Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Geoffrey Howe]

This is slightly off topic, but are the BC Liberals the centre right party there? And do they get Tory support?

(On a side note, what is the name of the ultra-safe Liberal riding in west Vancouver? It looks like it went NDP in the recent provincial election.)

[Geoffrey Howe]

This is slightly off topic, but are the BC Liberals the centre right party there? And do they get Tory support?

(On a side note, what is the name of the ultra-safe Liberal riding in west Vancouver? It looks like it went NDP in the recent provincial election.)

BC Liberals are more like Tories than federal Liberals.  Up until 2020, it was a mix, but more of their supporters Conservatives than Liberals although by 2020 most federal Liberal support had swung over to NDP.  West Vancouver-Capilano is the ultra safe one you are talking about and it stayed BC Liberal.  NDP did win the two North Vancouver ones and there North Vancouver-Lonsdale is a swing while North Vancouver-Seymour normally a safe BC Liberal one, but not as lopsided as West Vancouver-Capilano.

I was thinking ultra-Liberal federally (it might be Vancouver Quadra?).

[Geoffrey Howe]

This is slightly off topic, but are the BC Liberals the centre right party there? And do they get Tory support?

(On a side note, what is the name of the ultra-safe Liberal riding in west Vancouver? It looks like it went NDP in the recent provincial election.)

BC Liberals are more like Tories than federal Liberals.  Up until 2020, it was a mix, but more of their supporters Conservatives than Liberals although by 2020 most federal Liberal support had swung over to NDP.  West Vancouver-Capilano is the ultra safe one you are talking about and it stayed BC Liberal.  NDP did win the two North Vancouver ones and there North Vancouver-Lonsdale is a swing while North Vancouver-Seymour normally a safe BC Liberal one, but not as lopsided as West Vancouver-Capilano.

I was thinking ultra-Liberal federally (it might be Vancouver Quadra?).

Vancouver-Quadra federally is split in two provincial ridings.  Yes Vancouver-Quadra is a super safe Liberal and stayed Liberal even in 2011 disaster.  Provincially split between Vancouver-Point Grey which used to go BC Liberal but now solidly NDP and Vancouver-Quilchena which is still solidly BC Liberal.

Right, so I assume Quilchena is wealthier?

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

I saw on A Fiscal Conservative Point of View that you don't like them anymore. I'm having a similar problem with the Tories here.
What is Trudeau like - I know little about the details of Canadian politics, but from abroad he comes across as exceedingly irritating.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In the long run the Tories would have been better off had the PCs and Reform never merged. The differences between the Anglicized, urbane Atlantic PCs and the Americanized, populist Reformers (not to mention the Quebec separatists) are too great to be bridged by any but the most skilled politicians (and even Harper's coalition was falling apart by the end). It would make far more sense for two separate right of center parties to focus on the regions they're best at while strategically not running candidates in key swing ridings (presumably after negotiations and/or local primaries).

This post is from a little back, but it reminds me quite a lot of the predicament the Labour Party is in here. How sensible are the Canadian Tories right now?

Not very, they are in same trouble Labour party is.  In fact two parties have a lot in common in terms of losing even if different in ideology.

I saw on A Fiscal Conservative Point of View that you don't like them anymore. I'm having a similar problem with the Tories here.
What is Trudeau like - I know little about the details of Canadian politics, but from abroad he comes across as exceedingly irritating.

I find him irritating as well, a combination of a public image of banal and sanctimonious, with a now suspected not so private image of ruthlessness.  

That said, as I also previously wrote, this general plodding image suggests an incompetence that overshadows a government that has actually had a had a number of monumental accomplishments, I argue The Justin Trudeau administration has been far more consequential than the Pierre Trudeau government from 1968-1979.  Were Justin Trudeau to step down today, I think his government would be compared to the Lester Pearson government that had a similar air of incompetence and minor scandals but left a major legacy.

The Justin Trudeau Administration's significant accomplishments include
1.Marijuana legalization
2.Senate reform
3.The Children's benefit that has significantly cut child poverty
4.The Carbon tax and the purchasing of the pipeline

Of course, all of these are still works in progress but that's true of every government.

Compare that to the previous Harper government which in nearly 10 years had the signature achievement of cutting the GST by 2 points and passing criminal justice legislation that they knew was unconstitutional with the intent of fundraising off of and running against the Supreme Court.

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

[Geoffrey Howe]

On the Senate, I find it very odd to have a House of Commons and a Senate. The latter just seems so republican...
What Trudeau did seems sensible - much better than Tony Blair's idea of electing the Lords.

What are the NDP pushing for?

"Senate" is a bit of a misnomer for what Canada has, it's basically a less aristocratic House of Lords (no life hereditary peers). The Queen's Representative appoints Senators based on the Prime Minister's advice, who serve until they turn 75. Senate seats are allocated by province, but it's not equal. The Senate apportionment formula is actually ridiculous and horribly outdated.

Historically the Senate was basically used for partisan patronage, but in recent years Prime Ministers have caught on that this is frowned upon, and focused on appointing "esteemed Canadians." Harper actually wanted very substantive senate reforms including senate elections, but the Supreme Court ruled that this could not be done without a constitutional amendment, and that was the end of that. The Senate issue didn't end up looking so good for Harper by the end of his premiership, however...

Trudeau's reforms were smaller than what Harper wanted, but he actually achieved something. For one, there is a "Senate Appointment Committee" (or something to that effect) that advises the PM on who to appoint. Ultimately it's his choice and I'm sure there's some quasi-patronage that goes on, but at least there's an independent process to select candidates, instead of just giving the job to the PM's drinking buddies.

Literally any Canadian citizen can apply to be a Senator now when there's a vacancy, the committee looks at applications and makes a list to recommend to the PM, and he picks who gets to sit in the chamber.

Trudeau also abolished the Senate Liberal Party to make it less partisan and less tied to the House, but this is more of an internal reform within the Liberal Party and the Senate Conservatives still exist.

The NDP wants to abolish the Senate entirely (or at least they did in 2015, it's not a very relevant issue these days). I get where they're coming from considering how useless and scandal-prone our Senators have been, but I prefer Trudeau's approach of making the Senate a more effective and meritocratic institution instead of just abolishing it entirely.

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The Senate is steeped in regional representation. 1/4 of Senators represent Atlantic Canada, 1/4 represent Quebec, 1/4 represent Ontario, and 1/4 represent Western Canada.
So yeah, it does overrepresent small provinces quite a bit.
iirc...

That's the point though? What power does it really have - the HoL is generally quite deferential: for example, it cannot veto money bills, and under the Salisbury Convention it doesn't oppose the third reading of a bill from the election manifesto.

[Geoffrey Howe]

(Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

The apportionment formula in 1867 - when there were only four provinces - split equally between Ontario (24), Quebec (24) and the Maritimes (NS and NB at the time, with 12 each, reduced to 10 each in 1873 when PEI joined Confederation and was given 4 seats). After 1915, when all current Western provinces had joined Confederation, the Senate was expanded to give a fourth of the seats to the four Western provinces (24 total, 6 each), in line with the existing 24 seats each to ON, QC and the Maritimes. This has remained unchanged, and seats have been added when Newfoundland joined in 1949 (6, has had been laid out for them since 1915), and one each for the territories after 1975. So now we have Ontario, Quebec and the group of four Western provinces having 24 seats each and the four Atlantic provinces having 30 seats total. So, yes, this is a massive overrepresentation of the Atlantic provinces -- NS, NB and NL have more seats than any of the four Western provinces on their own, even if their populations are now significantly smaller. Newfoundland (pop. 520,000) has the same number of senators as BC (pop. 5.15 million). The West (pop. 12.1 million) has the same number of senators as the Maritimes (pop. 1.9 million).

ON: 1 per 614,800
QC: 1 per 357,331
BC: 1 per 858,839
AB: 1 per 739,376
MB: 1 per 230,155
SK: 1 per 196,372
NS: 1 per 97,944
NB: 1 per 78,207
NL: 1 per 86,739
PEI: 1 per 26,635
NT: 1 per 45,136
YK: 1 per 42,192
NU: 1 per 39,407

Yes; even if there should be a slanting in favour of smaller provinces, that is excessive.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?

By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?


By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

Ehh, kinda. Canadian politics (esp. before the 21st century) was nothing if not big tent. Both the Liberals and PCs were institutional Tory-ish parties, but the PCs had a populist wing out west that eventually took over.

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Interesting - the Tories taking a more 'progressive' if you will approach to constitutional issues. This is the sort of area where I could imagine Trudeau - from my admittedly limited understanding - taking quite a 'progressive,' Blairite stance; but what he has done seems like a good solution. (Does the formula favour small provinces like Yukon, Prince Edward Island etc.?)

Liberals=LibDem/Soft Left Labour. But when it comes to constitutional issues and insider culture, our Liberals are your Tories

Sounds excellent! Is this at all what the Progressive Conservatives were like?

By the way, soft left in relation to Labour actually means the left of the Labour Party, but not the hardliners (this dates from the 1981 deputy leadership); the soft left isn't the Blairite/right wing of the party (I think).

My knowledge of UK politics is pretty rudimentary so I might be using the wrong terms, although I wouldn't say the Liberals are that Blairite these days. Under Chretien and Martin they were definitely more in line with the Blair/Clinton consensus (minus the war), but under Justin Trudeau they've moved more to the left.

It's hard to compare because political terms are used so differently in the two countries. "Social democrat" refers to moderates within the Labour party, but here in Canada, that's a term used by the NDP which is much more Corbynite. The Liberals are not and have never been a workers' party so their rhetoric is certainly more "bourgeois", and they're more business-oriented. But when it comes to social welfare spending and things of that nature, I don't really see much of a difference between Justin Trudeau and a median Labour politician like Miliband or Starmer (my examples might be wrong, but you know what I mean - left of Blair, right of Corbyn)

Right. It’s tough to compare really because the problems we face these days are different from those of old, and so are the solutions.

[Geoffrey Howe]

My understanding is that the Reform Party took the western base?

That's basically it.

So what were the PCs like?

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

Other than removing most of the hereditary Lords, I'm not sure what changes were brought in by Tony Blair or what has happened subsequently.  There are a lot of potential benefits to an unelected House of experts that has the ability to amend legislation but that ultimately realizes it has to defer to the elected House.

It can:
1.amend unconstitutional legislation rather than going through the time consuming process of court challenges (of course the Senators are assuming the legislation is unconstitutional, but if a group of non partisan experts think legislation is unconstitutional that's generally good enough for me, even if they aren't all lawyers.)
2.sit on craven populist legislation until the populist sentiment cools
3.propose unpopular changes to legislation or propose unpopular legislation that the House of Commons is trying to avoid (not dissimilar than the Supreme Court)
4.hold non partisan hearings that influence public opinion

I need to read up on this (and shall do so this summer) but yes, all he managed to do was reduce the number of hereditaries, which was probably a good compromise.

[Geoffrey Howe]

For Canada UK comparisons, I would say following:

Tories: Canadian Tories are more or less like British Tories but don't always line up.  In 80s Mulroney was a lot more cautious than Thatcher and more like your Kenneth Clarke type.  On other hand at provincial level later you had Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and to lesser extent Gordon Campbell who were quite Thatcherite.  Atlantic Canada and Quebec being 1/3 of country meant electing someone like Thatcher never feasible as Atlantic Canada like Celtic fringe in UK, while Quebec more like continental Europe on role of government.  On the other hand Harper was more right wing than David Cameron as while both similar on fiscal issues, on social issues they diverged, i.e. Cameron introduced gay marriage while Harper fought it tooth and nail.  Best comparison to Johnson is probably Ford brothers in Ontario.  Both buffoonish, but have a populist appeal and tend to underperform in upper middle class areas but do better than Tories normally do in working class areas.  Scheer would be akin to Michael Howard while O'Toole similar to William Hague.

Liberals: Generally like Liberal Democrats but Trudeau would probably be Labour if in UK, similar to Miliband and Starmer but not as left wing as Corbyn.  Martin/Chretien more like LibDems, New Labour or even some Wets but definitely wouldn't fit in today's Labour.  Trudeau leans same way as Labour but a bit more cautious and big on left wing rhetoric but less on action.  Loves to play class warfare like Labour while Chretien/Martin never went into that territory, but hasn't proposed anything crazy like nationalizing any major industry and on more programs, tends to prefer tailored ones to buy off certain groups as opposed to massive expansion of welfare state.

NDP: They are like Labour and you have some like Notley or Horgan who would be soft left kind of like Andy Burnham or Sadiq Khan while Singh is more on left although not quite as radical as Corbyn, but to left of Starmer.  Best example of Corbyn is Niki Ashton.  Generally NDP where they can win is more moderate while more radical when they don't expect to win.  If a right wing party vs. NDP battle, they will be moderate to try and win over several federal Liberal voters (see Notley and Horgan) while if squeezed out by Liberals than more radical to differentiate themselves. 

BQ: Is most like SNP and while officially centre-left they attract people across spectrum who either favour Quebec separation or greater autonomy.

Greens: Same as Greens in UK although our Greens tend to be less radical than most Greens in Europe.  They are similar to Greens in Baden-Wurttemberg who are in government but fairly moderate, not like Dutch or Danish Greens who are quite radical.

Very helpful - thanks.

[Geoffrey Howe]

In regards to the Canadian Senate, there certainly are regional inequities and I don't doubt they can be a problem, but the Senators being appointed seem to be taking more of a 'pan Canadian' approach.

At its best, the purpose of this Senate can be as a useful tonic to the 'fake news' problem of today.  The goal of the reformed Senate seems to be to create a body of general experts who can cut through the 'fake news' and act as a counterbalance to the craven elected House of Commons.  

Obviously it's too soon to say if it's having much of a positive effect.  I think once the transition period is over with and all the partisan Conservative Senators are gone, we'll have a much better idea (I know a few of the less partisan Conservative Senators quit the Conservative caucus to sit as Independents) if this experiment works or not, assuming the Conservatives don't get back into power and start appointing partisans again.

However, the Senate does already seem to be working as intended: amending generally agreed flawed legislation from the House.  It would be a mistake however to believe that the partisan Senate did not do this work from time to time previously.  Even prior to these changes, a number of Senate committees were highly regarded for the quality of their hearings.

The idea of a popularly elected lower House matched by an inferior but still powerful unelected upper House of experts is not new.  At a minimum, the United States considered this before coming up with the idea of its Senate to be elected by state legislatures and it was a proposal that was going to be discussed at the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918 as well.  I'm sure other nations have considered the idea as well.  

Obviously I strongly disagree that this isn't real reform or that this isn't an idea with its own history and body of research behind it.  I don't really see the purpose or the reform that comes with a second body of craven elected politicians.

Welcome to the House of Lords Preservation Society!

I'm normally a liberal but this is one case where I agree with the canadian conservatives, the canadian senate doesn't realy do anything and should be abolished or radicaly reformed.

From what I hear, you should support the NDP then.

[Geoffrey Howe]

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/riseoftheredtories

The above is an interesting article from 2009 I posted in the discussion of the UK Tories. Is there anyone in the Canadian Tories advocating this sort of thing? I understand that it used to be quite prominent in Canada (whence the phrase "Red Tory").

[Geoffrey Howe]

We've talked before about how Anglo pols sound in French, particularly in the last two Tory leadership races. Turning the question around a bit, how do Trudeau, Blanchet and Bernier sound in French? How about Jean Chretien or Gilles Duceppe?

Obviously they're all fluent, but I'm curious about their class/regional aspects of their accents.

By virtue of being Canadian they sound very odd (to me).
At least I understand them, unlike Acadian French which is incomprehensible. (I’m told my grandfather could because he spoke Saintongeais, the patois from which it is largely derived.)

[Geoffrey Howe]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

Very interesting.  I think as said earlier biggest challenge for Tories is being conservative enough to appeal to base and moderate enough to appeal to swing voters.  A decade ago that was a challenge but there was enough overlap a good leader could accomplish that as Harper did.  Since then I believe the divergence has meant gap is too big.

Reason median voters have swung leftward is really two fold:

1.  Income Inequality: While greatest increases in income inequality came in 90s, Occupy Wall Street really put that in the spotlight and took it from a peripheral issue to central issue.  While free market may be good at creating prosperity, it tends to lead to fairly unequal outcomes.  Otherwise only way to reduce this is through a more activist government which off course any Conservative party will oppose thus helps parties on left.

2.  Climate Change: As risks from it are getting nearer and nearer, its become a bigger issue.  For left it is easy to win on as they tend to favour bigger government and most solutions here involve bigger government.  Yes a revenue neutral carbon tax is a market mechanism which if Tories had some foresight should have run on but problem is most of their base thinks climate change is a hoax while it is left who want strong action.  Not surprisingly those in the middle that want something done but open to different solutions are gravitating towards parties that believe it is a serious issue, not ones still debating whether it is real or a hoax.

By contrast base has become even more right wing than they were a decade ago and I blame three things primarily

1.  Social media echo chambers: Those who interact with people of different views are more likely to have moderate non-ideological viewpoints as they here a variety of viewpoints thus get a well rounded viewpoint.  If in an echo chamber only hearing one side, it tends to harden one's views and push them more to extremes.  Sort of like Fox News effect in US which has really pushed GOP to right.

2.  Election of Trump: With Trump pushing fake news and dark web conspiracy theories, that has drawn in a certain crowd and a lot come from base thus believe in ridiculous crazy ideas that are not grounded in any reality.  Yet trying to reason with them never works as they are convinced they are right.

3.  Social Conservatives:  Social Conservatives don't care about nuances, they feel strongly about issue and will never go away.  Since they thought Harper would advance their issues but didn't, they are determined to ensure next leader does and won't let them off the hook.  They figure like most eventually people will fatigue of Liberals and Tories will bounce back so they want to make sure their wishes get done this time.  They never consider possibility if Tories don't change, they may never win again.  They assume since all governments eventually get defeated and Tories only party to ever beat Liberals; party will eventually win someday no matter what position it takes.

I also think pandemic has really split right.  Left is pretty united in support of public health measures but right deeply split.  Red Tories tend to believe in policy serving greater good while more right wing believes in greater freedom.  In many cases common good and freedom are complimentary to each other so easy to stay on same page.  But with pandemic quite the opposite.  Common good is served by strict public health measures including lockdowns and mask mandates.  Right of party see this as infringement on freedom, which it is and thus oppose those measures.  Trying to take middle ground like Ford and Kenney did just angers both sides as moderates see putting lives at greater risk than necessary as a dereliction of duty while base sees this as an abuse of power and argue freedom trump everything else and health risk, especially if only a minority (around 1-2%) die is not sufficient reason to restrict one's freedom.

So in summary, I think a perfect storm has come about that basically puts right in a lose-lose situation.  Try to moderate and risk split on right.  Move further to right and only appeal to base and no one else.  And unlike in past where some middle ground between two could be found, now it seems doing that just angers both sides and pleases no one.

By contrast left is broadly united on most issues and differences are more over degree not direction.  Its very easy to compromise over degree.  Impossible to over direction.  

This is interesting. We have similar schisms in the UK; though not to quite the same extent as I would say we are somewhat less Americanised, and yet the Tories have a big majority and seem to be electorally successful (though there is a very important by-election today). The glue which is keeping us together is, I suppose, being in government, and Boris' personal popularity. It is much easier to be united in government than in opposition.

Boris' strategy of pivoting to the left economically but right culturally could work I think. But there are some obstacles:
1) As you are fond of pointing out, Canada is more culturally liberal than Europe. Still, I think if it's not done in a tub-thumping sort of way it could have some success.
2) No "loony left" (Corbyn) to keep less sympathetic Tories in line.
3) Boris also ran on a specific issue of "Get Brexit Done." This was effective because we had had four years of political gridlock where the only thing people could think about was Brexit; needless to say, people were fed up. I even know a few Remainers who were attracted by this.

So what might the Canadian equivalents be?

1) As I said, I still think there is some scope for cultural conservatism - or at least an opposition to some of the more nauseating elements of Americanised liberalism. Perhaps it could be marketed as "common sense" or getting on with the "real issues."

2) I gather Trudeau isn't particularly left-wing. So tough here. Emphasise his more leftist ideas; but focus on how incredibly sanctimonious he is. Surely people will grow tired of that. (I don't follow Canadian politics much, yet I can't listen to him for more than a few seconds.)

3) Again tough. I think a "common sense" line might be the way forward here. Yes, climate change is an issue; but no, we don't want to live in caves or have Extinction Rebellion activists stop all public transport. Also, coming out of the pandemic, take a tough stance opposing any lingering restrictions. They are unnecessary, people find them irritating, and it would be a bona fide small-government stance that might appease the West while still being grounded in reality. A bit like the Tories in 1950 here opposing rationing which had stayed on five years after the war.
Appealing to immigrant/ethnic minority populations. I understand Harper did this quite well. Trump made some surprising gains too; the Tories here do well amongst many Indians and Chinese. I'd also add that they tend to be less keen on "woke" culture than some white progressives.

4) Accept that the radical fringes of the party can't hold you hostage. Federal Tories should accept that the West is not the whole country. Most likely they will grudgingly come along; throw some scraps like opposition to remaining COVID restrictions, maybe some more devolution? The Canadian right seems to be more fissiparous than the British and this is a real problem. Nevertheless, I think that a healthy scepticism of the Western base would be healthy. After all, Tony Blair won three landslides effectively ignoring the left of his even more fissiparous party (while throwing some scraps like banning fox hunting).

5) Simply fatigue of the status quo. This is powerful and should work in the Tories' favour - as Labour here.


Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

Why should 'pro-life' people be represented?  If abortion is regarded as a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why should there be Parliamentary arguments on the issue?  if people want to make arguments that abortion should not be a fundamental right, they are free to do so, but that does not mean the arguments have to be made in Parliament or should be subject to a vote.  

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

What you propose is exactly what the Conservatives are doing right now.

The problem is that the socially conservative base is not approving of that, because they will never be a majoirty in Parliament and so, they will never get what they want (they didn't under both Mulroney and Harper). They want the party leader to be in agreement with them, the party to campaign on those questions and some even want whipped votes on those questions.

Then see my comment about ignoring their more radical fringes. Just like the Corbynite left, they cannot expect to dictate policy when they only form a small portion of the electorate.

[Geoffrey Howe]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the solution is just be like Britain

[Geoffrey Howe]

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

1.They can make arguments to the public and they can make valid/sound factual arguments to the courts as to why abortion should not be a fundamental right or how it conflicts with other fundamental rights.

Not everything is subject to debate and vote in Parliament.  A Bill of Rights limits the scope of what can be debated and voted on in Parliament to protect fundamental freedoms.

Yes, but it can be amended.

2.I completely disagree that it is a straw-man.   Being anti abortion by itself is cost free morality/the ultimate form of virtue signaling.  If you want to tell other people what they have to do in ways that fundamentally effect their lives, and if you really care about the life of the 'unborn', then put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, those who are anti-abortion are absolutely being sanctimonious. Those who are anti-abortion tend to be the most sanctimonious moral preeners.

How is it virtue signalling? Is being "against" murder (which pro-life people claim abortion is) virtue signalling?