[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

What I do not want to see on the federal is what happened here in Ontario: a voter population pissed off about provincial Liberal incompetence, waste and corruption, throwing the bums out ... only to get by default a provincial Conservative party that was not progressive and that few outside their base actually agreed with.

I think the Conservatives' last chance for that was this election.  The NDP was down and out at the start.  They are now reinvigorated and so are more likely to be viewed as a viable non Conservative option in the next federal election.

[crazy canuck]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign. 

Consider yourself corrected. 

[crazy canuck]

This is all very true.

But this is also why it completely validates the fear of people who'd rather not have the PC in power. Because of the importance of that base, and the fact that it's not going away.

In a way the current Conservative party is stuck with the very same problem that plagued the Parti Quebecois since 1995. A base who was highly militant, highly motivated, and committed to a cause, fighting for voters who desire change, but fear the cause. Thus, the PQ has tried to square the circle of keeping the base motivated about independence, while never fully committing to it, so as to attract voters. It worked, somewhat poorly, for a time, but the PQ has been hemorrhaging militants, and its electoral prospects do not look good.

So, I can understand why BB is worried that expelling them would mean the Cons would lose their operating efficiency. But in turn, he must recognize that fears about socons are not as groundless as he asserts.

Anti-choice is the PC's sovereignty. This is why Harper kept sending all sorts of alternative social conservative signals - anything but abortion. It's the current CAQ strategy in Quebec: signal strong nationalism short of outright talks of independence. That works in Quebec because there is a broad nationalist consensus. What sort of broad conservative consensus could there be? There's a reason why finances were often the battleground, but I think the time when frugality was a vote-winner is past.

Nailed it

[Barrister]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign. 

Consider yourself corrected.

So what's your story?

[crazy canuck]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign. 

Consider yourself corrected.

So what's your story?

The first time I became involved in politics was the lead up to the 1983 by-election.  In confirmation of Shielbh's all politics is local mantra, a person running for the nomination was a family friend and his son, who had been a teacher of mine, dropped by the house to see if I would help paint some signs for an event that was occurring that night.  I went to the event out of curiosity and I and my parents became hooked.  Long story short, we became very involved in the nomination battle and almost pulled off an upset over the candidate who had deep party roots.  That person then stopped by the house to ask us to support him and help run his by-election campaign.  Which we did.  He won the by-election and held the seat in subsequent elections until the Reformers decided to commit political suicide.  That was the last election I worked on.  My mother and father went on to be active in provincial political organizing and ran many provincial election campaigns at the riding level.  Toward the end of his life my father continued to be a campaign chairmen for elections in his riding - he loved it.

tldr, I know a thing or two about how an election campaign is run 

[PRC]

It's funny you should say that, since we have a couple of examples of exactly what happens when social conservatives split from more urban moderates.  In the 1990s is was the more conservative Reform Party that won far more seats, with the more moderate PCs left as the 4th party in Parliament (or was it 5th).

And in 2015 in Alberta it was the more conservative Wildrose party that took more seats than the more moderate (under Prentice) PCs.

And, of course, in both situations neither party actually won government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign.  They call these kind of supporters "the base" for a reason - they're the foundation of the party.  They're the ones that knock on doors, put up signs, donate money. 

Now obviously the last campaign, and the next one, is largely going to be fought over suburban voters, and the Conservative Party needs to be able to appeal to those voters.  But don't ever mistake those voters as being your base.  You lose your base, and you don't really have a party anymore.

I am that suburban voter and I'm strictly looking at it from a "would I vote for them?" standpoint.  I'm not married to the Liberals and would have no issue voting for any other party if I agreed with their message / disagreed with the others message... but i'm extremely unlikely to vote Conservative while the Social Conservatives are, as you said, an important part of that party.  Take them away, then the truly progressive Conservative party that Malthus mentioned would have strong consideration for my vote.  Particularly vs. Trudeau and the Liberals in the last election!

[viper37]

Forced Birthers.

Scheer leadership is to blame on Bernier & his steadfast dumbassness of trying to break up the Milk cartel.

Well the alternative is Bernier as the leader of Conservatives.  One shudders at the thought.

We would have a 2nd Trudeau majority & the Cons in bigger disarray. A better outcome than right now.


I found so weird during the campaign seeing many ads (especially tv ads) aimed at getting my, and those like me, support in Quebec to the Conservatives. Waste of time, money & bad signs for his Social Conservatives base.

I think this is actually not a bad result.  At least this way, the Conservative party is finally going to have the show down they have been putting off between the evangelicals and the rest of the party.  This position of having a progressive front with a social conservative back only worked under a strong leader like Harper and even then there were some difficulties.

I agree with PRC's analysis regarding how that could play out.

Can I remind you of the 90s? How did that work out for the Conservatives back then, with the Reform Party?  Who got to hold on to power despite obvious incompetence?

[viper37]

This is all very true.

But this is also why it completely validates the fear of people who'd rather not have the PC in power. Because of the importance of that base, and the fact that it's not going away.

Ungrounded fears, mostly.  The party would split and lose power if they raised the abortion issue openly again.

[viper37]

It's funny you should say that, since we have a couple of examples of exactly what happens when social conservatives split from more urban moderates.  In the 1990s is was the more conservative Reform Party that won far more seats, with the more moderate PCs left as the 4th party in Parliament (or was it 5th).

And in 2015 in Alberta it was the more conservative Wildrose party that took more seats than the more moderate (under Prentice) PCs.

And, of course, in both situations neither party actually won government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign.  They call these kind of supporters "the base" for a reason - they're the foundation of the party.  They're the ones that knock on doors, put up signs, donate money. 

Now obviously the last campaign, and the next one, is largely going to be fought over suburban voters, and the Conservative Party needs to be able to appeal to those voters.  But don't ever mistake those voters as being your base.  You lose your base, and you don't really have a party anymore.

I am that suburban voter and I'm strictly looking at it from a "would I vote for them?" standpoint.  I'm not married to the Liberals and would have no issue voting for any other party if I agreed with their message / disagreed with the others message... but i'm extremely unlikely to vote Conservative while the Social Conservatives are, as you said, an important part of that party.  Take them away, then the truly progressive Conservative party that Malthus mentioned would have strong consideration for my vote.  Particularly vs. Trudeau and the Liberals in the last election!

But then, most of Alberta would not vote for such a party, they'd either stay at home or vote PRC.

[crazy canuck]

Can I remind you of the 90s? How did that work out for the Conservatives back then, with the Reform Party?  Who got to hold on to power despite obvious incompetence?

A lot of Reformers were not evangelical socons although the socons did go Reform as well.  The non socons just drank the Manning cool aid.  If there is a split with just the socons now, it wont be the same as the Reformers.

[crazy canuck]

It's funny you should say that, since we have a couple of examples of exactly what happens when social conservatives split from more urban moderates.  In the 1990s is was the more conservative Reform Party that won far more seats, with the more moderate PCs left as the 4th party in Parliament (or was it 5th).

And in 2015 in Alberta it was the more conservative Wildrose party that took more seats than the more moderate (under Prentice) PCs.

And, of course, in both situations neither party actually won government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign.  They call these kind of supporters "the base" for a reason - they're the foundation of the party.  They're the ones that knock on doors, put up signs, donate money. 

Now obviously the last campaign, and the next one, is largely going to be fought over suburban voters, and the Conservative Party needs to be able to appeal to those voters.  But don't ever mistake those voters as being your base.  You lose your base, and you don't really have a party anymore.

I am that suburban voter and I'm strictly looking at it from a "would I vote for them?" standpoint.  I'm not married to the Liberals and would have no issue voting for any other party if I agreed with their message / disagreed with the others message... but i'm extremely unlikely to vote Conservative while the Social Conservatives are, as you said, an important part of that party.  Take them away, then the truly progressive Conservative party that Malthus mentioned would have strong consideration for my vote.  Particularly vs. Trudeau and the Liberals in the last election!

But then, most of Alberta would not vote for such a party, they'd either stay at home or vote PRC.

Alberta is not necessary to form a majority government. 

[viper37]

It's funny you should say that, since we have a couple of examples of exactly what happens when social conservatives split from more urban moderates.  In the 1990s is was the more conservative Reform Party that won far more seats, with the more moderate PCs left as the 4th party in Parliament (or was it 5th).

And in 2015 in Alberta it was the more conservative Wildrose party that took more seats than the more moderate (under Prentice) PCs.

And, of course, in both situations neither party actually won government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither PRC or CC have ever worked on an election campaign.  They call these kind of supporters "the base" for a reason - they're the foundation of the party.  They're the ones that knock on doors, put up signs, donate money. 

Now obviously the last campaign, and the next one, is largely going to be fought over suburban voters, and the Conservative Party needs to be able to appeal to those voters.  But don't ever mistake those voters as being your base.  You lose your base, and you don't really have a party anymore.

I am that suburban voter and I'm strictly looking at it from a "would I vote for them?" standpoint.  I'm not married to the Liberals and would have no issue voting for any other party if I agreed with their message / disagreed with the others message... but i'm extremely unlikely to vote Conservative while the Social Conservatives are, as you said, an important part of that party.  Take them away, then the truly progressive Conservative party that Malthus mentioned would have strong consideration for my vote.  Particularly vs. Trudeau and the Liberals in the last election!

But then, most of Alberta would not vote for such a party, they'd either stay at home or vote PRC.

Alberta is not necessary to form a majority government. 

No, not really.  But it's hard to form a majority government when most of BC, most of Ontario, most of Quebec, most of the Maritimes vote against you when you also lose Alberta.

[viper37]

Can I remind you of the 90s? How did that work out for the Conservatives back then, with the Reform Party?  Who got to hold on to power despite obvious incompetence?

A lot of Reformers were not evangelical socons although the socons did go Reform as well.  The non socons just drank the Manning cool aid.  If there is a split with just the socons now, it wont be the same as the Reformers.

The socons will not bring only the socons with them.  My example with the Reform stands.  It wasn't all just socons, but many left the old Conservative Party with them.  Socons have this uncanny ability to convince other right wingers they can offer them the salvation they seek... so to speak.

[crazy canuck]

Can I remind you of the 90s? How did that work out for the Conservatives back then, with the Reform Party?  Who got to hold on to power despite obvious incompetence?

A lot of Reformers were not evangelical socons although the socons did go Reform as well.  The non socons just drank the Manning cool aid.  If there is a split with just the socons now, it wont be the same as the Reformers.

The socons will not bring only the socons with them.  My example with the Reform stands.  It wasn't all just socons, but many left the old Conservative Party with them.  Socons have this uncanny ability to convince other right wingers they can offer them the salvation they seek... so to speak.

You have just described the Conservative party as it stands now.  In its current form they are not likely to attract other voters.

[Grey Fox]

Right now they lose all that & win Alberta, Sask & Manitoba. Yet, no path to a Cons government.


The reason we don't have a Liberal majority right now is because of our fickleness.
Look at the new Liberal strategy for the next election, double down on Qc.