[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

That was CC's point I thought. They may have ideas, but they're not articulating them much beyond "common sense" sloganeering. Used to be a focus on "wokeism gone mad" slogans, now it's "things are too expensive" slogans. What they'll actually do is more of a mystery (other than cutting some stuff they've always meant to cut).

They have a good opportunity because the Libs are looking pretty feckless on cost of living - and the housing element in particular - but the Conservatives don't seem to have any ideas on the topic other than "it's Trudeau's fault!"

To be fair, if the Conservatives come out with some genuinely good ideas there may enough time for the Liberals to nick them so maybe that's why they're sticking to their usual empty personality based attacks.

Yeah - but I think they'd be mad to do so especially two years out from an election. Not least because a lot can happen in two years so you'd just be creating hostages to fortune, or ideas the government can nick as you say. The big challenge for the opposition is to define themselves and their opponents and they only have comms/slogans to do that because, unlike the government, they can't "do" anything.

I'm generally of the view that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them (with some exceptions) - but I think competent opposition is important. They need to be minimally competent. So the reason they have a good opportunity and the Libs are looking feckless, I'd suspect, is in part because they've been able and effective at pushing their advantage.

On a practical level I think this is still probably the stage where as an opposition you are getting the party and the shadow cabinet to generate policy ideas in all their portfolios. Mid-way through a parliament you're starting to identify and gesture at your general theme for the next election - but I don't think you've settled on a platform yet or what the priorities will necesssarily be. The next two years are to bring that theme into sharper definition (with some policy announcements) and trying to hammer the government (in line with the theme). If it's six months out from an election and you don't know what they'll do, then I'd worry.

The other point practically is you're also only two years out from losing an election. If you already have a very clear, detailed set of policies and ideas of what you'll do if you win the next election then I'd be a little worried because my suspicion is that an opposition party like that hasn't learned any lessons from their last defeat and is just running on the greatest hits again.

Edit: Obviously I think it's different in say the US or Australia where you've got a shorter electoral cycle, or in the US or France where you might have different branches in the control of different parties. Then you need to either move quickly or work out how to govern and oppose at once.

[Barrister]

That may or may not be true BB, but it doesn't change the fact that "common sense" is not a policy but a slogan.

IIRC when I first met CC he was a staunch Conservative voter.

CC is entitle to change his political affiliation.  Maybe he even calls himself a "former conservative", or considers himself as the same.  But his own signature lines show him to be a lefty now (which he is entitled to be).

"Common sense" is somewhere between a policy and a slogan.  Obviously it can't be the sum total of your policy agenda.  But there's a reason it's been associated with conservative politics for decades.  It's the hard left that (almost by definition) has radical solutions to remake society.  Conservatives want to take things slowly, matching the common sense of the common voter. But taking slow, incremental, "common sense" policy positions can absolutely be your big picture policy.

[Sheilbh]

Typical Canadian behaviour to ignore Thomas Paine

[Grey Fox]

Typical Canadian behaviour to ignore Thomas Paine

Qui?


The conservatives didn't even have the knowledge to translate it to Le sens commun.


What makes society so great that Conservative want to keep the status quo?

[crazy canuck]

That may or may not be true BB, but it doesn't change the fact that "common sense" is not a policy but a slogan.

IIRC when I first met CC he was a staunch Conservative voter.

CC is entitle to change his political affiliation.  Maybe he even calls himself a "former conservative", or considers himself as the same.  But his own signature lines show him to be a lefty now (which he is entitled to be).

"Common sense" is somewhere between a policy and a slogan.  Obviously it can't be the sum total of your policy agenda.  But there's a reason it's been associated with conservative politics for decades.  It's the hard left that (almost by definition) has radical solutions to remake society.  Conservatives want to take things slowly, matching the common sense of the common voter. But taking slow, incremental, "common sense" policy positions can absolutely be your big picture policy.

This is exactly the problem with modern day conservatives.  They have moved so far to the right that they have lost those of us who used to vote for them.

The modern day play book is to attack something called woke.  But that is just a sham as we have discussed at length.

[Jacob]

It's good to see that it's not just the left that does the "it's better to be right than persuasive" self-inflicted wound thing.

Beeb could attempt to lay out the case for why the Conservatives are actually better in substance, but instead goes for "you're not Conservative enough to support us."

[HVC]

To be fair on a board like Languish it'd be a failing gesture to even attempt. We're not exactly a conservative safe space

That being said electing poilievre would be really bad for canada. Conservatives need another strong man robot. Well the version of harper before he dabbled with populist racism.

It's all Trudeau's fault. Damn liberals, they ruined the liberals *insert picture of angry grounds keeper willie*

[HVC]

Also "common sense" is as much a platform as "just watch me"
 It means nothing  but can be twisted into whatever a true believer wants.

[Barrister]

This is exactly the problem with modern day conservatives.  They have moved so far to the right that they have lost those of us who used to vote for them.

I'm not exactly sure what brand of conservatism you used to vote for.  I'm pretty sure you're not old enough to have voted for Robert Stanfield in the 70s.

Polievre's Conservative Party is very much in line with the conservatism of Harper and Manning, which is a lineage that goes back 30 years.

[Jacob]

Right wing prairie populism in the Manning vein is a far cry from "want[ing] to take things slowly, matching the common sense of the common voter", it was a radical project (something which you claimed is primarily a left wing thing). The anti-vax convoy - which the current Conservative Party embraces somewhere between tacitly to enthusiastically, is absolutely a manifestation of radical politics.

[Barrister]

It's good to see that it's not just the left that does the "it's better to be right than persuasive" self-inflicted wound thing.

Beeb could attempt to lay out the case for why the Conservatives are actually better in substance, but instead goes for "you're not Conservative enough to support us."

Dude - I'm not going to waste electrons trying to convince you to vote Conservative.  First, I'm not a politician to begin with, so that's not my job.  Second you're hardly what I would call a "gettable" vote.

POliticians and political parties who try to be all things to all people invariable fail to be convincing to anyone.  You realistically need about 40% of the vote in order to win a majority.  Now that doesn't mean you should tell the other 60% to go DIAF.  Your own 40% of voters want you to at least put forward a pro-forma attempt to all Canadians.

But there's nothing wrong with thinking that there's some voters you just aren't going to appeal to.

[viper37]

We do. I like the BQ leader but I won't vote for them.

No, not him, nor anyone like him.

Someone like Paul St-Pierre Plamondon though...

[viper37]

1) but the Conservatives don't seem to have any ideas on the topic other than "it's Trudeau's fault!"


2) To be fair, if the Conservatives come out with some genuinely good ideas there may enough time for the Liberals to nick them so maybe that's why they're sticking to their usual empty personality based attacks.

1) It is usually enough to win an election

2) It is how the Liberals win their election.

[Jacob]

1) It is usually enough to win an election

2) It is how the Liberals win their election.

 

Fair enough.

[crazy canuck]

To be fair on a board like Languish it'd be a failing gesture to even attempt. We're not exactly a conservative safe space

That being said electing poilievre would be really bad for canada. Conservatives need another strong man robot. Well the version of harper before he dabbled with populist racism.

It's all Trudeau's fault. Damn liberals, they ruined the liberals *insert picture of angry grounds keeper willie*

But reflect on where most of us were when this place started up.  You would have been laughed off this forum if you made that suggestion back then.  Folks like Jacob and Oex patiently explained the other side of the public policy debate.  And we had some interesting public policy debates back in the day.

But now most of us have recognized how vacuous modern right wing politics have become.  As a side note I am shocked (really) that BB of all people would take the position that something called common sense is partly a substantive policy position.

We live in a world in what was considered the fringe of the right wing has become its centre.  And that readily explains the shift of how right wing politics are recieved here.

I am not sure that will soon change when people like BB, who could be calling bullshit within their own party, simply go on the attack and support the party line.