[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Manitoba became officially English-only in 1890.  From there, public education in French was forbidden.  Well, techically, Catholic schools were forbidden.  To educate their children in French, Manitobans would have needed to either pay for private schools or find a publi Protestant school teachning in French, which was non existant.

By 1894, the province forbid cities from helping their schools.  By '96, the Laurier compromise allowed public education in French.  For 30 minutes at the end of the day.
In 1916 Manitoba entirely forbid public education in French.
All new teachers had to be tought in English, French education for future teachers was stricly forbidden, private or public.

Only in 1993 did Franco Manitobans receive the right to attend and organize their own public French schools.  Only from this date can we consider both languages of education to be of equal footing in the province.

Let me tell you my little story.

I moved (back) to Manitoba in 1990 from Saskatchewan, where I started grade 10.  Manitoba's french classes KICKED MY ASS after coming from Saskatchewan where it was not as much of a priority: straight As in everything else, D- in French (and I crunched the numbers on my final grade, I think the teacher bumped me up a % to avoid failing me).  For 1991 and grade 11 I kept up in french and managed to improve my grade to a C (and after changing schools) at which point I felt justified in dropping French as a topic.

You have the history of Manitoba right - there definitely was anti-French bigotry in the past.  The turning point though wasn't in 1993, but rather 1985 - the Manitoba Language Reference.  Under the Manitoba Act which incorporated the province into confederation all laws were supposed to be passed in both languages, but since the 1890s or so they just passed laws in English.  The SCC in the Language Reference said that was not okay, that all laws passed in English-only were invalid, but in order to prevent anarchy gave the province a period of time to re-pass all existing laws.

The question of whether French language education needs to be run under a separate school board, or can be run under a general school board, is an interesting one, but by that point in history can hardly be pointed to as an example of anti-French bigotry.

[crazy canuck]

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is representing a number of church's in a constitutional challenges to the COVID restrictions in Manitoba.  A lawyer acting in the case, and the President of the Justice Centre, hired an investigator to follow the presiding judge (the Chief Justice in that province).  The reason given for doing so is it was for the purpose of determining if the Chief Justice was not abiding by the restrictions.  What they would have done with any information they might have obtained is unknown. There is a denial that it was done for the purposes of intimidation.  The lawyer/president has said he made the decision himself and the Board of the organization has issued a press release saying they had no knowledge.

This is very concerning.

[viper37]

The question of whether French language education needs to be run under a separate school board, or can be run under a general school board, is an interesting one, but by that point in history can hardly be pointed to as an example of anti-French bigotry.

Let's say, in the US, South Carolina, 1911.  A White school board is in charge of both white and black schools.


Do you think both schools receive equivalent funding?

[Barrister]

The question of whether French language education needs to be run under a separate school board, or can be run under a general school board, is an interesting one, but by that point in history can hardly be pointed to as an example of anti-French bigotry.

Let's say, in the US, South Carolina, 1911.  A White school board is in charge of both white and black schools.


Do you think both schools receive equivalent funding?

For fucks sake, what a fucking stupid analogy.

[crazy canuck]

The question of whether French language education needs to be run under a separate school board, or can be run under a general school board, is an interesting one, but by that point in history can hardly be pointed to as an example of anti-French bigotry.

Let's say, in the US, South Carolina, 1911.  A White school board is in charge of both white and black schools.


Do you think both schools receive equivalent funding?

For fucks sake, what a fucking stupid analogy.

Before you are so quick with your condemnation of the analogy, you should read the recent law on the issue which has reached the conclusion that French Schools (ie not French immersion in the general stream but actual Francophone Schools) were not adequately funded.

[crazy canuck]

Some troubling numbers cited in Coyne's opinion piece today - if you are a Conservative.  And probably encouraging if you are an NDP supporter.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-more-than-leadership-or-policy-its-the-conservative-temperament-thats/

The official line in Conservative circles is: Don't panic. Campaigns matter, a week is a long time in politics, remember what happened to David Peterson, etc.

The unofficial line is: Panic. It isn't just that the Liberals hold a substantial lead in public opinion (six recent polls put them between eight and 14 points ahead). It's that the Tories have very little room to grow.

A new Abacus Data poll finds just 41 per cent of voters would even consider voting Conservative. That's well behind the Liberals (56 per cent) of course, but it's also behind the NDP (48 per cent). It's barely ahead of the Greens (33 per cent).

The reason the Conservatives have little support is succinctly described:

The same fundamental insecurity that, in a Joe Clark or a Bob Stanfield, emerged as a kind of apologetic cough of deference to liberal elites, is also at work in today's smirking Conservative populist. Though Canadian Conservatives have not gone so far down that road as their counterparts elsewhere – there is nothing to compare to the Republicans' current mix of white nationalism, LOL-nothing-matters nihilism, and lunatic, QAnon-inspired conspiracy theories – they are too willing to nod in that direction.

Moreover, while the Liberals, as the party of power and therefore of cabinet posts, have always been able to recruit individuals with a record of accomplishment in other fields, the Conservatives tend to get stuck with the lifers, people who have never done anything but partisan politics and are motivated by nothing so much as hatred of the Grits. Which may explain why the party's leading lights so often look and sound like campus Conservatives.

[Malthus]

While I agree that the Conservatives have an image problem (in this country, it's like having the bloated corpse of Donald Trump following them around, among many other problems), I don't agree that the "would consider voting for" numbers are all that useful information in our current system, unless you know more facts in addition. 

It all comes down to how the vote splits and how solid the support is among those who would consider voting for a party. For example, according to these numbers 33% would consider voting Green. If they do, that could be bad news for those who want the cons to lose - if those voters are attracted away from the liberals and, especially, from the NDP. If the votes split among the Liberals, NDP, and Greens, the cons could easily win even though a majority would never consider voting for them.

Not that this is a likely scenario, the Greens are in terrible disarray right now.

[Barrister]

While I agree that the Conservatives have an image problem (in this country, it's like having the bloated corpse of Donald Trump following them around, among many other problems), I don't agree that the "would consider voting for" numbers are all that useful information in our current system, unless you know more facts in addition. 

It all comes down to how the vote splits and how solid the support is among those who would consider voting for a party. For example, according to these numbers 33% would consider voting Green. If they do, that could be bad news for those who want the cons to lose - if those voters are attracted away from the liberals and, especially, from the NDP. If the votes split among the Liberals, NDP, and Greens, the cons could easily win even though a majority would never consider voting for them.

Not that this is a likely scenario, the Greens are in terrible disarray right now.

Vote splits are of course terribly important in this country - I think Mulroney in 1984 was the last time a party won an actual majority of the votes cast.

As to the cause though... I don't know.  I think everyone's diagnosis is for the Conservatives to change towards the analysts own preferred policy.  Coyne wants the Conservatives to be less right wing and more centrist.  I've seen other peices that blame the Conservatives low poll numbers for not being conservative enough - by accepting a carbon tax, for example.

[Jacob]

If the Conservatives problems come from not being sufficiently Conservative, that implies that there's a number of voters who are not voting for the Tories due to insufficient conservatism, and that those voters are distributed such as to make an electoral difference (i.e. we're not taking about Wild Rose voters in Alberta and the Praries, but voters in non-Tory ridings in Ontario and Quebec, the Maritimes and BC.

It could be the case, but on the face of it it doesn't seem persuasive to me.

Or is the argument that making a more unambiguously right wing case is going to be effective not because it actively persuades people that it is correct, even if they don't think so right now?

[Barrister]

If the Conservatives problems come from not being sufficiently Conservative, that implies that there's a number of voters who are not voting for the Tories due to insufficient conservatism, and that those voters are distributed such as to make an electoral difference (i.e. we're not taking about Wild Rose voters in Alberta and the Praries, but voters in non-Tory ridings in Ontario and Quebec, the Maritimes and BC.

It could be the case, but on the face of it it doesn't seem persuasive to me.

Or is the argument that making a more unambiguously right wing case is going to be effective not because it actively persuades people that it is correct, even if they don't think so right now?

I think as the US has shown the last two elections, voters are far less ideological than most political analysts, and often don't think in right-left ways.

The argument is that if the Conservatives just present themselves as Liberals-Light, they aren't giving anyone a really compelling reason to vote in their favour, and most people will vote for the Liberals-Regular Strength instead.

The needle the Conservatives always have to thread is presenting a unique and distinct voice in politics while avoiding upsetting or provoking Canadians.

[crazy canuck]

I suppose one possibility is that voters who do not believe the Conservatives are sufficiently conservative are not voting.  But that does not makes much sense when one considers the demographic of most Conservative voters is also the demographic that has the highest voter turnout.

[Jacob]

I think as the US has shown the last two elections, voters are far less ideological than most political analysts, and often don't think in right-left ways.

Yeah I think that's true.

The argument is that if the Conservatives just present themselves as Liberals-Light, they aren't giving anyone a really compelling reason to vote in their favour, and most people will vote for the Liberals-Regular Strength instead.

Yeah, I agree with that as well. I think the question facing the Conservatives is which causes and policies they focus on as their points of distinction. Liberal-light probably isn't going to fly, but the question becomes what's just "liberal light" and what's "Canadian mainstream, so best not to diverge too much from that to appeal to a radical fringe" and what's something else.

One of the problems is that many of the traditional Conservative points of distinction - Conservative-Regular Strength if you will - currently have extreme versions gaining some traction - Conservative-Extra Strength- but Conservative-Extra Strength is not super appealing to Canadians outside a fairly narrow band.

As you say...

The needle the Conservatives always have to thread is presenting a unique and distinct voice in politics while avoiding upsetting or provoking Canadians.

Indeed.

[viper37]

If the Conservatives problems come from not being sufficiently Conservative, that implies that there's a number of voters who are not voting for the Tories due to insufficient conservatism, and that those voters are distributed such as to make an electoral difference (i.e. we're not taking about Wild Rose voters in Alberta and the Praries, but voters in non-Tory ridings in Ontario and Quebec, the Maritimes and BC.

It could be the case, but on the face of it it doesn't seem persuasive to me.

Or is the argument that making a more unambiguously right wing case is going to be effective not because it actively persuades people that it is correct, even if they don't think so right now?

This kind of argument will resurface for any party championing a cause.

The Democrats are torned between their militant wing (AOC&co) and the centrists.  The centrists believe they ain't making any gains because of the militant left.  AOC & the Squad defenders believe they are not making any gains because they aren't pushing far enough to the left, pointing the far left Democrats did not lose any of the seats, only the moderates did.

The Republicans have decided to go all in on Trump, so it's no longer a valid comparison, but for a time, they were split between pro-Trump and moderates, with Trumpeters claiming, rightly so, that those who did not oppose Trump did not lose any seats.

In Quebec, the PQ has steadily lost votes election after election since 2003.  Centrists believe it's because they are unable to form a coherent government vision beyond independence, and the referendists believe its because they're not proactive enough on this front, ie, promising to hold a referendum on independence as soon as they are elected (not in so many words, it's usually that the party does not "promote" sovereignty enough, which amounts to the same, really).

Now, Conservatives face the same problematic.  Hard core Conservatives believe the party is too mainstream and not different enough from the Libs.  Pragmatic centrists believe the party can't emulate the GOP if it wants to survive as a viable political alternative in Canada.  I believe these questions are solved whenever there's a leadership race.  Maxime Bernier had a more libertarian agenda, and promoted changes that would have aligned the CCP more to the GOP.  He was outvoted in favour o Scheer.  Then Scheer left and another race was held where Erin O'Toole became leader with his own centrist vision.  If people don't like it, they can easily become member of the party and either give their support to another, much more GOP-like conservative leader or make their own campaign on whatever traditional values they support, and see how that goes with the Canadian electorate.

I guess in nearly every party there is this movement where some people are seeking ideological purity above pragmatism, meaning they don't care about being elected to actually make changes, all they want is to stay on the fringe and criticize the 'system'.

[Barrister]

Now, Conservatives face the same problematic.  Hard core Conservatives believe the party is too mainstream and not different enough from the Libs.  Pragmatic centrists believe the party can't emulate the GOP if it wants to survive as a viable political alternative in Canada.  I believe these questions are solved whenever there's a leadership race.  Maxime Bernier had a more libertarian agenda, and promoted changes that would have aligned the CCP more to the GOP.  He was outvoted in favour o Scheer.  Then Scheer left and another race was held where Erin O'Toole became leader with his own centrist vision.  If people don't like it, they can easily become member of the party and either give their support to another, much more GOP-like conservative leader or make their own campaign on whatever traditional values they support, and see how that goes with the Canadian electorate.

I guess in nearly every party there is this movement where some people are seeking ideological purity above pragmatism, meaning they don't care about being elected to actually make changes, all they want is to stay on the fringe and criticize the 'system'.

Erin O'Toole positioned himself as a True Blue Conservative (his actual slogan was True Blue Leadership), and Peter Mackay was the moderate centrist, in that leadership race.  The two other candidates were Leslyn Lewis (black, woman lawyer run primarily on a Pro Life platform) and Derek Sloan (again ran on a hard-rght social conservative platform).  When Lewis and Sloan were eliminated their support went to O'Toole.

[crazy canuck]

I guess in nearly every party there is this movement where some people are seeking ideological purity above pragmatism, meaning they don't care about being elected to actually make changes, all they want is to stay on the fringe and criticize the 'system'.

And of course BB was part of the movement that ripped the Progressive Conservatives apart and ensured over a decade of Liberal rule.  So there is very recent precedent for those who view ideological purity (or at least their view of it) above all else.