[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

On the contrary, politicians should tell us what they want to do, especially around the issue of fundamental issues like abortion.  But as seen recently the Conservatives try to hide that bit from the general public as much as possible.

[Malthus]

On the contrary, politicians should tell us what they want to do, especially around the issue of fundamental issues like abortion.  But as seen recently the Conservatives try to hide that bit from the general public as much as possible.

I think this is a consequence of having a single party that covers both traditional conservatives and the radical social conservative types.

Conservative leadership races always lean into to social conservatism; then the winners try to pivot to the centre, so they can actually win elections.

Abortion is a sure election-loser, only those who are already diehard social conservative conservatives are in favour of anti-abortion legislation. So conservatives have no choice but to be thoroughly two-faced about it - individual candidates can't win leadership races if they are against legislation, and the Conservatives can't win elections if they are for legislation.

It is completely understandable that this comes across as Conservatives having a hidden agenda. It may well be that they do. But even if they did not, they are going to act like they do.

The whole situation is a political gift to the Liberals. The situation in the US ensures that abortion will be on the front burner in Canada, maybe for years to come, and everything about it will remind Canadians daily about how much they don't want this to happen here. The Conservatives will wear it, no matter how much they don't want to, because at least the social conservative part of the party does want this to happen here.

Really, the conservatives ought to split into two parties. That is the better way forward for those who are not extreme social conservatives. Until they do, they will be unable to win elections.

[HVC]

But the normal conservatives can't win without the crazy conservatives so damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[crazy canuck]

On the contrary, politicians should tell us what they want to do, especially around the issue of fundamental issues like abortion.  But as seen recently the Conservatives try to hide that bit from the general public as much as possible.

I think this is a consequence of having a single party that covers both traditional conservatives and the radical social conservative types.

Conservative leadership races always lean into to social conservatism; then the winners try to pivot to the centre, so they can actually win elections.

Abortion is a sure election-loser, only those who are already diehard social conservative conservatives are in favour of anti-abortion legislation. So conservatives have no choice but to be thoroughly two-faced about it - individual candidates can't win leadership races if they are against legislation, and the Conservatives can't win elections if they are for legislation.

It is completely understandable that this comes across as Conservatives having a hidden agenda. It may well be that they do. But even if they did not, they are going to act like they do.

The whole situation is a political gift to the Liberals. The situation in the US ensures that abortion will be on the front burner in Canada, maybe for years to come, and everything about it will remind Canadians daily about how much they don't want this to happen here. The Conservatives will wear it, no matter how much they don't want to, because at least the social conservative part of the party does want this to happen here.

Really, the conservatives ought to split into two parties. That is the better way forward for those who are not extreme social conservatives. Until they do, they will be unable to win elections.

The answer is simple though.  Do what Harper did and state in no uncertain terms it isn't going to happen.  Since his time as leader there has been lot more weasel words used.

[Grey Fox]

I wish Berkut would read this thread once a while.

The left needs to go to the centre but it's ok for the right to being dragged kicking & screaming always further right.

*sigh

[Jacob]

The Conservatives will wear it, no matter how much they don't want to, because at least the social conservative part of the party does want this to happen here.

Indeed.

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, interim Conservative leader Candice Bergen said the "only ones reopening" the abortion debate "are the Liberals."

Unfortunately for Bergen, Arnold Viersen, a Conservative MP who describes himself as "pro-life," had stopped to speak to reporters outside West Block two hours earlier. He was asked whether this was a debate that needed to be reopened. "I would generally say that the debate's never been closed," he replied.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/roe-wade-abortion-supreme-court-canada-1.6441654

[Malthus]

But the normal conservatives can't win without the crazy conservatives so damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think they can - all they need to do is eat the Liberal's lunch, and claim they are the party of the centre, that the Liberals are caving in to the NDP and to radical progressives. Be moderately progressive on social issues (that is, reflect back the majority position on social issues), be economically conservative.

This could be a *possible* winning strategy. They simply *cannot* win if they remain tied to the festering radical social conservatives. The majority of Canadians loathe those, associating them with what Canadians have traditionally hated - lack of peace and disorder (like the Ottawa protestors) and they are only going to loathe them more with the antics pulled south of the border. Conservatives hiding their heads in the sand on this will only see them marginalized.

[Malthus]

I wish Berkut would read this thread once a while.

The left needs to go to the centre but it's ok for the right to being dragged kicking & screaming always further right.

*sigh

Aren't we actually saying the opposite?

[Malthus]

On the contrary, politicians should tell us what they want to do, especially around the issue of fundamental issues like abortion.  But as seen recently the Conservatives try to hide that bit from the general public as much as possible.

I think this is a consequence of having a single party that covers both traditional conservatives and the radical social conservative types.

Conservative leadership races always lean into to social conservatism; then the winners try to pivot to the centre, so they can actually win elections.

Abortion is a sure election-loser, only those who are already diehard social conservative conservatives are in favour of anti-abortion legislation. So conservatives have no choice but to be thoroughly two-faced about it - individual candidates can't win leadership races if they are against legislation, and the Conservatives can't win elections if they are for legislation.

It is completely understandable that this comes across as Conservatives having a hidden agenda. It may well be that they do. But even if they did not, they are going to act like they do.

The whole situation is a political gift to the Liberals. The situation in the US ensures that abortion will be on the front burner in Canada, maybe for years to come, and everything about it will remind Canadians daily about how much they don't want this to happen here. The Conservatives will wear it, no matter how much they don't want to, because at least the social conservative part of the party does want this to happen here.

Really, the conservatives ought to split into two parties. That is the better way forward for those who are not extreme social conservatives. Until they do, they will be unable to win elections.

The answer is simple though.  Do what Harper did and state in no uncertain terms it isn't going to happen.  Since his time as leader there has been lot more weasel words used.

I agree that would be a good strategy. But they need someone like Harper to do it.

Harper's least attractive quality was that he was a bully. Unfortunately, the Conservatives need a leader willing and able to play the bully to keep them in line on issues like this, and they lack anyone capable of doing this right now. Also, it may be that they have catered to the social conservatives too long, it isn't possible now to credibly claim they can be forced into line now.

[Grey Fox]

I wish Berkut would read this thread once a while.

The left needs to go to the centre but it's ok for the right to being dragged kicking & screaming always further right.

*sigh

Aren't we actually saying the opposite?

We are.

[Jacob]

I think they can - all they need to do is eat the Liberal's lunch, and claim they are the party of the centre, that the Liberals are caving in to the NDP and to radical progressives. Be moderately progressive on social issues (that is, reflect back the majority position on social issues), be economically conservative.

This could be a *possible* winning strategy. They simply *cannot* win if they remain tied to the festering radical social conservatives. The majority of Canadians loathe those, associating them with what Canadians have traditionally hated - lack of peace and disorder (like the Ottawa protestors) and they are only going to loathe them more with the antics pulled south of the border. Conservatives hiding their heads in the sand on this will only see them marginalized.

Right now the Conservatives seem to be rejecting that strategy, saying they need a leader who is not just "Liberal-lite". Seems they're hoping to get in with their more radical approach, riding on a wave of the public getting tired of the Liberals and thinking whatever half-hearted "we're not actually as bad as all that" paint they're slapping on the party is sufficient.

[Barrister]

Really, the conservatives ought to split into two parties. That is the better way forward for those who are not extreme social conservatives. Until they do, they will be unable to win elections.

In a first past the post system that's a terrible idea.  You need "big tent" parties.

[Oexmelin]

Right now the Conservatives seem to be rejecting that strategy, saying they need a leader who is not just "Liberal-lite". Seems they're hoping to get in with their more radical approach, riding on a wave of the public getting tired of the Liberals and thinking whatever half-hearted "we're not actually as bad as all that" paint they're slapping on the party is sufficient.

They are gambling that such radicalism will make inroads in Canada if given sufficient air. I don't think it's necessarily a bad gamble, and I would be wary of thinking they could *never* get elected that way.

[Malthus]

I think they can - all they need to do is eat the Liberal's lunch, and claim they are the party of the centre, that the Liberals are caving in to the NDP and to radical progressives. Be moderately progressive on social issues (that is, reflect back the majority position on social issues), be economically conservative.

This could be a *possible* winning strategy. They simply *cannot* win if they remain tied to the festering radical social conservatives. The majority of Canadians loathe those, associating them with what Canadians have traditionally hated - lack of peace and disorder (like the Ottawa protestors) and they are only going to loathe them more with the antics pulled south of the border. Conservatives hiding their heads in the sand on this will only see them marginalized.

Right now the Conservatives seem to be rejecting that strategy, saying they need a leader who is not just "Liberal-lite". Seems they're hoping to get in with their more radical approach, riding on a wave of the public getting tired of the Liberals and thinking whatever half-hearted "we're not actually as bad as all that" paint they're slapping on the party is sufficient.

Indeed - and I think this is a bad strategy.

[viper37]

What HVC said.  We had the Reform Party who couldn't win a seat east of Manitoba and the old Conservative Party who ran second in most races.  This insured the domination of the Liberals for 12 years.