Reform/Progressive Conservative crack forms

[bob vernon]

Extreme right wing Albertan social conservative stance on social issues is in stark contrast to moderate Progressive Conservative views of easterners, like O'Toole. But he'll promise anything, then switch, to keep the tent large.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/34 ... pear-split

[nucksRnum1]

I can't wait for conservatives to crack in 2 again. Then my preference will rule the country forever! Muwahahahahaha!

[hobbyguy]

This is a fault line that has existed for a long time. The Campaign Life Coalition deliberate infiltration of the CPC has made that fault line deepen even further.

O'Toole's campaign may be the wedge issue that prompts a split. The PPC is already splitting voters away, and I doubt the existing party base will be very happy about that. O'Toole's himself was never popular with the CPC voter base, running behind Singh in personal popularity polls even in Alberta (at least until the election when most - but not all - CPC voters "came home").

I never could figure out how MacKay thought the red Tory progressive conservatives could sit at the Reform table.

[erinmore3775]

After the Caucus meeting when Mr O'Toole reiterated the fact that the Party would continue to work on a platform that would target urban voters primarily in eastern Canada he practically guaranteed a leadership and policy review within the next year. Caucus leaders like Genius and Stubbs will be pushing for it.

They represent the ultra conservative wing of the Party and they feel betrayed by Mr O'Toole. They resent his flip flops on the carbon tax, firearms, and health care conscience rights. Yet, their positions appeal only to a few voters and those are largely centered in the west. The CPC cannot expand its voter support without adopting a more progressive and encompassing platform. However, the irony is the current makeup of the Party is perfect for Opposition. They now collectively oppose everything the Liberal government may propose.

However, that opposition to everything means they they cannot take positions of critical leadership and propose proper amendments. Their seething discontentment with Mr O'Toole will mean they will cede critical leadership to the NDP and the Bloc. As a result they will continue to lose favour with the majority of voters.

However, there is an alternative. If the likes of Genius and Stubbs sheath their knives and think more of the benefit to the Party than themselves they can launch a polarizing Opposition, which can be seen as a real alternative to the Liberals. Anyone what to provide odds on the likelihood of that happening?

[The Green Barbarian]

Anyone what to provide odds on the likelihood of that happening?

100%. Obviously.

[hobbyguy]

After the Caucus meeting when Mr O'Toole reiterated the fact that the Party would continue to work on a platform that would target urban voters primarily in eastern Canada he practically guaranteed a leadership and policy review within the next year. Caucus leaders like Genius and Stubbs will be pushing for it.

They represent the ultra conservative wing of the Party and they feel betrayed by Mr O'Toole. They resent his flip flops on the carbon tax, firearms, and health care conscience rights. Yet, their positions appeal only to a few voters and those are largely centered in the west. The CPC cannot expand its voter support without adopting a more progressive and encompassing platform. However, the irony is the current makeup of the Party is perfect for Opposition. They now collectively oppose everything the Liberal government may propose.

However, that opposition to everything means they they cannot take positions of critical leadership and propose proper amendments. Their seething discontentment with Mr O'Toole will mean they will cede critical leadership to the NDP and the Bloc. As a result they will continue to lose favour with the majority of voters.

However, there is an alternative. If the likes of Genius and Stubbs sheath their knives and think more of the benefit to the Party than themselves they can launch a polarizing Opposition, which can be seen as a real alternative to the Liberals. Anyone what to provide odds on the likelihood of that happening?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion ... the-wrong/

Why did the election not go the Conservatives’ way? That’s the wrong question

SNIP

For his part, Erin O’Toole seems to attribute the loss mostly to failings of strategy and tactics. He has appointed defeated Alberta MP James Cumming to chair a review of “what went wrong” with the campaign, as if it were all just a matter of buying too many ads on TV and not enough on Facebook, or what have you.

SNIP

On this score, the Cumming review could report back today. The problem, it might say, is simple: “We don’t know what we stand for. Where we do, we’re afraid to let the public in on it. In many cases that is with good reason. On most of the issues that are relevant to the public, we either have nothing to say, or we say the same thing as the Liberals, or we are wildly offside with both popular and expert opinion.”

SNIP

Instead the public was presented with a bewildering series of contradictions: between the platform and established party doctrine, on everything from deficits to taxes to free trade; between the platform and the leader, who repudiated key sections of it under pressure; between the leader and the base, and indeed between the leader and himself – the tough-talking “Take Back Canada” candidate who seduced the party in last year’s leadership race, versus the squidgy “I Take It Back” candidate into which he transformed himself the moment he was elected.

This is how you get a platform that proposes both to mandate worker representation on company boards and legalize assault rifles, with a ban on puppy mills in the bargain.

The point has been made that, having remade himself at least twice already, Mr. O’Toole is now suffering something of an authenticity deficit, which a shift back to the right, in a bid to mollify the party’s disaffected base, could only make worse.

SNIP

It’s just that most of the concessions have been made by the party’s economic conservatives, who are closest to the mainstream but least sure of themselves. Privatization, reform of social services, deregulation, never mind balanced budgets: no one in the conservative movement even talks about these any more.

That leaves a residue of hardcore cultural conservatives, who are furthest from the mainstream but most sure of themselves. Result: a platform that has little distinctive to offer on the sorts of bread-and-butter issues that might appeal to centrist voters, but lots to remind them why they aren’t Conservatives and don’t much like them."



That really speaks to the split within the CPC, and one that is irreconcilable. The infiltration of the CPC by groups like the Campaign Life Coalition means there is no compromise on the "stinking albatross". Groups like the CLC infiltrators never compromise as they rigidly follow an outdated dogma that is entirely unacceptable to the vast majority of Canadians. That's why they chose to infiltrate the CPC in the first place - to amplify a rigid ideology that most Canadians thought and think is detestable bunk.

By the way, the "leadership" focus that Coyne refers to does not apply to the same degree in some other parties. Yes, other party leaders have a significant impact on policy platforms for campaigns, however it much more a matter of choosing priorities from a menu provided by the grassroots. Coyne incorrectly assigns a CPC top down approach to other parties.

It really boils down to "does leadership follow the party wishes or vice versa". The latter will almost always be untenable, as unless a party wishes to shift gears, the leader will be dumped. So will the immovable object - the CPC party base - be moved? Or will the "unstoppable force" of the O'Toole leadership be stopped?

If I were to bet, I would bet on the immovable object of the CPC party base, which has proven itself to be steadfastly immovable for 2 decades (by far the most reliable voting base of any party) - and through thick and thin times.

[erinmore3775]

Exact analysis HG. You are correct that as long as the Party totally designs its policies around its core supporters and fail acknowledge the wishes and desires of the urban voter they will be mired in Opposition. They will also have difficulty properly mounting criticism and amendments to proposed legislation.

[Bsuds]

When I read the title I though for sure it was about a different type of "Crack" they were doing.

[Nedroj]

Exact analysis HG. You are correct that as long as the Party totally designs its policies around its core supporters and fail acknowledge the wishes and desires of the urban voter they will be mired in Opposition. They will also have difficulty properly mounting criticism and amendments to proposed legislation.

The only way the Conservatives can win is to unite under one banner and appoint a better leader that all center/center-right people can get behind. Someone that is neither progressive nor reform, like Kevin O'Leary.

Conservatives also need to get with the times and throw out any and all religious BS they typically go on about.

[Glacier]

Conservatives also need to get with the times and throw out any and all religious BS they typically go on about.

BC and the Yukon are the only provinces in Canada that are majority non-religious, and Canadians tend to get more religious as you move east across the country, with Newfoundland and PEI being the most religious.

Some people are really bad at myth. I won't mention any names.

Let's say the conservatives throw out the 20% of the most religious members of its party so they can gain another 10% at the expense of the Liberals, putting them down 10% from where they are now. How is that a bigger tent? Hint: it isn't.

Furthermore, these people kicked out go to the PPC, and before you know it, the PPC is larger than the Conservatives, and you repeat the days of 1990s where the right is split into two parties.

The reason the conservatives have a religious wing of the party is that it increases their vote share over what it would be if they didn't have them. Political parties only include people if it means more votes overall. ie. a bigger tent.

[hobbyguy]

Exact analysis HG. You are correct that as long as the Party totally designs its policies around its core supporters and fail acknowledge the wishes and desires of the urban voter they will be mired in Opposition. They will also have difficulty properly mounting criticism and amendments to proposed legislation.

The only way the Conservatives can win is to unite under one banner and appoint a better leader that all center/center-right people can get behind. Someone that is neither progressive nor reform, like Kevin O'Leary.

Conservatives also need to get with the times and throw out any and all religious BS they typically go on about.

That goes to the simple question: should a party represent its members, or should it represent the interests of pols who want to win?

[The Green Barbarian]

That goes to the simple question: should a party represent its members, or should it represent the interests of pols who want to win?

We already know that that is the Liberal mantra - win at all costs - lie if the lie serves the goal - so yes, the Conservatives have to decide if they want to go down that same dark path.

[hobbyguy]

I got a kick out watching O'Toole on the tube answering the questions on his leadership and the performance of the CPC in the election etc.

It was almost instantaneous and certainly predictable that O'Toole as a CPC type would revert to form and "blame Trudeau". And yes, that's exactly what O'Toole did claiming that Trudeau was the reason the CPC performed weakly in the election. Then blah, blah, blah spin nonsense Trudeau divided the country blah, blah, blah more demagoguery.

The inverse logic is astounding! A PM who is well known for "scoring own goals" and at times a bit flaky is an advantage to an opposition party, not a reason for weak performance at the polls.

That there is some division within the country is obvious. There always is and always will be. Political opportunists will play up the divisions, and the kind of politicians we actually need and generally want do not. Unifying directions usually perform better in elections. Those unifying directions change and evolve over time. Top of mind issues for Canadian voters tend to be a reflection of the times.

The real question for the CPC is their positioning in the times of today, and whether that positioning can unify the country. Election performance is really a distraction to some extent, other than the fact that election results can serve as a data point.

Rapidly declining religiosity, trust in neo-liberal economics has imploded, and most Canadians looking for more government interventions, not less. Those all work against the primary wings of the Reform now called CPC party.

The CPC always was a coalition of unlikely bed partners. How do the libertarians reconcile with the so-cons who want to tell everyone to believe, be, and act their way or the highway through governemnt intervention is just one of the antithetical conundrums of the CPC coalition. The red Tories never really fit with either of those groups - and have largely been expunged from the coalition (O'Toole may be the last gasp for the red Tories).

In order for that unlikely coalition to survive, they need some real voodoo to go along with the voodoo economics. That voodoo has been the demagoguery of individuals who lead other parties that might form government. Successful for a while, the general public no longer buys it - which is why "own goal" Trudeau remains. It does remain the only unifying force within the CPC - but it has downsides.

Fundamentally the CPC is unable to put together policy/position packages that resonate outside of Western Standard land" where anti-Ottawa sentiment (bordering on paranoia) is inbred. That's why the Liberals even with "own goal" Trudeau are unassailable for the CPC.

It isn't Harper's fault, or Scheer's fault, or O'Toole's fault. The CPC itself has immutable policy/positioning that is increasingly antithetical to evolving Canadian viewpoints.

The rural/urban divide we see in the results is simply a reflection of the fact that rural areas are naturally slower to evolve. The inability of the CPC to evolve and adapt to changing times and changing viewpoints simply plays better there.

There are cracks developing in "Western Standard land". Both the NDP and the Liberals are gaining ground in urban Alberta. The projection is that Edmonton and Calgary will represent 80% of Alberta's population by 2046.

Will the CPC be nimble enough to adapt? The dominance of the so-cons in the CPC likely says no. The libertarians are already displaying itchy feet - witness the rise of the PPC.

[bob vernon]

Exact analysis HG. You are correct that as long as the Party totally designs its policies around its core supporters and fail acknowledge the wishes and desires of the urban voter they will be mired in Opposition. They will also have difficulty properly mounting criticism and amendments to proposed legislation.

The only way the Conservatives can win is to unite under one banner and appoint a better leader that all center/center-right people can get behind. Someone that is neither progressive nor reform, like Kevin O'Leary.

Conservatives also need to get with the times and throw out any and all religious BS they typically go on about.

If you throw out the religious nuts, the party shrinks. If you allow the religious right wing to stay, the moderates will just get fed up with the BS and leave. Either way, the party can talk all they want about a bigger tent, but it'll be vacant on one side or the other.

[hobbyguy]

That goes to the simple question: should a party represent its members, or should it represent the interests of pols who want to win?

We already know that that is the Liberal mantra - win at all costs - lie if the lie serves the goal - so yes, the Conservatives have to decide if they want to go down that same dark path.

Said demagoguery is not saleable. The Liberals get the most seats because they are focused on evolving policy/positions that are authentic through grassroots up development. That's why the Liberals get the most seats, and "own goal" Trudeau survives as PM. Trudeau is far less important to the Liberals than O'Toole (or whomever the leader is at the time) is to the CPC. Trudeau doesn't make policy/positioning for the Liberal party, he only expresses it.

If and when the CPC can have a better and authentic policy package that lines up with most Canadians, then the CPC will form government.

It really is that simple.