2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

[mileslunn]

With all the challenges ahead like inflation, high housing prices, pandemic still ongoing, out of control deficits and uneven recovery, the next election should be Tories to win.  But unfortunately for them, they will probably chose someone who is popular with base not general electorate thus miss another goal on an empty net.  Problem is too many in base spend too much time in echo chambers and think their hatred of Trudeau is shared by most.

I don't think most Canadians love Trudeau.  The #IStandWithTrudeau types are very much a minority just as the type who think he is a dictator and some evil incarnate are.  Both types may dominate social media but they are a minority in general population.  Most see him as a flawed individual but also are okay with him, especially if alternatives lousy. 

One thing O'Toole showed is trying to play both lanes by going right to win leadership and then moving to middle for general election doesn't work.  People like one who is consistent whether agree or disagree.  O'Toole angered base he felt he betrayed them while failed to win swing voters who didn't trust his moderation was genuine.

I think if MacKay had won, election would have been much closer, maybe won outright.  Same with Chong or Raitt in 2019.  So party can win, but problem is membership is so out of touch with reality chances are they shoot themselves in the foot again.

I think party maybe needs to experience what UK Labour did in 2019 which is lose badly with a right wing ideologue (Labour lost badly with a left wing ideologue) and that will force them to realize going too far from middle is doomed for failure.

[mileslunn]

Pierre has the persona of a campus Conservative fixated on "owning" libs. 

Kind of fulfilling Andrew Coyne's point from not so long back...

"Moreover, while the Liberals, as the party of power and therefore of cabinet posts, have always been able to recruit individuals with a record of accomplishment in other fields, the Conservatives tend to get stuck with the lifers, people who have never done anything but partisan politics and are motivated by nothing so much as hatred of the Grits. Which may explain why the party’s leading lights so often look and sound like campus Conservatives."


 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-more-than-leadership-or-policy-its-the-conservative-temperament-thats/

Generally true although in Alberta prior to 2015, PCs were party that got a lot of top individuals, many who weren't even very conservative but ran there as they were party expected to win.

Ontario PCs in 2018 actually had a pretty strong slate, but being in the lead in the polls for over 2 years probably helped a lot.  Federal Liberal slate in 2015 was pretty weak compared to past for this reason.  I think main thing is party has to look like it can win before strong ones sign up as many accomplished individuals want to serve country not be stuck in opposition forever.

[mileslunn]

It is Poilievre's to lose for Tory leadership race, but I don't think his rhetoric will go over well.  Most are for freedom, who isn't.  But we take a very different view than Poilievre does.  We take view we are part of a larger society and government is there for things individuals cannot do on their own and also to ensure others aren't harmed.  His sounds very libertarian and that might go over well in US, but I think would be a tough sell in Canada.

Perhaps he is hoping much like Thatcher in 1979, Mike Harris in 1995, there is a big enough backlash against big government people ready for radical change, but not sure that is the case.  Trudeau may be more left wing than past PMs, but I don't think he has gone so far left you are seeing a massive backlash, at least not amongst centrist voters.  Sure the right hates him far more than they hated Chretien or Martin, but the Conservatives have that group locked up anyways.

Still Liberals would be wise not to get complacent as surprises happen.  He is very beatable but could beat Liberals if they got too arrogant.  Liberals need to avoid doing what Theresa May did in 2017 where she assumed Corbyn was so extreme so could waltz to victory yet in end barely won.  Still there is loads of material in attack ads and if chosen Liberals should much like Harper did roll them out right away, not wait until writ dropped.  I also think if Trudeau decides not to run again, Liberals might want to chose someone more centrist like Champagne vs. someone on left like Freeland.  And maybe even convince a few Red Tories to cross the floor, although not sure any would, but should try. 

[mileslunn]

I'd caution against the notion that Poilievre is simply too right-wing to win a general election though. The closest parallel to Pierre Poilievre in recent Canadian history might be Mike Harris (except Harris had private-sector experience, so more credibility on that front), and whatever you think about Mike Harris, he was a winner. Ginning up the existing pool of right-wing voters, while letting the Liberals bleed votes out of fatigue, might not be the worst strategy.

I think O'Toole's moderate hero act was a bit much, and the next CPC leader should be a little bit more confident in taking more conservative stances. However, Poilievre's style might be a little too much. I think the CPC needs a Stephen Harper type figure, someone who can fire up movement conservatives but in a more calm, less polarizing style so that moderates can feel more comfortable backing them, or at least not running to the Libs. But the idea that Poilievre is a give-away to the Liberals is probably a little naive.

Agreed.  I think Poilievre is a turn off to many, but Liberals would be silly to write him off.

[mileslunn]

Could Raquel Dancho be a future CPC party leader?

Absolutely only in early 30s, so in a decade or so for sure.  She is 10 years younger than Jacinda Ardern and 5 younger than Sanna Marin and former very popular, latter more mixed.  I believe Sebastian Kurz though was her age when he became Austrian chancellor.

[mileslunn]

I've always thought CPC MPs with lots of real world experience not conducive to being strong political performers - like Rob Morrison - seem to get sidelined, when they might have the makings of decent ministers.

Oh sure.  There are quite a number of fairly impressive Conservative M.Ps. Just to name a few in the West: Todd Doherty, John Barlow, Ron Liepert, Tim Uppal, Randy Hoback, Kelly Block, Marty Morantz and Raquel Dancho (even though she was a career political staffer.)  

Yeah, there really is some talent within the CPC (far, far less than the LPC, but it's there). Harper himself had a pretty impressive history, having played a pretty big role in the early foundations of Reform (he left after disagreeing with Manning on the party's vision).

In 2017, Scheer really stuck out to me as an MP with very little to show for himself other than having been elected speaker, which of course is hardly an impressive role in the Canadian system. It was surprising to me at the time that he was the CPC's choice. O'Toole has a somewhat interesting background, but the new presumptive frontrunner is another career politician.

To be fair, Trudeau didn't exactly have an impressive resume either, apart from having the right father. Certainly nothing compared to what people like Freeland or even Champagne and Anand bring to the table. Nor does Singh have a particularly impressive resume, he was really a small-scale lawyer before becoming an NDP MPP. But it seems to be that in today's environment, "qualifications" beyond politics don't really matter all that much.

I think with how nasty politics is, a lot of top notch types just avoid it and find more rewarding careers in the private sector.  Frank McKenna said he wouldn't enter politics in today's environment.

[mileslunn]

Here's how I see the different factions of today's CPC, anyway:

1. Red-Green Tories: The traditional Robert Stanfield/Bill Davis type red tories are dead. I think in today's context, a Red Tory is a Tory who has a fundamentally liberal worldview and assumption, but lands on more conservative positions. MacKay, Chong, Brown, John Tory, Tim Houston, etc. I added "Green" because this faction also tends to hold more concern about climate change.

2. Blue Tories: In today's context, the blues are the dominant faction. Unlike the Reds, they get their worldview from a more Reaganite/Thatcherite philosophy, but like the reds, steer clear of social issues. Poilievre is deep down a very blue Tory, although his rhetoric straddles the populist line.

3. Social Conservatives: Religious right. Their main focus is on Christian stuff. Leslyn Lewis is a good example.

4. Populists: Growing faction within the base, but I think CPC politicians really only represent them in rhetoric. Like Doug Ford who campaigned as a populist but has governed as a blue. I think Poilievre is the same. The populist right tends to have views all over the place, but are united in a distrust of government.

5. Liber-tory-ians: Maxime Bernier was one, but he went down the deep end of populism. This is a small group, but yeah, libertarian tories. They distrust government and institutions like populists, and prioritize right-wing economics like blues, and like the reds, their worldview comes from a fundamentally (classical) liberal place, not a traditionally conservative one.

This is just my analysis, I'm sure others would see things differently, but this is why I don't believe in the whole "moderate vs so-con" narrative of Canadian political commentators. The CPC has unusual ideological diversity for a Canadian political party, because anyone who identifies with the right finds their way into the CPC. In any leadership race, the winning candidate straddles the line between two factions, throws bones to two others, and ignores one. Scheer in 2017 straddled blue-socon, threw bones to populists and libertarians, and ditched the reds. O'Toole in 2020 straddled the blue-populist line, threw bones to reds and so-cons, and ditched the libertarians. It seems like Poilievre's strategy is to straddle blue-populist, throw bones to so-cons and libertarians, and ditch the reds.

In this sense, I think PP will run basically the same campaign that O'Toole did in 2020 in terms of who he focuses on, but he's simply a more genuine/authentic messenger to the right than O'Toole was.

I would largely agree but here is my thought on how this plays out

1.  Red Tories:  This group has two, traditional Red Tories in Bill Davis/Robert Stanfield mold which outside Atlantic Canada are pretty much non-existent in politics today.  Second is more your Michael Chong types who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive.  Latter still exists a fair bit, especially in metropolitan areas, but their influence in party is much less than past.  First one would lead to a radically different political environment.  Could win over many Liberals, but would ensure another split on right.  Second would probably do well in general election, but no chance at winning leadership race and if like O'Toole run as a Blue Tory in leadership race but Red in general, people will judge as inauthentic.  I think second could pull away many Liberals who fear Trudeau has moved too much to left, but would anger many in base.  At same time on seats which matters most probably would be best for Tories.  But has to win leadership race.

2.  Blue Tories:  Largely agree on and this is probably the path that is easiest to unite CPC membership.  Problem here is most in general electorate don't want to go here.  Winning general election is possible for such, but there needs to be a deep level of dissatisfaction with government.  Otherwise if government reaches Wynne like approval ratings, then yes can win.  But at current approval ratings wouldn't defeat Liberals. 

3.  Social Conservatives: Not majority of party but a huge chunk and impossible to win leadership race without getting support from this group.  Generally toxic in general election however and sure fire way to lose.  In membership though interesting coalition as do well in rural religious areas, but also get a lot of support in heavily ethnic suburbs.  Former goes massively Tory in general election, but latter party struggles in.  However, even if could gain such suburbs, they would lose the upper middle class suburbs badly who like lower taxes and balanced budgets, but don't want a whiff of social conservatism. 

4.  Populists:  This group is really not united and is sort of all over map.  Some like Ford can win, others like our own Trump style would not.  I think in Canada its a mix as most don't like elites who they feel are out of touch and look down on them.  But at same time many see full blown populism as dangerous.  Otherwise most want people who understand challenges average person has, but also offer practical solutions to improve things.  Not just fiery rhetoric with no real solutions.

5.  Libertarians: Again this is a very broad group.  It tends to imply want a much smaller state and I think all Tory members want a smaller state, but great variance in should it be cut around the edges or radical downsizing.  Former especially with Trudeau expanding government's reach is winnable in general election, but latter is not.  The latter type has actually very limited appeal, even less than social conservatism.  A pure libertarian would favour privatizing all highways, privatizing education & health care, no gun laws and those are very much fringe views in Canada.  If you say reduce government by 20%, devil is in details.  Lots on surface might find idea appealing, but once you start listing programs on chopping block, I think you would find a lot less support.  Many are fine cutting programs they never use, but few actually want programs they use cut and if you cut enough its almost guaranteed just about everyone in some way gets impacted.

[mileslunn]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

That's the question though, who are these "disenchanted Liberals"? And why do we assume Charest would win them over?

I think the assumption is that this would be blue liberals, bay street boys, etc. This is not a huge portion of the Canadian population by any stretch, and the influence of those interests isn't what it used to be. The most effective model for a Conservative victory in the GTA in today's context is shown by Doug Ford - someone whose appeal is nothing like Charest's. The hypothesis that there is a mass of blue Liberals who like Liberal values but want less spending was tested in 2021, and it didn't work out too well for O'Toole.

In my experience, disenchantment among the Liberal base is coming from young people and people frustrated about covid measures - the venn diagram between those two has a lot of overlap. Between Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre, the latter is an infinitely better choice to appeal to this group. Anyone in English Canada who is under 40 and not obsessed with politics has no idea who Jean Charest is, and Quebecers under 40 don't exactly tend to have the fondest memories of the guy.

Edit: To be clear, I don't think Poilievre is a silver bullet who would energize disenchanted voters into propelling the Tories back to power. Poilievre is an ideologue, and dogmatic conservatism isn't super popular in Canada these days. But the hypothesis that Jean Charest would chip off Liberal voters because he's fiscally conservative and culturally liberal assumes that there are lots of current Liberal voters looking for that, and I don't think that's the case. If I'm right, and frustration among the Liberal base is coming from young people who are losing faith in the political establishment, Charest seems like the exact opposite of what they would want.

That is largely true, but there still is some potential here.  Your white upper middle class suburbs like Burlington, Kanata-Carleton, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, Winnipeg South, Oakville, and Eglinton-Lawrence all examples of those.  And O'Toole did much better in most of those than Scheer although fell a bit short.  By contrast Ford underperformed in those.  But it won't as you mention get party to power on its own.  Still if there is enough disenchantment with Liberals it could be what puts them over top.  It was this group that put Biden in power as you look at areas where Trump underperformed Romney the most and those were upper middle class suburbs with lots of college educated whites like Chester County, PA; Fairfield County, CT; Morris County, NJ etc, and a precinct level loads of these such as Darien, CT; Westlake, Ohio; Powell, Ohio. 

On other hand Boris Johnson won places like Chelsea & Fulham; Cities of London & Westminster; Cheadle, much of London Commuter belt without exactly appealing to them and did so due to opposition of Corbyn.

BC Liberals were in many ways this type of party and until recently they were very successful of centre-right parties thus reason for appeal, but in last decade really lost a lot of ground so not sure it gives same success as in past.  Now yes possible if Deficit hits crisis levels like mid 90s that changes.  Likewise if Trudeau starts raising taxes on top 10%, not just top 1% or there is a major exodus of latter then possible.  But right now not as such stage.  I think former happens soon, latter on taxes I don't see happening.

My preference is fiscally conservative but socially liberal and still see some potential, but I don't think it excites or inspires people.  I think its more type of policy that works well when high level of fatigue with Liberals.  On covid restrictions, I totally agree and big potential amongst younger voters.  PCQ in Quebec being at over 20% amongst millennials is evidence of that.  Likewise be interested to see if this saves UCP in Alberta as while I expect Notley to win next year, if UCP does come back, I think UCP promise to drop all restrictions permanently but fear NDP will bring them back will be big reason, not bringing back Flat tax or a balanced budget (former I think hurts party actually).  By same token if next election is not until 2024 or 2025, I suspect COVID-19 is endemic and more importantly I don't think any party will be calling for public health restrictions by then.  Real difference asides from your Randy Hillier types who always opposed any restrictions is more a matter of just how fast and timing so right now because of where we are in pandemic, its showing up heavily, but just as most united asides fringe for restrictions in March 2020, I suspect by 2024, wanting to go back into lockdown or other restrictions will be political suicide.

[mileslunn]

Maybe it's more people asking him to run and takes his time to give an answer because it could be his last chance to have a path to become Prime Minister. Poilievre probably has a big lead at the start. Charest's appeal could be he offers a better chance to get votes from moderates, centrists, disenchanted Liberals, more Quebec votes and he is a very good campaigner. But the conservative membership is probably not looking for that. It would be hard for him to win. He would need new members and it's probably easier to sell membership to people with a cause or ideology.

It seems there are at least 7 Quebec MPs willing to support Charest. So they are looking for someone other than Poilievre (maybe they will endorse him if he is the sure winner). Two Harper appointed Senators and organizers are supporting Poilievre.

Quebec politics bewilders me.

Most of the Quebec Tory caucus are CAQuists. I get why they wouldn't want Poillievre, but Charest as a PLQ Premier seems like a bad fit as well. Is it as simple as backing a fellow Quebecer or am I missing something else?

For Quebec, someone like Gerald Detell, Alain Rayes or others from Quebec caucus probably best there.  Reality is Liberals tend to be as Harper described anywheres so there isn't same regional differences thus easy to unite.

Tories vary quite a bit by region:

Mostly Red Tories in Atlantic Canada who are traditionalist but okay with government intervention.

Rural nationalists but not separatists in Quebec who are culturally conservative but economically centrist and socially left.

Ontario a mix of rural conservatives and suburban fiscal conservatives

Prairies mostly right wing populists and libertarians mixed in with some more moderates in urban areas.

BC a mix of green pro business types in Lower Mainland while right wing populist pro resource types in Interior.

Its why Conservatives have much easier time winning provincially than federally.  Type of conservatism popular in Atlantic Canada & Quebec angers base in West while type popular in Prairies is toxic in coastal BC, suburban Ontario, and areas of east of Ottawa River.  Someone like King or Houston would never be acceptable to Western base but yet super popular in respective provinces.

Legault would anger Prairie supporters on his environmental and pandemic stances while hurt part in Lower Mainland and 905 belt due to Bill 21 which unpopular amongst immigrants yet super popular.

Ford too much of populist for Atlantic Canada and lack of French not electable in Quebec while willing to please people and compromise on principles wouldn't go over well in Prairies.  Despite being on shakier ground than others mentioned, he still has a better than even chance of being re-elected.

Brian Pallister was sort of a hybrid between an Ontario moderate and more right wing type you find in Saskatchewan and Alberta (Don't know much about Stefanson)

Moe and Kenney appeal to heavily to base which at least in Moe's case works well (less so Kenney as Alberta is rapidly changing).  But both would be toxic in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.  Would do well in rural Ontario but fall flat in suburbs while dominate BC interior but fall flat in areas west of Langley where majority live.

Thus for Tories to win, they either need all factions to hate Liberals so much that desire to oust them unites them or need an incredibly skilled and talented politician like Harper who can keep them together and such are rare.  Provincially you have far fewer factions so you can tailor your style of conservatism to province but nationally much harder to do.

Liberals don't have this issue as they are usually university educated, well travelled and they are as Harper called anywheres.  Conservatives by contrast are overwhelmingly somewheres. 

[mileslunn]

Yeah, personally, I think outside of wave elections, Halton Region is pretty much gone for the Conservatives.

I think for Milton that is largely true.  Oakville and Burlington while not easy if party avoids social conservatism, still has potential as O'Toole in 2021 and Harper 2015 came fairly close in those two, Scheer did poorly.  Both are higher income and while most not in top 1% who had taxes hiked, large deficits may make some worried about tax hikes.  Oakville North-Burlington unlike those two is more your quintessential middle class suburb not upper middle class and that is probably the better route long term.

Problem for Tories with Milton is while pretty far out, lower density, its full of ex 416 voters thus why no longer winnable.  I believe its the part of GTA where housing is least expensive so lots of young families that cannot afford the 416 are moving there.

[mileslunn]

While I would love idea of Charest being leader or some other moderate, I just don't see it happening.  Membership of party is quite right wing and if MacKay was too moderate, no way they will go for Charest who base likes even less.  That being said if he somehow did pull it off, I suspect you would see a huge exodus of MPs particularly in Prairies but also BC Interior and Rural Ontario.  So he could choose any of those ridings until election.  It would be a sign party plans to return to PC roots as while a merger, clearly Reform side is in charge and PC side junior partner.  O'Toole unlike Scheer and Harper came from PC side but had to act like a Reformer to win leadership and big reason dumped was this.

I think future of party is one of two things happening:

1.  They lose again and unless a really bad loss unlikely to learn and stay on right.  Its why I've predicted all along party doesn't return to power until around 2030 (note if Liberals in power as long as last time, it would be in 2028 change happens).  But if bad enough lose like Labour in UK, maybe it forces shake up.  But with how many people loathe Liberals, I doubt party falls below 100 seats.  Tories have a very high floor in seats, but very low ceiling thus why always looks like close to winning but cannot get over top.

2.  Fatigue of Liberals is so bad Tories do under Poilievre win.  Unless Poilievre is a one term wonder, that will cement party's shift right.  Whether country goes along long term or not is a different story.

But point is as much as I want a moderate to lead party, I think there is a greater than 90% chance Poilievre is next leader.

[mileslunn]

I could see a relatively low-profile Tory in a safe seat, like Joël Godin or Bernard Généreux being asked to do this, then Charest runs in a winnable non-Tory Quebec riding in the next election, like one of the Beauport ridings - although redistricting could affect which seat he picks.

Like MaxQue said, running in Sherbrooke as a Tory seems like a fool's errand. Charest would do better than any other Tory there, but it's still a big task to win a seat where they only got 1/8 of the vote in the most recent election. Compton-Stanstead (Sherbrooke suburbs and surrounding farmland) is a bit more winnable, but if I were him I'd stay on the safe side and stick to the Quebec City area.

Godin supports Charest. He sais his goal is to save the Conservative party, be united and stay progreesive conservative. He thinks Charest can unite the social right and progressive conservatives.  He will think of his political future if the party is not progressive conservative. He fears a split if another candidate is elected leader.

They need a compromise candidate because it seems many will be unhappy with Charest and could leave, while others fear the direction with Poilievre and could leave.

There are 6 Quebec MPs supporting Charest. One is neutral because of his role but Berthold has held many jobs with the provincial Liberals during Charest's time  that my guess is he would support him. People are loyal to Charest. There are three undeclared yet. If they want a better role if Poilievre wins, it might makes sense to support him.

The provincial Liberal members of the National Assembly will be allowed to support a candidate in the federal conservative race, and some are planning to help Charest, but other parties like CAQ and provincial Conservative plan to publicly stay out of it.

Party to stay united needs some like Peter MacKay, James Moore, Rona Ambrose, or Brad Wall.  First was a Progressive Conservative but as architect of merger, he enjoys respect from right side of party most former PCs do not.  If you look at endorsements in 2020, he got many from Reform side to endorse him.

James Moore comes from Reform side and from West, but is from BC and Lower Mainland where party struggles.  Also despite Reform roots, he was very moderate and probably only ran for them as PCs were dead in BC when he came to office but his policies much more like PC wing or moderate wing nowadays.

Rona Ambrose well respected cabinet member and from Alberta which will make base happy as base strongest in Prairies.  But she is also likeable and moderate so acceptable to moderate wing.

Brad Wall as a successful premier of Saskatchewan is well liked by both sides and as premier he did a good job of uniting both the more right wing rural faction (which Moe panders too) and the more urban centrist faction thus why unlike predecessor Elwin Hermanson, he was able to breakthrough into two main cities.

Sadly none of those four likely to run.  Now maybe after party loses again under Poilievre, one of them may realize its only way to save party.  Liberals are quite vulnerable, but Tories great at shooting themselves in foot.  They should learn form British counterparts not GOP.  British Tories are still conservative not liberal lite, but they have a winning mentality and can pivot as public opinion changes.  GOP is more about ideological purity but US unlike Canada has a strong right wing base where they can get away with it.  Still GOP's move to ideological purity is why several states they used to win like California are no longer winnable.  And states most culturally similar to Canada tend to be solid blue ones, not purple and especially not red ones.

[mileslunn]

But with how many people loathe Liberals, I doubt party falls below 100 seats.  Tories have a very high floor in seats, but very low ceiling thus why always looks like close to winning but cannot get over top.

Not so much "how many people", but *where* those people are.  Or for the Cons to fall below 100 at this point, the Libs/NDP are going to have to finagle a few more breakthroughs in Prairie cities...

They don't have a lot of seats in Quebec and Atlantic Canada to begin with and a complete shut out in either seems very unlikely.  Yes did in Atlantic Canada in 2015 but that was a one off likely not to be repeated anytime soon.  Still I could see them dropping to as low as 3 seats there only winning the so called Baptist Belt seats in New Brunswick (Tobique-Mactaquac, New Brunswick Southwest, and Fundy-Royal).  Rural Ontario is pretty solidly conservative and even in bad elections Tories still win lion's share so 25 seats probably floor there.  BC Interior too so 10 seats probably floor there.

For Prairies, Tories are vulnerable in some urban seats but Liberals and NDP at least in Alberta & Saskatchewan (not so much Manitoba) have image of being hostile to those regions.  I think best way to win there is have a lot of strategic voting and perhaps hope Notley throws her support behind one party.  Sure lots of people in Alberta despise Notley, but they are types that will always vote for right wing parties anyways and they are not a majority either. 

But my point is more Tories double down on their right wing ideology, the more seats that will fall out of reach many their already difficult path to 170 while go from steep uphill climb to impossible.  Liberals at least after 2011 disaster were forced to do a major shake up, but because Tories have far more safe seats, they are not likely to ever lose badly enough to force this.  Victory will always appear close even if not.

[mileslunn]

Early polling suggests Skippy will get the crazies back into the Tory fold, but has no room to grow amongst blue Liberals. Charest's numbers among blue Liberals are slightly better, but not particularly encouraging.

I think Tories realistically need Liberal unpopularity to be high enough if they want to unite various sides and I don't see that at this point.  By nature more Canadians lean towards Liberals than Tories so all things equal, Liberals have natural advantage.  Its why over past century, Liberals have spent 2/3 of time in government and Tories 1/3 and usually Liberal time in office is quite a bit longer than Tory ones.  History would suggest we are a long ways from change.  If last as long as Chretien/Martin, then change would happen in 2028.  If as long as Pearson/Trudeau then not until 2036 or if as long as King/St. Laurent not until 2037.  Note I doubt it takes until 2036 or 2037 for Tories to win but just saying if you look at history, if Liberals were to lose next election it would be shortest time in office.

Yes if we look at how long most Tory ones are different story as for Mulroney and Harper it would be in 2024 so right around when next election happens and for Diefenbaker it would have been 2021 and 2020 for RB Bennett. 

By same token, Laurier is last PM to win four elections in a row (Trudeau sr, did win four but only three in a row, lost to Joe Clark then won in 1980) so that is one thing Tories have in their favour but my guess is Freeland not Trudeau will be Liberal leader next election.

[mileslunn]

There aren't enough Francophone ridings outside of Quebec to really make a big difference.  But on balance they lean Liberal but they are not monolithic. 

In New Brunswick, Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst are solidly Liberal but Madawaska-Restigouche can go Conservative under right leader but more often than not goes Liberal.  Latter two have a lot of seasonal workers and high unemployment so probably why Tories did poorly there, but considering how strong a second place Scheer and O'Toole had in Cape Breton Island and Rural Newfoundland which are similar economically, maybe there is some potential, but probably not worth wasting a lot of resources on those two.

In Ontario, its a mix.  Ottawa-Vanier is pretty solidly Liberal but NDP has some pockets of support.  Orleans did go Liberal under Harper, but I believe since then has swung hard towards Liberals as more civil servants living there so probably out of reach.  Northern Ontario is Liberal/NDP mix, but Tories did do better than normal so may have some potential with a blue collar strategy.

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tends to go Tory win they win as its largely rural but Liberals do much better there than in other rural ridings in Ontario so yes is winnable but much tougher than most rural ridings which they usually have a lock on.  Since 2000, both federally and provincially, its always backed the winner and last time it went for losing candidate at either level was 1999 provincial and back then urban/rural divide wasn't as strong as it is today as PCs won many GTA seats now out of reach and likewise Liberals were still strong in rural Southwestern Ontario, which is now their worst region. 

[mileslunn]

As usual, Bryan Breguet is an idiot (I don't want to seem mean, but the man is an arrogant bully online, and is often, very, very wrong on things, and isn't willing to admit it). The Tories already have most of the rural ridings outside Quebec. And the ones they don't have are less "rural" and more "remote", which comes with it an entirely different political history. Granted, remote areas are trending more populist, which helps the Conservatives, especially with a weaker PPC. But they still need to do well in the 905, and that should still be their main target in every election. Can't win without it.

Yeah, he's one of the most insufferable people on Twitter.

I think if Tories dominated Atlantic Canada (still some rural ones there) swept rural Quebec and breakthrough in Northern Ontario, 905 belt wouldn't be as key but would still need to be competitive there.  Difference is with others splitting it evenly like Harper did in 2008 could work whereas without these need to sweep it like 2011.  That being said Harper in 2006 largely got shut out of the 905 belt and formed government, but a very weak minority.  So Tories may be able to get a weak minority without it, but certainly not a majority.

And with Poilievre being quite toxic unlike O'Toole, I think its majority or bust whereas I think had O'Toole won most seats, he could have gotten BQ support.  Charest probably could do same.  Brown is a tougher one as BQ obviously won't support him over his stance on Bill 21, but perhaps Liberals might be willing to prop him up until they get new leader.

[mileslunn]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

[mileslunn]

There aren't enough Francophone ridings outside of Quebec to really make a big difference.  But on balance they lean Liberal but they are not monolithic. 

In New Brunswick, Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst are solidly Liberal but Madawaska-Restigouche can go Conservative under right leader but more often than not goes Liberal.  Latter two have a lot of seasonal workers and high unemployment so probably why Tories did poorly there, but considering how strong a second place Scheer and O'Toole had in Cape Breton Island and Rural Newfoundland which are similar economically, maybe there is some potential, but probably not worth wasting a lot of resources on those two.

In Ontario, its a mix.  Ottawa-Vanier is pretty solidly Liberal but NDP has some pockets of support.  Orleans did go Liberal under Harper, but I believe since then has swung hard towards Liberals as more civil servants living there so probably out of reach.  Northern Ontario is Liberal/NDP mix, but Tories did do better than normal so may have some potential with a blue collar strategy.

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tends to go Tory win they win as its largely rural but Liberals do much better there than in other rural ridings in Ontario so yes is winnable but much tougher than most rural ridings which they usually have a lock on.  Since 2000, both federally and provincially, its always backed the winner and last time it went for losing candidate at either level was 1999 provincial and back then urban/rural divide wasn't as strong as it is today as PCs won many GTA seats now out of reach and likewise Liberals were still strong in rural Southwestern Ontario, which is now their worst region. 

Which two ridings are you referring to here?

Beausejour and Acadie-Bathurst

[mileslunn]

Charest says he won't change any of Canada's gun laws, including the Liberals' "assault-style" firearm ban...

I mean, I guess it's not the worst thing in the world to avoid the O'Toole mistake of running on one thing in the leadership and another in the general. Charest wants to be seen as a principled moderate, not a flip-flopper.

But...good luck winning the CPC leadership pal. Poilievre's been trying to paint Charest as a "Liberal" because he's a Quebec Liberal, which is a pretty disingenuous strategy - he's also pointed at Charest's record on guns and carbon pricing, which strengthens that argument. Now Charest is strengthening Poilievre's argument running on a policy that will infuriate a large chunk of the base, and is almost certainly opposed by the vast majority of Conservatives.

Probably won't work with base, but on guns and carbon tax, British Tories support ban on semi-automatics and carbon pricing so could make argument British Tories not GOP is model party should follow.  But much of base is enamoured with GOP even if most Canadians don't like that. 

In fact in Australia and UK, it was a Conservative government (Thatcher and Howard) who banned these and in New Zealand National Party supported the ban.  Still knowing base agree anything short of overturning ban won't be good enough.

UK Tories and Aussie Liberals aren't really relevant in this context. A lot of gun owners support the Conservatives, they won't appreciate a leadership candidate who supports the Liberal policy on this file.

Further to that point, Miles characterization of the base as "enamoured with the GOP" obscures the situation on the ground more than it clarifies it. Canada has the highest gun owership rate of any first world country besides America. It has four times as many civilian firearms per capita as Australia and nearly eight times as many as England and Wales!

Gun owners are a much larger constituency in Canada than Australia or Britain, so of course the Canadian Conservatives are going to be more anti-gun control than their Australian and British counterparts.

True although New Zealand I think is fairly close to Canada, may be a bit less but not much.  And in US there were some Republicans in past who supported banning these.  Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan both endorsed Clinton's assault weapons ban.  Guns banned largely mimics New York and California and while those are solid blue states, they still have lots of gun owners and in both states Trump got similar percentage to what Tories get nationally despite the fact lots of Tories in Canada would have voted for Biden.

But yeah for base, I agree its a vote loser.  Just saying one can be a conservative and support gun bans.  I think problem for Tories, is much of base is based in rural Canada where bans unpopular while for urban and suburban Tory members, its not a major issue they care strongly about either way.  Could even be that those who support ban are less passionate than those who oppose it so those who support it vote on other issues while for those opposing it, its top issue.

My guess is keeping this though may work in Quebec where it seems population more united on gun control and then hope in urban Canada most who vote don't care so win them on other issues.  I suspect Charest more or less knows rural Southern Ontario, Prairies, and BC Interior are lost causes for him.

[mileslunn]

With it looking like a supply and confidence agreement between Liberals and NDP, wonder how that impacts Conservative leadership race?  Does mean they could push date back but doubt they will.  Probably just enrages base more so helps Poilievre, but also means by next election will have been 10 years of Liberals in office.  At same time I don't think Trudeau runs again and usually junior partners in coalitions tend to take a hit so that might hurt Tories since if NDP drops and much goes Liberal means need higher threshold to win.  At same time probably easier to win back many PPC voters.

[mileslunn]

Agreed, gives Conservatives time to put together a platform and actually look like governing in waiting, not just an anger machine as now.  For Liberals, it really depends how things go.  Go well they benefit, go badly do not.  NDP I think is probably biggest loser as if goes well, Liberals get credit while go poorly they get blamed for enabling.

At same time with Liberals moving left and it being obvious, party would be wise to find way to appeal to Blue Liberals.  Yes they are much less numerous than in 90s, but still exist.  Also probably should work on appealing to blue collar NDP types as I get impression this will be more appealing to your urban progressives which is where NDP base is not your traditional blue collar private sector union types.

[mileslunn]

Agreed, gives Conservatives time to put together a platform and actually look like governing in waiting, not just an anger machine as now.  For Liberals, it really depends how things go.  Go well they benefit, go badly do not.  NDP I think is probably biggest loser as if goes well, Liberals get credit while go poorly they get blamed for enabling.

Its a bit of a myth that parties that are junior partners to governing parties in minority parliaments always do badly in the subsequent election. In fact its a very mixed bag. Everyone points to what happened to the Lib Dems in the UK under Nick Clegg in 2015 after 5 years of being in coalition with the Tories. But the fact is the Lib Dems and the Tories were never a good fit. The Lib Dems see themselves as a party of the left and as an "anti-Tory" party, so what Clegg did in 2010 was always seen as a bit of a deal with the devil. Plus Cameron brought in brutal austerity measures that were EXTREMELY unpopular with the people who had voted Lib Dem. It was the equivalent of what would likely happen if the NDP ever made a deal to put the Tories led by Poilievre into power. That would be political suicide.

This is a very different situation and polling has shown that the VAST majority of NDP voters are supportive of a deal with the Liberals - especially one where the NDP gets so many of its policy objectives addressed. Keep in mind that in Ontario in 1985 the NDP signed an accord that put the Ontario Liberals in power. It did not work out so badly for the NDP. In the subsequent 1987 election the Liberals won a majority but the NDP also gained ground and became the official opposition and then in 1990 when Ontarians wanted to throw out the Ontario Liberals - they gave the NDP under Bob Rae a majority!

For the NDP the enemy is invisibility and irrelevance and this deal makes Singh the centre of attention and he can point to how even with just 25 seats he was able to deliver a lot to his voters.

 

I think more issue is Liberals will have been in power for 10 years so some fatigue, but actually getting things like dental care and pharmacare probably popular.  Real elephant in room is does inflation remain high which is bad news or does it come down in which non-issue.

Likewise deficit is manageable now thanks to strong growth, but if deficit starts to spiral out of control then puts parties in tough spot.  Off course raising taxes on rich and corporations easy one, but those are not big revenue raisers so may need to bite bullet and raise GST and not sure if given choice between GST hike with more programs vs. keep GST at 5% and no new programs how public responds.

Liberal Democrats despite crashing didn't all go Labour though.  Southwestern UK mostly went Tory although Labour was very weak there while Tories strong second but if you look at constituencies like Yeovil, it appears most LibDem support swung to Tories not Labour.  Now in urban constituencies yes mostly Labour.

For junior partners, it is a mix in Europe, but more often than not they fall.  Certainly left wing ones as junior partner to right wing have usually ended badly.  One notable exception is SPD in Germany in 2017 who unlike in 2009 when took a hit, they managed to win in 2021 but fact Scholz was seen as continuation of Merkel as already finance minister probably helped a fair bit.

I think bigger problem for NDP is many might figure Liberals are now a progressive party so why not just vote Liberal anyways.  That would also be bad for Tories as they need somewhat of a split on left to win.

[mileslunn]

As usual, Bryan Breguet is an idiot (I don't want to seem mean, but the man is an arrogant bully online, and is often, very, very wrong on things, and isn't willing to admit it). The Tories already have most of the rural ridings outside Quebec. And the ones they don't have are less "rural" and more "remote", which comes with it an entirely different political history. Granted, remote areas are trending more populist, which helps the Conservatives, especially with a weaker PPC. But they still need to do well in the 905, and that should still be their main target in every election. Can't win without it.

And he's of course predicting Pierre Poilievre - a similar personality type - leads the Conservatives to a majority in 2025.  Given that I detest PP's politics, the fact that Breguet is wrong about pretty much everything makes me feel reassured.  

I'm surprised more people haven't pointed out the, what I think are, obvious similarities betweeen Pierre Polievre and Jason Kenney.  Both of them are 'scorched earth' type politicians who seem to have a pathological need to demonize their opponents.  

If anything Kenney strikes me as being slightly more appealing than Polievre: he seems to be slightly smoother than Polievre (although Kenney's positive comments are usually mawkish), and was, at least in the federal cabinet, regarded as a capable minister with an interest in policy. Polievre in the federal cabinet seemed to be all about using his ministries for partisan political purposes.

I appreciate that Republicans in the U.S seem to be primarily interested in communications and not at all interested in governing, and, with Polievre, this sadly seems to be the same direction that many Canadian Conservatives also seem interested in going.

Seems both largely copying from GOP and I am just not sure if that type of politics has same market as in US.  Yes a market for this exists and no doubt often Canada despite our differences does tend to follow American trends to some degree.  Kenney is in a normally reliably conservative province yet trailing in polls and likely to lose to Notley next year so if this type of politics won't sell in Alberta, I fail to see how it will elsewhere.

On other hand, King of PEI and Houston of Nova Scotia are traditional Red Tories and both super popular in provinces federal Tories tend to struggle in.  Now yes being as red as those probably a bridge too far for base, but more something along lines of Doug Ford better as he is no Red Tory, but he does at least have some appeal in suburbs.  Now perhaps Poilievre will tone it down and just doing this as knows Tory base wants this.

Also possible by next election, anger with Liberals so strong it won't matter, but its a very risky proposition in my view.  I tend to think convincing those who voted for other parties to switch is a better strategy than trying to bring out non-voters as one few know exactly make up of this group and two most who stay home are habitual non-voters who are just apathetic and not really of any ideology, just find politics irrelevant and boring.

[mileslunn]

And chasing the PPC vote only enhances the problem of not winning where needed.

He seems to be running on a libertarian like platform and I am not sure libertarianism has near enough support to win nationally.  Its probably true millennials more likely to hold libertarian viewpoints than boomers, but despite some backlash due to pandemic on rules, not sure there is the kind of ground swell on wanting to dramatically reduce government to take him to power.  I think arguing government has gotten a bit too big and will trim its excesses but not blow it up like Charest favours has potential.

[mileslunn]

I see Poilievre is a very high gamble strategy.  If approval of Liberal party falls low enough, then good chance he wins as when people are really angry, they tend to favour radical change and someone who is opposite.  But if people just somewhat upset, I see him being a big flop.  Both Mike Harris and Tim Hudak ran on small government platforms similar to Poilievre while Harris won twice but Hudak lost both times.  To be fair Poilievre is a much better campaigner and not as awkward as Hudak but still point of risk. 

Usually small government platforms tend to sell best when public feels government has overshot.  Think Margaret Thatcher, Mike Harris, Gordon Campbell in BC, Bill Bennett also in BC.  Trudeau is definitely more left wing than Chretien/Martin so Poilievre's strategy wouldn't have worked with Harper, but whether Trudeau is left wing enough to get a backlash to elect someone like Poilievre it is tough to say.

Inflation may not be as big an issue by 2025 and while deficits probably still bad since if growth better than anticipated, Trudeau will just spend more.  A lot depends on if we get any credit downgrades and how many.  No or only one credit downgrade, I doubt people will care too much about deficit.  Multiple ones then they might. 

Other is with childcare, dental care, and pharmacare, its very difficult to undo them once implemented.  First probably is a done deal while latter two if still in early stages may be possible or like what Ford do with prescription drugs under 25, may be scale back only to those who need it.