Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[mileslunn]

I'm skeptical of these high Prairie numbers for the NDP that we're seeing in some polls.  A lot of the things people dislike about Trudeau is even more true of Singh. 

Probably strong urban/rural split, also maybe some confusion with provinces.  While NDP struggling in Saskatchewan, they are slightly ahead in Manitoba provincially and have around a 10 point lead in Alberta provincially.  But yeah Notley supports energy industry while Singh doesn't so not sure Notley support will transfer over. At same time I think Kenney's unpopularity is going to hurt Tories in Alberta.  I suspect they will probably only get in low 50s vs. 69% last time, but good news is they won by such astronomical margins in Alberta they can drop 20 points and only lose a handful of seats. 

[mileslunn]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

[mileslunn]

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.

Problem is in Canada unlike UK, our parties tend to vote in lock step so having a few fringe members is viewed much differently here.  Our party discipline much stricter and we don't have a history of MPs breaking party ranks like they do in UK.  While I agree less party discipline is a good thing, it is a tough sell as Canadians are used to parties voting in lock step.

[mileslunn]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

I disagree with the term 'deference to authority.'  I think most Canadians recognize that Covid-19 is a public health issue that requires shared action.  

I think part of what we see in the United States, and I know there are people with other reasons who oppose mask requirements, is a whole lot of people who are extremely authoritarian when it comes to telling other people what to do (they're anti abortion, anti LGBTQ+, anti marijuana/drug legalization for instance) don't want other people telling them what to do.  These are people who are all about power and control, which is why many on the religious right, for instance, weaponize the Bible in order to maintain a patriarchy.

In terms of Covid-19, this is why many of these horrible people refer to all sorts of loony conspiracy theories that Covid-19 is 'fake news' from governments to justify a 'power grab.'

The argument that Americans, especially those on the right, are anti-authoritarian is a complete myth.  They want a great deal of authoritarian rule as long as it isn't used against them and as long as they solely decide on the rules.

I think US has a much stronger libertarian streak than Canada.  Canadians aren't scared of big government the way Americans are.  Doesn't mean we want government doing everything, but we don't tend to mind an interventionist government as long as it serves some greater good.  We do mind it when we feel it is done as a power grab.  In US, I would argue religious right and libertarians have little in common and they are only in same party due to common enemy.  Also two groups have strengths in very different regions.  Religious right is strongest in Deep South while libertarians strongest in Mountain West (which asides Utah is not very religious).

[mileslunn]

I think Americans are not full blown libertarians, but I do think still on spectrum, Americans tend to be less supportive of interventionist government than Canadians although on some moral issues more so, but certainly on economic and personal less so.  If anything in US, they tend to favour less government in areas socialist want more while more in areas socialist want less while Canadians I think are more based on what are end results and does it serve some greater good or is it just an abuse of power. 

[mileslunn]

To add my two cents on the CPC social issues discussion, I honestly think they could win an election without changing the current line on abortion/LGBT rights etc. The Liberals will always portray the CPC as unhinged right wing lunatics, hell the Martin Liberals suggested that Harper would deploy the forces to the streets of Canada. Harper lost that election, 2004, but less than two years later he won a pretty decent minority.

The CPC's main thing in 2006 was the Accountability Act and just generally fighting corruption. That was the Liberals' weak point, and the CPC put forward a platform that appealed to a broader tent. The Liberals still kept saying that Harper was a religious extremist who would take away people's rights, but Harper actually spoke to the concerns of Canadians this time and the attacks fell flat.

The problem with the CPC right now is they stand for absolutely nothing. They don't have a coherent message for what kind of future they want for Canada, or what solutions they'd propose to Canada's problems, and that's ultimately what people want to hear. The "we won't get vaccines until 2030" saga shows the problem with this current strategy of only reacting to the latest negative news about the Liberals - now we're crushing vaccinations, top of the world in first doses, and the CPC is scrambling for something again.

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

But Scheer didn't do that. The whole campaign was about abolishing the carbon tax, making some tax cuts that were pretty much the same as the Liberals', and not much else. He attacked Trudeau for SNC but didn't show why he would be better.

The point is, when you run an empty campaign that doesn't speak to Canadians, the Liberals' fear mongering about the social conservatives resonates. If the CPC had a platform that people were sympathetic to, they'd be more willing to give Scheer the benefit of the doubt.

It may actually be a blessing in disguise if the LPC wins a majority this year because it will give the CPC four years to recuperate and try to carve out a niche that goes beyond Liberal-hating. The housing crisis is out of control in big cities and if the CPC comes up with a reasonable conservative plan to deal with the crisis, I could see the 905 going blue again. But they need to stand for something, or else the only thing that defines them will continue to be the crazies.

Also if deficits get real bad may offer an opening for Tories.  Main challenge on housing is how to deal with it while sticking to principles.  On tax cuts, I think that will be a tough sell in short term but perhaps could dangle them in final year of mandate after budget balanced.    I think biggest challenge for Tories in 2025 is Freeland or Carney will likely be Liberal leader not Justin Trudeau so won't carry same baggage.  But at same time not sure what their campaign chops are like.  Possible like Jim Prentice or Paul Martin, they may sound good on paper, but flop when on the campaign trail. 

[mileslunn]

I think Tories focusing too much on Alberta was a mistake.  Yes Alberta has had a rough past few years, but reality is Tories have most of those seats locked up and forming government comes down to gaining in BC, Ontario, and Quebec which under Scheer they made no real efforts at.  O'Toole is trying, but much of party is quite happy to be an Alberta/Saskatchewan party and I think real problem is party comes across as divided between those who want to modernize it and those who want to keep it stuck in the past.  And latter makes up most of its membership even if O'Toole wants to move it in another direction.

[mileslunn]

In terms of the Conservative Party being in a bubble, I think it says something that their two leading M.Ps on political shows are Michelle Rempel Garner and Pierre Polievre.  Michelle Rempel Garner is a flaky joke and Pierre Polievre is a noxious hyper partisan.

There must be more reasonable people in their caucus who would be far better spokespeople than these two, but these two are, I believe, the two most popular M.Ps of the party's base.

And that's why the Conservatives won't be winning an election anytime soon.

I think that is true.  I have interacted with a lot of base on twitter and reality is most in base think country is far more conservative than it is.  They hate Trudeau with a passion and forget most people have more nuanced views on him.  Only a minority love him and think he is perfect and only a small minority hate him with a passion.  Most see him like most leaders; has his good side and his flaws.

John Ivison FWIW is claiming Liberals feel they can destroy conservatism for a generation.  While that may be a long time, I think their internals suggest what I am saying that it is in big trouble.  Off course events can change things, but fact Liberals think they can wipe Conservatives off the map shouldn't be discounted.  They have a top notch campaign team and generally good ear to the ground on what Canadians want.

[mileslunn]

On Alberta,

I agree splits likely won't be an issue, probably like last Saskatchewan election where Buffalo Party got in double digits in many rural ridings but Saskatchewan party still won easily while in urban ones was a non-factor.  That being said it is possible in really close urban ones, Maverick and/or PPC might tip the scales, but only if super close.  I think provincially it could be a bigger problem.  Rural Alberta will be a UCP/WIPA battle and only in places like Red Deer or some in Capital region might NDP be strong enough to come up middle.  In Edmonton, NDP is going to sweep city big time.  For Calgary, WIPA probably struggles to crack 10%, but with UCP not being in tank like Edmonton, but not strong like Rural Alberta, that 5-10% could be enough to flip a whole bunch of ridings.

I think real problem is as said elsewhere base becoming more right wing, swing voters more left wing so no longer possible to keep both under one banner.  Whichever one you try to appeal to, anger other side.  While if try to appeal to both, just anger both sides and do even worse.  Better to pick a side and let chips fall where they may.

[mileslunn]

A thought occurs to me:

The People's and Maverick parties are doing very well by fringe party standards, particularly in Alberta. Have there been any discussions between them about not running candidates against each other? It would be pretty silly if the Liberals or NDP won a seat put West off a three way right wing vote split

What ridings have a large progressive population AND a large right wing populist population for that to happen though?

Back of the envelope, I can find Calgary Confederation, Edmonton Griesbach, and Edmonton Mill Woods.

It would require both a bad Conservative campaign and a disappointing NDP performance for these right-wing splits to lead to a Liberal win, though.

1.I don't think these far right wing parties will gain much support in urban Alberta.

2.Based on the polling, I think it's far more likely -in Edmonton- that the NDP will gain additional seats than the Liberals winning any riding in Alberta.

Correct. I said " large right wing populist population". The Liberal brand would have to recover in Alberta (but also collapse in Griesbach)  to make those ridings competitive due to vote splits.

I think Liberals take Edmonton Centre.  Maybe Edmonton-Mill Woods but those are only two I could see them winning in Edmonton.  Ironically I think their chances are better in Calgary since although Tories stronger in Calgary than Edmonton, NDP is much weaker there (often get in single digits) thus smaller splits.  Calgary Centre, Calgary-Confederation and Calgary-Skyview I could all see going Liberals although will be tough as Tories probably get over 40% in all of those but at least unlike Edmonton NDP is weak enough its possible to beat Tories even if in low 40s whereas in Edmonton they need to fall into 30s to beat them.

[mileslunn]

Leger out with provincial premier approval ratings and federal.  Federal now 56% approve to 40% disapprove.  For provincial, Legault and Atlantic premiers already very high so little from for growth.  Horgan now back to sky high after an earlier dip during third wave.  Since most things re-open and cases falling that probably helps.  Ford surprisingly is back to 48% approval vs. 50% disapproval and although probably not quite that high, does seem as third wave recedes his approval is recovering but not to pre third wave levels.  Pallister and Kenney are lowest but still in high 30s.  I would suspect as long as Delta variant doesn't cause problems, all governments of all levels will see approval levels rise as people happy to see life start to come back to normal.  But I think by end of year focus will turn to other issues, thus why Trudeau will go before that happens.

[mileslunn]

Liberals want to go now as one good chance of a majority.  But more importantly they say Tories getting a real shellacking.  Their thinking is Tories will mistaken this as they weren't right wing enough, so will elect an even more right wing leader ensuring they lose in 2025.  While this might be a bit arrogant, I've heard many Liberals actually think they have a shot at ensuring the Conservatives are knocked out of power for a generation.  Again things change quickly in Canadian politics so seems over the top.  But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

[mileslunn]

But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

That's one of the oddities of Canadian politics, that the Canadian right is much more factional and self-devouring than the left, when in almost every other country, the opposite is the case. I wonder if there's any academic work into this.

My theory is that:

1. The Canadian left (left of Liberal that is) is relatively ideologically unsophisticated. The spectrum really only runs between SocDems and DemSocs, and historically the divide in the left was about means, not ends. Ironically, this lack of ideological sophistication is what has kept the NDP/CCF united for so long, because generally speaking the NDP can agree on priorities, it's really just a question of how aggressive they should be.

2. The Canadian right encompasses too many traditions. Ultimately, conservatism is centred around preserving a shared identity, usually that of the majority/most powerful group. But it's incredibly hard to reconcile the different cultural identities in Canada.

3. The Liberals are ruthlessly pragmatic, often to a nauseating extent. But I can't put my finger on how this political pragmatism comes about, other than a desire for power which all parties have. Today's LPC has virtually no factions despite the LPC encompassing a pretty broad spectrum of Canadian politics, and the broad spectrum tends to hold pretty firm for the Liberals, with usually a corruption scandal and/or major fatigue required to dislodge them.

These three conditions combine to make Canada a perfect place for a party like the LPC. The NDP is resilient and relatively united, which prevents a bipolarization of Canadian politics. The CPC struggles to find a single unifying message. The Liberals take power, which halts the NDP and forces them to re-assert their relevance, and throws the CPC into yet another identity crisis.

British Tories and CDU in Germany are opposite as both of those parties extremely pragmatic and willing to shift positions in which way they think country is going.  Both have strong factions but they manage to stay united.  In US, it seems divisions are equally strong on both sides so ends up being a wash.

BC Liberals were an interesting one as they cover a larger span of spectrum than Tories do yet have largely managed to stick together.  And unlike Tory race, current race hasn't attracted any hard right or crazy types and focus more on issues, not who can be most right wing.  Although wonder if having Liberal name does trick as gets vast majority of small c conservatives who care about policy, but keeps up the more crazy types who find the word offensive. 

Also another big reason is power of Laurentian Elites.  In Canada outside Prairies, there is generally a high level of deference to authority and establishment more so than in most countries.  That comes from our history as New France only allowed those who were Catholic and loyal to king to settle while United Empire Loyalists played a big role in shaping English Canada here.  Since our establishment tends to be united on most issues, there isn't same level of debate as most countries so less divisions.  And those challenging establishment even if idea is hardly radical elsewhere are portrayed as radicals.  An example of this would be a parallel private health system which is considered quite radical in Canada, yet norm in pretty much every industrialized country even ones we think of as being fairly socialistic.

In UK, establishment is more split with academia heavily leaning Labour, but business community heavily Tory.  Whereas in Canada unions and business at least in Central Canada both generally support Liberals.  In US, you have a strong anti-establishment element so if they had an equivalent of Laurentian Elites, that party would be doing horrible.

Part of reason I think establishment united is feeling with two languages and two cultures, allowing too much division would split up country and so much of our history based on reconciling two linguistic groups thus less time to focus on other issues.

[mileslunn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/below-the-national-numbers-big-liberal-advantage/ar-AALserz?ocid=msedgntp .  It is Innovative which tends to slant Liberal but still I would be really worried if the Tories.  A lot is probably people are happy life is going back to normal, but I think in some ways if Tories had chosen Lewis or Sloan this might be a blessing in disguise as they would learn their lesson hard right doesn't work and choose a more moderate leader for 2025.  With O'Toole being moderate (I don't think any Tory leader could win right now, moderate or more right wing), good chance in 2025 they choose a more ideological type thus lose that election thus realistically 2029 is probably earliest they can return to office.  And that is provided they don't get wiped out.  While small samples, Abacus and Nanos suggest even in Prairies CPC has lost their advantage.  While I still think Tories will come out ahead in Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe Manitoba (I think CPC wins popular vote here, but LPC more seats due to CPC running up margins in rural parts while LPC winning Winnipeg by narrower margins) it will probably be closer than normal while a real shellacking elsewhere.

Only thing that might deny Liberals a majority is BQ and NDP as both of them holding up and maybe even gaining.  That suggests to me Canadians are at least at moment clearly moving to left.  Yes pendulums swing back but also people's views tend to form when young and not change much.

[mileslunn]

Here is raw data on it https://innovativeresearch.ca/counting-seats-not-votes/?utm_campaign=CTM2021&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=CTM%202106%20Cluster%20Merge%20 .  Both CPC and NDP have lost a lot since 2011.  More interesting is Tories seeing biggest drop in Prairies (perhaps Kenney's unpopularity) thus may at least mean seat losses not as bad as a uniform swing would suggest since in Prairies they can drop 20 points and not lose many seats.

[mileslunn]

I made a thing.



No cookies for guessing why I used the colour blue.

Obviously part of it is simply Conservatives voting in the way you'd expect, but it looks as if the MPs stance here is correlated with their district - obviously Alberta and Saskatchewan are socially conservative but outside of there it mostly seems to be Protestant heavy or Chinese-Canadian areas.

A few that stood out for me:
- Aurora-Richmond Hill and Thornhill in the GTA. It makes sense because Alleslev and Kent are social moderates (and Alleslev is very vulnerable), but the former has a lot of Chinese-Canadians and the latter Orthodox Jews.
- Good old Andy Scheer in Regina-Qu'Appelle voting no, yet again ensuring that swing voters have no regrets about not making him PM
- Eric Duncan in Stormont-Dundas, the first (I think) openly gay CPC MP, voting yes. I mean, no surprise there either given who he is, but I'd imagine a straight MP for that riding would probably have very likely voted no.
- Interesting split in Southern Ontario, with rural SW and rural Eastern MPs overwhelmingly voting no, while most tories in rural central Ontario voting yes. Shows an interesting split in rural Ontario conservatism where the SW and east are much more influenced by religious conservatism and the middle much less so.
- Also, literally none in Quebec. Not surprising, this kind of GOP-esque religious conservatism is a huge turn-off for Quebec voters

Central Ontario probably due to GTA influence as a lot there are ex GTA residents and more upper middle income.  Southwestern Ontario is more your farm and rust belt so more socially conservative.  Even Liberals back in the days from this area like Roger Gallaway, Rose Marie Ur, Paul Steckle were quite socially conservative

Also looks like in Alberta much like on lockdowns strong urban/rural divide.  Most Calgary and Edmonton ones voted yea, but all but two rural voted nay and of those first Edmonton-Wetaskiwin is mixed while Banff-Airdrie includes Banff, Canmore, and Lake Louise which are quite socially progressive as well as many wealthy educated types who love just outside the city of Calgary so very right wing fiscally, but socially moderate. 

Quebec on the banning sex selective abortion also had all Tories voted nay so no surprise all voted yea.  Brian Mulroney had same thing in 1987 on private member's bill to bring back to death penalty and most of his caucus in English Canada voted yea, but his Quebec caucus overwhelmingly nay which is what killed it along with opposition.  On other hand seems Saskatchewan really stands out as a socially conservative province as all 14 voted yea to sex selective abortion and 13 of 14 nay on gay conversion.

[mileslunn]

New Brunswick also has some fairly socially conservative parts and I believe is one of the more religious provinces.  They just don't wear it on their sleeves like people do further West or in US, its more a personal thing and keep it out of politics. 

Quebec being very secular is due to history.  Catholic church up until early 60s basically controlled everything in Quebec life so during Quiet Revolution strong backlash thus due to history Quebecers are quite wary of mixing religion and politics.  Protestant churches never exerted same level of control.

One interesting though is in Lower Mainland despite being socially liberal, you saw a number of nays on C-6 and yeas on C-233.  Back in 2005 on gay marriage also saw several Liberal MPs in GTA vote nay when they had free votes.  So I think in metro areas you do have a strong socially conservative element amongst recent immigrants.  But that is more transitional as I've found their children tend to be fairly socially liberal unlike parents.  In addition most immigrants understand our country is more socially liberal than their home country so many accept status quo here and don't try to push for change even if social conservatives themselves.  The biggest ones pushing for regression are overwhelmingly white.

[mileslunn]

Also looks like in Alberta much like on lockdowns strong urban/rural divide.  Most Calgary and Edmonton ones voted yea, but all but two rural voted nay and of those first Edmonton-Wetaskiwin is mixed while Banff-Airdrie includes Banff, Canmore, and Lake Louise which are quite socially progressive as well as many wealthy educated types who love just outside the city of Calgary so very right wing fiscally, but socially moderate. 

That's exactly it, Edmonton-Wetaskiwin and the Airdrie part of Banff-Airdrie are very suburban, and the Banff/Canmore parts are basically communist by rural Alberta standards.

Jasper is too, but makes up a much smaller portion of riding and outvoted by Hinton, Edson, Whitecourt and other very conservative communities.

[mileslunn]

It's certainly not a good look for the CPC that more than half of their caucus voted against banning conversion therapy torture. Just last week they were attacking the Liberals from the left and calling for an end to the blood ban for gay men, and now this...way to ruin any credibility you had

O'Toole should have on this whipped the vote.  Many against it were upset about a certain minor clause and he could have just promised if elected to fix that and argue a bill that bans it even if imperfect is better than nothing and you can always change things if issues emerge, but you not being banned far more harmful.

I think O'Toole gets party has to moderate socially unlike Scheer, but he has lost control of caucus and cannot bring them onside and he needs to do that before party is taken seriously.

[mileslunn]

Michelle Rempel is defying the leadership line on Canada Day celebrations:

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1408598707059118081

Do you have screenshot for those of us who have been blocked by Rempel?  She blocks a lot even some conservatives.  I got blocked over my disagreement with her on gun laws (I support a ban on handguns and semi-automatics) while I know another conservative who is actually fairly libertarian and got blocked over his opposition to supply management.

[mileslunn]

https://thehub.ca/2021-06-24/royce-koop-beware-the-tory-syndrome/

Very interesting take on Tory infighting and how they hold themselves back. Lot of parallels with the British Labour Party as well.

By all accounts, the Liberals are a declining party over the course of Canadian history. Long gone are the days of inevitable Liberal majorities and sweeping the entirety of Quebec, the LPC has an increasingly narrow path to victory these days. The provincial Liberal brand has all but collapsed in the prairies, their future in Ontario and Quebec looks uncertain, and the BC Liberals are effectively successors of the Social Credit movement. And yet, their principal opponents at the federal level consistently struggle to capitalize on it.

I think today problem for federal Tories is they have little in common.  True UK Tories are similar in ideology yet remarkably successful unlike Canadian Tories, however in most Continental European countries, usually right wing populists and moderate conservatives are not under same banner.  PC side takes view Canada is fairly centrist and believes party should focus on winning over swing voters.  Reform wing by contrast believes in running on a dogmatically right wing platform and believes turning out base not persuading people to switch is solution.  You can see almost who comes from which side based on the few free votes they have had.  

I also think bigger problem for Tories is demographics and current political alignment doesn't bode well for them.  Most countries have more favourable demographics for parties on right than Canada does.

Atlantic Canada: On surface is fairly rural and white so should be a Tory stronghold, but relies a lot on federal funding never mind has a strongly communitarian culture so old PCs can win here, but current itineration struggles and probably will continue to until PC wing dominates (if that ever happens).

Quebec:  Has normal split which is why at provincial level, CAQ quite strong.  However right wing parties rarely do well in linguistic minority areas.  Not just in Canada but anywhere.  Popular Party of Spain struggles in Catalonia and Basque country, right of centre ones struggle in Wallonia in Belgium while Tories in Scotland.  So same thing here.  Those two areas 1/3 of country so already Tories at weak start.  Quebec is no longer a Liberal stronghold, but at least they have lock on Anglo vote so head start there.

Ontario: Is a very urbanized province, similar in urbanization to Illinois and New York which are both solid blue states.  So as long you have strong urban/rural splits you will get a 70/30 break in percentage of seats thus struggle for Tories.

Manitoba: Sort of a wash as Winnipeg is 55% of province so makes winning big there tough, but 45% outside city and except Far north, Tories have solid lock on most of that.

Saskatchewan: Their most favourable province demographically and since more rural and whiter than Alberta, that is why it is replacing Alberta as most conservative province.

Alberta: Kenney may have awoken a sleeping giant as I get impression many vote Tory out of habit not ideology.  Certainly demographics of Alberta are not favourable to parties on right.  3rd most urban, 3rd most diverse, youngest province, and most educated.

British Columbia: This is one in last decade that has seen big shift.  A decade ago, BC Liberals provincially and Tories federally dominated Lower Mainland suburbs and Interior while both held seats on Vancouver Island even if trailed in Vancouver proper and Vancouver Island.  Today both still dominate Interior, but Lower Mainland suburbs have mostly swung NDP provincially and Liberal federally while both shut out on Vancouver Island.

So my point is yes division hurting Tories, but also demographics in Canada based on global re-alignment heavily tilt country towards left.  

This is a good blog that talks about global re-alignment https://scrimshawunscripted.substack.com/ even though more focused on American and British politics than Canadian.

[mileslunn]

I have wondered if pandemic has exacerbated divide on right.  In normal times people are out socializing with others not small bubble whereas with pandemic and many stuck at home; they are spending more time online and more likely to be in echo chambers.  When socializing with others, it tends to ground you more in reality while if in online echo chambers, much more likely to get a false sense of where public really stands.  For left, its mostly in sense of being super woke and grievances and while Canadians may not care for that; I don't think it angers them way it does people in other countries.  By contrast much of the right wing echo chambers have all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories be it on pandemic, lockdowns, vaccines, or even idea Trudeau is trying to implement a communist dictatorship and all kinds of other crazy stuff.  Once you get sucked into this you lose sense of real world and tough to reason with people who don't deal in reality.  And due to pandemic I believe you are getting a lot more of this than pre-pandemic.

By contrast for right, much of the base who already leans well to right of median voter is being pushed even further right.  And without much interaction with others in person is likely getting a false sense country is much more right wing than it is and people hate Trudeau to same degree they do.  And that O'Toole, Ford, and Kenney are all struggling for being not right wing enough when opposite is largely true. 

[mileslunn]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7991602/ipsos-poll-election-liberals-tories-june/ more bad news for Tories.  Yes good news for Liberals although 38% while higher than last election, is hardly high for Liberals by historical standards.  And idea pandemic bad for opposition is not case with NDP and BQ, only Tories and Greens.  And even Greens with trouble don't seem to be doing too bad but often polls put them higher than they get on election day.  By contrast Tories are on track for worst showing.  I guess question is could different leader and different policies give different results or do Canadians just dislike conservatism in general and want a more progressive direction?  I think a bit of both.

[mileslunn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/182-unmarked-graves-discovered-near-residential-school-in-b-c-s-interior-first-nation-says/ar-AALD7Wx?ocid=msedgntp I think we will see a lot more.  I bet the final numbers will be several thousand.  While no easy solution, probably makes First Nations issues and reconciliation a much higher priority than in past which is a good thing.

[mileslunn]

By all accounts, the Liberals are a declining party over the course of Canadian history. Long gone are the days of inevitable Liberal majorities and sweeping the entirety of Quebec, the LPC has an increasingly narrow path to victory these days. The provincial Liberal brand has all but collapsed in the prairies, their future in Ontario and Quebec looks uncertain, and the BC Liberals are effectively successors of the Social Credit movement. And yet, their principal opponents at the federal level consistently struggle to capitalize on it.

This is something which I think is forgotten too much in discussions about a 1000 year Grit Reich. This is not the Liberal Party of Louis St. Laurent. I often point out to my friends when discussing this that even with everything going on in their main opposition party, the Liberals are still only at about 50-50 odds to win a majority. I know I say this a lot but I really think some people are going way too far in some of the things they say about the future strength of the Liberal Party.

Agree Liberals aren't as strong as some think but real question is what is alternative.  NDP has never formed government and despite some decent poll numbers, they are a long ways away from it.  Tories are at rock bottom and show no sign of being competitive anytime soon.  If O'Toole loses, most likely party shifts further to right thus ensuring a loss in 2025 of likely bigger proportions.  So I think Liberals are in good shape to remain natural governing party not because people love party, but simply there isn't a realistic alternative.  Yes when people get mad enough they will coalesce around some other party but winning only when people get really angry at Liberals is sort of like NDP in BC until recently and now in some ways Ontario PCs.  Means long stretches in opposition with brief wins but don't last long.