That’s the essential problem right there - the modern CPC is essentially a regional party. Don’t forget the history of where the modern party came from. The old PC party was a federal party, that stood a decent chance of winning in every region, partly because they managed to find a compromise between the various types of conservative voters.
But then, some of the western members of that compromise coalition decided they were unhappy with the compromises needed to win as the PCs, and formed the Reform Party, which pretty much killed the chances for a Conservative government, because of vote splitting. After losing out to the Liberals for a decade or so, they tried to “re-unify” the old coalition of the old PC party, but in reality, all this was was the remaining PC party surrendering to the Reform faction, and letting that regional party take over the federal party machinery. They won for a few elections under Harper, because a lot of the PC voters were willing to give the new party a shot, and still weren’t ready to vote Liberal or NDP, but since they keep pushing the old Reform platform, they’ve lost a lot of those old PC voters who didn’t want Reform back in the 90s.
To be a true Federal Party in Canada, you need to be able to compromise, because of the real regional differences in Canada. But “compromise” has become anathema to the modern Conservative party. Until that changes, they’ll likely stay stuck as a western regional party.
I wouldn’t agree that hat Quebec is the most liberal-leftist province. It may appear that way because of the prominence of the PQ, which had a strong social-democratic component, but for the past 40 years, the dominant issue has been sovereignty, not a traditional left-right split. The PQ was a sovereignist party that had ancillary social democratic positions.
But that type of sovereigntist party wasn’t guaranteed. There has always been a strong conservative element in Quebec, such as the Union Nationale. If Daniel Johnson père hadn’t died suddenly, I could see an alternative party structure where the UN became increasingly sovereigntist, but from a conservative perspective. The sovereignty debate likely would have played out in much the same way, but with a conservative sovereigntist party leading the fight.
I should remind you that the Bloc Quebecois was initially formed with more former Prog, Conservatives than Liberals. Afaik, the sovereignty movement has always been a mixed bag as far as nailing down a left-right position.
Quebec in general appreciates social programs. I guess some Americans would say that’s because they are so darn homogeneous. Except for money and the ethnic vote.
Thank you Spoons, Dr_Paprika and Northern Piper for your kind words.
I understand this. Obviously the economic health of Alberta (or any other place) can be measured by the financial health of companies doing business there, and this has an impact on people residing there. However, we need to remember that what companies are telling us (and the same is true for our governments, by the way) is propaganda aimed at gaining our support.
From my standpoint, TransCanada cancelled a proposed oil pipeline that was supposed to go from Alberta to the Maritimes, citing that this pipeline would not be profitable in the current economic climate – which I accept as the likely reason – but still managed to blame “Quebec” in their announcement. I guess this was a way to find a scapegoat for their decision, which was no doubt a disappointment for many Albertans, but it’s not necessarily the truth. The vibe I get from Alberta is that many people are repeating propaganda claims that follow a tempting narrative, but are actually untrue and easily disproved. The claim that the Energy East pipeline was intended to allow Quebec to buy ethical Albertan instead of bloody Saudi oil is one of these. (Quebec doesn’t import oil from Saudi Arabia, it used to import a lot from Algeria but now most oil used in Quebec is from Canada and therefore probably from Alberta, and Energy East was intended to give Albertan companies a better access to the export market via the Maritimes, not to the Quebec market.)
I also disagree that we can identify a “most liberal” or “most conservative” province in Canada, at least in the way these terms are used today. I feel that these labels are ill-defined to begin with, and describe a wide range of political ideas. Maxime Bernier, for example, is not “extremely conservative”: he’s more of a libertarian (and even more of a screw-up ;)) and was repeatedly elected because the region where he lives, the Beauce, tends to hold small-town free enterprise values. The fact that his father was a former respected MP didn’t cause him any harm either. If he’s perceived as extremely conservative by some Canadians, it’s because his People’s Party of Canada attracted some right-wing conspiracy-minded people, but I feel that’s more of an unfortunate consequence of how political coalitions are set up today.
What I will say, though, is that I feel that English Canada is a nation founded on conservative principles, in the late 18th to 19th century meaning of the term. After all, Loyalists played an important role in the settlement of Canada by English speakers, and there are many monuments in their honour especially in Southern Ontario, which always confuses visiting Americans. English Canada, essentially, saw its birth in the rejection of the liberal values that drove the Founding Fathers of the United States. This may seem strange today, since Canadians typically feel they are “more liberal” than Americans, but that’s another example of these terms being ill-defined. But I do sense that much of what distinguishes English Canada today finds its origin in these 19th century conservative values. Quebec, on the other hand, while being a North American nation, has also been influenced by French republican values, which are definitely “liberal” in the 18th to 19th century sense. And we do see this influence when we compare Quebec politics with the politics of the rest of Canada. So I would agree that Quebec is “more liberal” than other Canadian provinces – Ontario and the Maritimes at least – but not in the way these terms are used today or Kimera757 meant them.
This isn’t a thing that regularly happens. If ever. Loyalist monuments are not common sights. I live in a city of 200,000 people and cannot tell you where our Loyalist monuments are or if we have any. Hell, I used to live in KINGSTON, and offhand cannot remember where the loyalist monuments are, and that’s in a city with a high school called “Loyalist.” Maybe that counts as a monument.
Anyway, the other thing about blanket-assigning “liberal” and “conservative” appellations to provinces is that within provinces there’s no consistency. The voting patterns between Toronto Danforth, Hamilton Mountain and Barrie-Innisfil, or between Lac-Saint-Louis, Megantic-L’Erable and Sherbrooke are wildly different.
No federal political party adjusts their message to a province, especially not the big ones; they message by AREA, often down to the riding level. The Conservatives in the last election failed to win in part because they failed in their message, specifically, to Toronto and the immediate surrounding area, thus shanking many, many winnable seats. Their message did fine in other parts of Ontario, but other parts of Ontario aren’t like Toronto or Mississauga any more than they’re like Quebec or Nova Scotia. Richmond Hill and Thunder Bay are futher apart than New York City and Knoxville, and as culturally different.
There was a news item yesterday which implied Scheer’s office received $900,000 from the party; whereby the usual amount was about $200,000. I’ve no reason to disbelieve rumours the money was spent on support staff, and the party is not providing details. But it is another point that will displease supporters and justify Scheer’s departure.
It’s hard to exaggerate how odd it is that Scheer is getting dumped. This isn’t normal.
Recently we did have the odd case of the Liberals turfing both Stephane Dion and Michael (ha ha ha ha ha) Ignatieff after one loss, but historically, leaders keep their jobs for at least one go-around. What’s especially odd here is that Trudeau was up for first re-election - and as I’ve said before, in Canada, a party given a fresh mandate will always always get re-elected at least once; the very, very few examples to the contrary were cases were the previous PM stayed on and re-won the job (John A. MacDonald bookended Alexandr MAckenzie, Trudeau 1.0 bookended Joe Clark, and King bookended Bennett. King also bookended Meighen, but Meighen didn’t take power in an election.) The fact Scheer won the popular vote and reduced ol’ Justin Jolson to a minority is, by Canadian standards, actually a pretty decent performance for a first election. And Scheer is only 40 so it’s not like he’s past the point of learning.
So part of it is, I guess, the fact he seems a little too self-generous with party dough, but I suspect maybe it’s just really obviously apparent that he was a terrible choice. Jag Singh didn’t exactly lead the NDP to glory, but he also doesn’t seem like a stumbling doofus, so the Dipper appear happy to just let him grow in the job.
Fair enough, I’d heard that there were quite a few monuments honouring Loyalists but maybe there aren’t that many. Still, the Loyalists did play an important role in the founding of English-speaking Canada, and they helped define the nation’s values.
We have a Loyalist monument on the grounds of the Saskatchewan Legislature. Every July 1, there’s some Loyalist descendants walking around Wascana Park in period costumes (late 18th century).
I resent the mocking “Yawn!” in the thread title. Canadian politics isn’t boring, it’s sane and rational and bound to the principles of responsible government and [falls asleep]
Paul Wells Law suggests Canadian politics always gravitates to the least exciting outcome. However, the upcoming Conservative leadership debates will seriously challenge this notion. Seriously. It will be decided by whichever contender can get the least amount of foot inside the mouth, in the least time.
The MOST exciting outcome would be someone like Doug Ford, who can taste his own foot jam 24/7.
The Conservatives would be well advised to nominate someone competent, like Rona Ambrose or John Baird, no matter what they believe. Instead they’ll probably Sam Oosterhoff, that little turd from Niagara Falls.
Huh, I wondered what that ratfuck Baird was up to recently. His last “private sector” entry on wikipedia mentions he went on Saudi Arabia television last year and “urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fly to Riyadh to apologize in person to the Saudi royal family.” I’m sure that won’t hurt him in in the Conservative leadership race but sweet jesus that’s a poison pill for the federal election.
