It’s going to be difficult to argue against gay marriage, legalized pot and abortion, especially against Trudeau.
Looking at Scheer’s page (Andrew Scheer - Wikipedia) he seems to want to avoid taking on any of those issues. Yet, from what I’ve read, he was elected largely because of socially conservative issues. So, he was elected for socially conservative issues yet he doesn’t want to take those on, probably because he knows that’s sure to make him lose in national elections.
There’s the economy but the unemployment rate is currently 6.5% which is ok. In terms of foreign relations or refugees, if Scheer says anything that makes him look like Trump, he’s going to be much worse off for it.
I guess the Liberals are in for another decade or two of uncontested rule. Hopefully they learned their lesson about not letting that corrupt them.
He’s also making noises about being a “party for all Conservatives”, but if you look at the voting patterns:
I really can’t see how he’ll pull that off. This is a deeply divided party. Micheal Chong, probably the most moderate candidate in the field just barely beat out Kelly Leitch, who was unabashedly pandering to the racist vote the whole time. And Brad Trost, the hardest of the Social Conservatives, just barely beat out Chong, which was a far better performance than most people were expecting, I think.
But then we see the seriously Libertarian Bernier leading right up until the last vote, where a reluctant coalition of other voters just barely puts Scheer over the top for the win, after 13 rounds of voting. That means the votes that got Scheer the win are those where he was down in spot 9 or 10 on the ballot. That is, the spot where people were saying, “Well, I don’t really like this guy, but he’d at least be better than Brad Trost”.
That’s not a great formula for building a Grand Coalition.
What makes you suspect that? Seems like a bad plan.
And I am rather certain Leaffan was referring to historical election patterns, where governments usually win a least a couple in a row, not to any specific party platform yet to be announced.
He’ll have to give something to the social conservatives who supported him, since they are a big part of what made him win over Bernier. Take a look at Rounds 8 and 9, when Lemieux dropped out. Bernier barely moved at all, while Scheer went up about 2.5 percent. And when Trost dropped out in Round 12, Scheer jumped by over 8%, with Bernier getting less than a 4% bump. And yet, despite those big bumps, Scheer eventually only won by about 1%. Without the social conservative support, he’d have been toast.
So, his choices are give them at least some of what they want, or lose their support.
Of course, in doing that, he’ll likely lose a big part of the Bernier voters, since they largely weren’t social conservatives.
I really can’t see him finding a moderate platform that won’t just piss off both sides, so he has to choose: pander to the people who voted for him, or pander to those who voted against him. You don’t need to be a political genius to figure out which way he’ll jump.
I also think that there is a Canadian tendency to accept the status quo for a couple of governments and that’s a huge advantage for Trudeau.
To answer your question, in my view. The PC party is deeply divided with Bernier and Scheer ultimately representing the divide. Scheer is the more socially conservative side and Bernier is more old-school PC. Since Scheer won, I think we’re going to see that show up in the platform.
I think there’s going to be some Trump effect so I think we’re going to see the PCs try to target those who think their voice isn’t heard and right now that’s the social conservatives. The difference is I don’t think it will be as successful in Canada because I just don’t think it will come across well. I.e. it will be called racist, whatever. For example, I think he’s going to push hard for something equivalent to Indiana’s Religious Freedom law and I don’t think that will fly here.
The voters who are strongly socially conservative will eat up the platform but I think it will drive a lot of people away. People like me. I’ve voted 4 times PC and 5 times Liberal so I’m quite capable to voting PC but I won’t vote for a socially regressive platform. People like me are the people who swing elections. The diehard PC will vote PC. The diehard Liberals will vote Liberals. The diehard NDP will vote NDP. But it is the flip-floppers that can make the difference and I think they’ll lose people like me.
Honestly, I think there’s a fair chance we’re going to see NDP as official opposition again. Both because I think the PC platform will end up being something independent voters will reject and I think the NDP are going to push hard this election. Last election they lost a lot of votes to Anybody But Harper (which means Trudeau).
By the way, I think the source of split is the merger of Reform and the old PC party. Personally, as an old PC voter, I’d love to see the PC split out since they would be more likely to put out platforms that I could agree with. I know this will never happen because neither party would never win an election again. Reform would be the conservative party of the west and PC would be the conservative party of the east.
I don’t think he owes the social conservatives jackshit. He squeaked by on the ninth ballot, so thanks so much for not being your absolute last choice. And he’s on record as saying he’s not tackling abortion or marijuana. Plus the social conservatives party members are not the vote he needs to court for the next election; he doesn’t need to worry about them until the next party leadership vote.
I’m just about in the same boat as you, then, politically speaking. But I don’t see a revival of the old Red Tory PC party meaning they would never win an election again.
It seems clear that the hard core social conservative party is shrinking over time. While religion is more fervent these days, the number of religious believers is dropping, and the older folks are dying off. I don’t see many in the latest generation stepping up to fill those shoes, so they will eventually wither away.
But a socially moderate PC party that supports sound fiscal policies (which are not just tax cuts for the rich, like in the US) still has a chance. It would likely take a few election cycles to play out, but it could still happen. Social issues tend to evolve over time, but balanced budgets and taxpayer complaints are pretty much a universal constant.
Could be. I don’t think he can win on a not Trudeau platform though because of the tendency for Canadians to let the gov’t of the day carry on a couple of times. So I think he’ll look for ways to provide a clear alternative, and I think that will be social conservativism. But we’ll see, still a long way away. Thank Og.
In my view that’s why it won’t happen. Nobody is going to want to be the politicians that purposefully lose the next few elections so that they spring forth like a phoenix reborn. Politicians are just too self-serving (to be fair, most people are pretty self-serving but hey knocking on politicians is fun).
But what would be better for an individual politician - to have a chance of being elected in an Ontario or Quebec riding, even if it means they’re the opposition party, or being turfed out completely because Ontario and Quebec voters are sick of the pandering to the regressive Alberta vote?