...
The subplot to the festering of anti-vaccination sentiment in Parliament are the flurry of petitions being delivered by Conservative MPs – including one demanding the government authorize the use of ivermectin, a horse deworming treatment, to fight COVID-19 in humans over the alarmed objections of just about anybody with a medical license.
Add that lunacy to Conservative-sponsored petitions to declare vaccinations unsafe or an end vaccine passports and you have the bogus building blocks for every anti-vax organization in the world.
This madness puts O’Toole in a helluva dilemma. He can either save himself or save the party.
If he tolerates the anti-vaccinate dissent, he might preserve his leadership from a mutiny of rabblerousers in caucus or at the spring general meeting but kill his longer-term credibility.
If he gives them the boot, he risks creating a breakaway People’s Party caucus in the House of Commons and giving them a podium to re-fracture the Conservatives back into two rival parties....
This is O’Toole playing for time with hopes the crazy caucus idea falls apart under pressure from common sense MPs who understand that having an anti-vaxx splinter in their midst will mean constant Commons condemnation from the Liberals, who smell a majority coming in the next election.
But despite the risks to his resume, this is a clarion call for clear, decisive, zero-tolerance leadership from O’Toole.
Voters didn’t trust O’Toole with a winning mandate in the October election, partly because they were confused about his chameleon shifts from hard-right leadership candidate to middle-ground new leader to full-on moderate hopeful campaigning for the prime minister’s job.
Tolerating anti-vaxers hasn't helped him and the vax issue is just a subset of the primary problem. If it isn't vaccination it will be another issue. The reformers are beholden to a particular subset of the party that seems to be concentrated in particular communities. To continue winning the reformers have to champion a cause that will offend swing voters.
Next election vaxxing probably won't be a major issue so they will have to go with another conservative grievance like immigration or abortion or oil or equalization to make a lot of noise about.
The barbaric practices hotline has not been forgotten by many minority immigrants not just muslims. When he was losing Harper turned to his base.
MaKay and O'Toole represented each side of the party but after winning O'Toole dumped the policies he ran on. The Party is trying to pull another Harper but the reformers aren't falling for it this time. They know if the party wins on "centrist" positions that is how they will govern.
Conservatives were banking on socially conservative views attracting immigrants but any hint of anti-immigrant or racist sentiments and they were gone. Abortion will remain an issue but it is fading into the background. My bet, not certainty, just a bet, is that immigration will be the next not so quiet dog-whistle to rally the troops but it will be expressed very reasonably as a small reduction in yearly immigration.
Canada is becoming a nation of of immigrants. Over 20% of Canadians were not born here. Many more are 1st generation so still connected to the immigrant experience. Family reunification matters.
There is a solid percentage of Canadians that are concerned about the rate of immigration which is ever increasing.
The thing is you can't promote just a small decrease in immigration. Many people concerned about immigration believe themselves to be reasonable. There is a limit to how many immigrants we can absorb in any one year. But move in that direction even a bit and the xenophobes come out of the woodwork killing any chance of winning immigrant or moderate votes.
At the same time reduction, even a small amount, offends the business community that needs workers.
Reformers are a minority in the party but they will split before they will retreat. The Conservative party can't afford to lose them but they are poisoning their chances of winning.
Mulroney wants O'Toole to break with the anti-vaxers, eject them from caucus. He is probably right that even if they can't win they are better off without them. They could then choose moderates to run in their seats but that risks losing the seats to the newly independent or reform party redux.
