ALBERTA: Provincial Elections!

[Sheilbh]

I'm really interested in A) hearing some of these moderate socially conservative positions outlined (because they're new to me); and B) understanding who holds them in political arenas I'm familiar with (especially in Canada, but elsewhere as well).

The best example I've got is Iain Duncan-Smith.  His entire analysis of poverty and 'welfare dependence' is based on an idea of social breakdown.  I think his view, or at least his think tank's view, is that to a large extent poverty is exacerbated by family breakdown and the failure of family network, the collapse of traditional community institutions (like churches) and the failure of community cohesion due to mass migration and the 'failure of multiculturalism'.

So in order to effectively deal with poverty you need to change the benefit system to reduce 'dependence' but you also need to have policies that try and increase community cohesion, tax and benefit policy should support married couples and you try and involve lots of charities to get involved and work on this rather than depending on the state alone.

A lot of his thinking and that of the Centre for Social Justice is hugely influential on the Christian wing of the Tory party.  As I say I think it's credibly socially conservative - that's certainly how they see it.  They stand in contrast with the more liberal Tories who are a bit more heartless and purely economically focused.

[Sheilbh]

My beef with the social conservative movement in Canada is that they advocate for making abortion illegal and removing the legal protection for gays and only teaching abstinance in sex education.

To the extent you think social conservatism has other attributes, that is all well and good. But I must deal with the reality of the poltical positions social conservatives are actually taking.  If they are more enlightened in your country that is wonderful.  Perhaps you could export a few of them here.

It's not more enlightened necessarily.  IDS is very Catholic I'm fairly sure he's anti-abortion and hasn't got a great record on gays either.  But I think his politics are a bit broader than that, it's not that him or other social conservatives don't want to reduce abortions or, at best, want gays to be like traditional straight couples it's that they want that with other stuff.

His old Chief of Staff, Tim Montgomerie, now a big Tory blogger started in the Conservative Christian Fellowship - so socially conservative.  But his big obsession is what he calls the politics of 'and'.  So, say, 'faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders AND more care for the vulnerable children of prisoners'. 

[PRC]

Exactly.

Does it mean you think abortions are okay if performed 24 hours before a natural birth would occur?
Does it mean you think abortion can be used as another form of birth control, like condoms or the pill?
Or does it mean something else?

Well, anti-abortion probably doesn't mean either of those two as there's very little "anti-" about them.

I tend to assume that anti-abortion in this country means attempts to legally limit access to abortion, and I consider that extremist (and thankfully likely to be politically self-destructive). If it's anything weaker than that, then I don't think it's extreme, but then I don't think that'd be called "anti-abortion".

Well I don't self-identify as a social conservative as I think prostitution should be legal, drugs should be decriminalized / legal and I'm a fan of safe injection sites.  But when it comes to abortion I've no problem legally limiting access to abortion in cases where if at the time of the termination a natural birth would be viable and the birth doesn't threaten the health of the mother, ie limiting access to abortions after after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at stake. 

The points in the first sentence probably make me extremist but I don't think the point in the second sentence does even if you do, I consider that just the "right thing to do".

[Jacob]

Well I don't self-identify as a social conservative as I think prostitution should be legal, drugs should be decriminalized / legal and I'm a fan of safe injection sites.  But when it comes to abortion I've no problem legally limiting access to abortion in cases where if at the time of the termination a natural birth would be viable and the birth doesn't threaten the health of the mother, ie limiting access to abortions after after the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at stake. 

The points in the first sentence probably make me extremist but I don't think the point in the second sentence does even if you do, I consider that just the "right thing to do".

I don't think tweaking the parameters of abortion availability is extremist as long as it remains generally accessible. I may not agree with, say, moving the last time for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but I don't think wanting to move the window thus is extremist (unless it's just a tactical move in a march towards moving it to 0 weeks).

[Jacob]

The best example I've got is Iain Duncan-Smith.  His entire analysis of poverty and 'welfare dependence' is based on an idea of social breakdown.  I think his view, or at least his think tank's view, is that to a large extent poverty is exacerbated by family breakdown and the failure of family network, the collapse of traditional community institutions (like churches) and the failure of community cohesion due to mass migration and the 'failure of multiculturalism'.

So in order to effectively deal with poverty you need to change the benefit system to reduce 'dependence' but you also need to have policies that try and increase community cohesion, tax and benefit policy should support married couples and you try and involve lots of charities to get involved and work on this rather than depending on the state alone.

A lot of his thinking and that of the Centre for Social Justice is hugely influential on the Christian wing of the Tory party.  As I say I think it's credibly socially conservative - that's certainly how they see it.  They stand in contrast with the more liberal Tories who are a bit more heartless and purely economically focused.

That's fair enough, and yeah I'd say that's moderate social conservatism as well. I may disagree with some or all of the particulars, but nothing you've said there is what I'd call extreme (leaving out the "not so good on the gays" etc as I don't know what that covers).

It is, however, not a position I'm used to seeing in the Canadian (or American) political discourse. As far as I can see, "Social Conservative" is synonymous with "Religious Right" which primarily stands for functionally outlawing abortion, dealing with drug use solely through the criminal justice system and explicitly bringing religious indoctrination into education and the law.

I'd be quite pleased if we had some more prominent moderate "social conservatives" here taking the mantle from the extremists. Maybe then moderate social conservatives like BB wouldn't feel compelled to vote for someone who actually espouses extremist views.

[crazy canuck]

I'd be quite pleased if we had some more prominent moderate "social conservatives" here taking the mantle from the extremists. Maybe then maybe moderate social conservatives like BB wouldn't feel compelled to vote for someone who actually espouses extremist views.

Or maybe we could get BB to put down his robes and pick up the rubber chicken circuit and run for office himself.  It would be a refreshing change from the usual social conservative suspects.

[Malthus]

If I may interject on a debate of a couple of days ago - to my mind the Alberta election emphasized what I've thought for a while - that overall Canadians will punish politicians who want to ignite cultural battles over social issues.

It isn't that Canadians are socially liberal, necessarily. Many Canadians echo BB's interests in conservatism of the respect-for-community type. It is just that they have no desire to bring US style ranting and raving about these issues north of the border, no matter what their own private views may be. 

Harper's political genius lies in knowing when to leave well enough alone. No doubt he disapproves of gay marriage and abortion - it's no secret. But he's savvy enough to avoid making a meal of this. The issues are settled for now, attempting to turn back the clock would carry a terrible political price, so aside from the occasional private member's bill - easy to ignore - he's willing to let sleeping dogs lie.

It may not be the principled thing, but if Canadian politics has a flavour, it is to temper principle with pragmatism - that whole "peace, order and good government" thing.

Wildrose would have won I think had they as a party been able to keep this firmly in mind - overall Canadians do not mind tossing the current set of bums out on the grounds that they have grown complacant and corrupt, and letting some young turks have a go - but not ranters and ravers on devisive social issues.   

[Neil]

I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

[Malthus]

I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

[Neil]

I don't really think that holds up in Alberta.  I think you can put the election result up to premeditation by Redford and her cabal.  She's moving the governing party from centre-right more to the left.  That's what she's been talking about ever since she kowtowed to the teachers union to win the leadership, and it turned out she was right.  She dumped the right-wing elements of the party and moved enough to the centre to devour 2/3rds of the Liberal vote.  The popular vote statistics are really interesting.

My impression is that the election was Wildroses' to lose, rather than the result of clever manuvers by the Conservatives. Allegedly, from the start the Conservatives were on the defensive - it was only with the vacuous antics of various Wildrose candidates that the situation reversed for them.

That wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

[Jacob]

That wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

I honestly had no idea that there were masses of Liberal voters in Alberta. How big a proportion of the electorate are they? What are the other significant groups and how big are they?

[Sheilbh]

Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

[Neil]

That wouldn't explain the fact that Liberal voters defected en masse to the Tories.

I honestly had no idea that there were masses of Liberal voters in Alberta. How big a proportion of the electorate are they? What are the other significant groups and how big are they?

They fell from 26% of the electorate last election to 9% this time around.  The NDP polls under 5%, all the time.  Then there are the Tories and the Wildrose.

[Jacob]

They fell from 26% of the electorate last election to 9% this time around.  The NDP polls under 5%, all the time.  Then there are the Tories and the Wildrose.

Interesting.

[Neil]

Would Wildrose ever try to go national?  If not, why not?

Not in the forseeable future, as the Tories already have that space, and are a party with strong roots in the West.  There could always be another 90s-style Reform movement if the Tories lose their way again, but the heartland of US-style conservatism in Canada is southern Alberta, and the Wildrose as it is will have a hard time expanding beyond that.