I like this article. Very realistic approach to how the Conservative party could hope to win a majority government in the next election, but it would require that Conservative members have a good hard look at how collaborative and open minded their prospective leaders-in-waiting are, when all reports point to the fact that the Conservative party is so divided, cut-throat, climate change challenged, regionally biased, and not inclusive enough to ever see a majority, even if Canadians have had enough of Trudeau.
What an interesting piece. It would have been nice to have a word or two on how the CPC party can eat into PPC votes without losing more urban middle of the road voters. I believe the CPC endorsement of the trucker nonsense helped boost the support of the LPC/NDP agreement. If the one of your points,Ken, is that Canada needs a latter day version of a principled center-right conservative option then I would strongly agree.
I liked this piece and agree with a lot of it. And, I'm one of those Ontario centrist voters who definitely is looking for what Ken outlined here. These articles tend to raise the question -- what is the conservative movement really trying to accomplish besides electoral victory?
To me, what's attractive about conservatism, at least as it used to exist in Canada, is the realization that government can be a powerful force for good, but it's a fairly coarse instrument and it's really, really difficult, at the scale of the federal goverment, to predict what a policy initiative might do -- both intentionally and intentionally. Therefore, conservatives constantly weight the ROI on any new big policy initiative. What's the potential benefits? What's the potential cost? And, most importantly, what's the potential risk? Instead of an approach that government should solve almost every problem (NDP) or that government should do as little as possible (pure libertarians), Canadian conservatives used to be good at finding a good compromise, recognizing that public policy, even with great intentions, could cause more problems than it's worth if government doesn't make prudent choices.
That doesn't mean government should avoid some challenges (healthcare, climate change) altogether. In fact, Conservative goverments have come up with really effective public policy (including helping address acid rain) that used market- based approach instead of a heavy handed, top down approach.
To use a sports metaphor, the NDP want to be players in the game. Canadian conservatives used to see the role of government as coming up with a really effective rulebook and allowing citizens to use their skills and creativity to play the game themselves (and define how they wanted to 'win'). By creating a framework for citizens/organizations to act, its an approach that encourages innovation and locally-focused solutions. Within that approach, there's a balance -- a willingness to acknowledge that an issue (say, climate change) exists, along with a concern that a big, expensive government program may be very costly and still not solve the problem. Conservative policy attempts to spread out the risk, encouraging a lot of individual decisions. Frankly, when it comes to climate change, that can (and should) include things like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes and its a shame Conservatives are unwilling to propose models that address their concerns with the current Liberal approach.
In short, I've always had the impression that Canadian Conservatism was different than US Republicanism -- that is was born from Canada being a vast country of different people living far from another, needing both to lean on a community to survive and wanting solutions that suited their local conditions. Whether or not that's what modern Canadian conservatism is about, it's what I'm looking for and no longer finding in any of the major federal parties.
Interest rate rises in the last 2 weeks alone have added ~$5B to the GoC's debt servicing costs, and at least as much for the Provinces at an aggregate level. Rates are only going to rise more, meaning that anyone supporting new spending is delusional. Governments are going to struggle to save the furniture, let alone fund any kind of vision. The CPC needs to focus on first principles: balancing the budget ASAP, creating a framework (ex. efficient infrastructure, consistent and easy to comply regulatory environment) for economic growth that doesn't involve industrial strategy and realistic climate policy (ex. achievable targets that focus on reducing demand rather than restricting supply). The last 3 election campaigns have been about nothing, which obviously favors candidates like Trudeau that have lots of style.
This is a good summary of the dilemma we in the middle are facing. The NDP and the Liberals have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility and are WOKE to the extreme. The Conservatives want to fight battles that were lost 20 to 30 years ago. They destroy leaders who may want to deal with the broader issues of the economy, health care, and defense as the priority issues. And may want to get elected. I would like to vote Conservative but not if they rather be on the far right than right.
I think you missed the social conservative albatross in the room. Until the Conservatives stop trying to tell people how they should live their personal lives, and the decisions they make, they remain unelectable...regardless of how bad the other choices may be. They need to leave the 1950 mentality behind.
Maybe I am idealistic, but I believe that sensible and actionable policies, explained well, can convince voters when set against impractical virtue signaling fluff.
Is climate change a real issue for people on the centre to centre of right? The poll was done by a group whose whole existence is about clinate change. We need a new approach to climate change, the CPC needs a new approach on how to deal with being called the extreme right, fascists and racists. Energy independence incorporating all forms of energy and a realistic approach to how the climate affects us is needed. But it's not about a tax.
Ken and I were caucus researchers at the Commons together back in the day, for different parties, with offices facing each other overlooking Sparks Street. As usual, his analysis is apt, relevant, rigorous, and will likely be ignored. He gets to say "I told you so" more than anyone else I know.
Perhaps it's time to accept that Canada is simply ultra woke and the Liberals have figured out how to tap into that.
The only line of attack the Conservatives could use is housing. If they had a solid housing plan I'd expect Millennials and Gen Z would flock to them, at least till the Liberals figured put how to copy it. The second alternative is Quebec finally comes into the Conservative fold.
This looks like a back door endorsement of Jean Charest to me, no thank you, I have had my fill of Quebec politicians looking out for Quebec and Quebec alone! This unholy alliance between Liberals and NDP should be the kiss of death to both parties and any CPC leader should prevail in 2025 should this alliance actually last that long!
Perhaps the time of the "big tent" party has come and gone. There is a need for a sensible centre right party which reflects the views of conservative leaning Canadian's who who have not drunk the GOP style politics. A party that speaks for "Red Tories" those members who are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal. A party that could actually work with other parties in the commons to produce compromises. It is not hard to see a liberals making deals with such a party. The liberal parties mantra is do what is needed to stay in power. Today, that means making deals with the NDP, tomorrow it could be making deals with a "Progressive" Conservative party. It feels odd to write this as I normally vote NDP. However the voices of the rational conservative Canadians need to be heard, and based on their behavior over the last few months, I don't think that will happen in todays Conservative (reform in Tory clothing party).
If the acolytes of the Right and the Conservative Party of Canada commenting on this thread are representative of the Conservative Party more generally, it's evident today's Conservative Party will not be forming a government in the foreseeable future.
Their views are antithetical to about two thirds of Canadians and inconsistent with facts, evidence, and reality. There is also a meanness of spirit, misanthropy, and a sense of victimization not shared by most Canadians.
To form the government of Canada, the CPC would need to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons, not just a plurality. A plurality would mean other parties would form a 'coalition' that would keep the Conservatives in opposition.
For today's Conservative Party there is no apparent electoral path to a majority, unlike there was for Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives.
A "a strong, stable, national majority government" sounds like a good thing. Right? It's because the words 'strong' and 'stable' seem to be positive aspects. However, Canadian history shows us that strong, stable majority governments are not necessarily good governments for most people and often don't pass sound public policy.
A strong, stable majority government is a very bad thing when it applies to a bad government, as was Stephen Harper's majority government.
So what is "a credible climate plan"? Mitigation (reduction of anthropogenic CO2) or adaptation (infrastructure actions to combat the effects of climate change)? Questioning the feasibility of mitigation does not mean denying that climate change is real, much as left-leaning pundits like to suggest. There are many reputable climate scientists, and others in related disciplines, who are skeptical of mitigation being a necessary or feasible approach to climate change, arguing that much of that approach is based on distortions and misrepresentations of IPCC data. Persons such as Canadians Patrick Moore and Ross McKitrick, and, further afield, Judith Curry, Rupert Darwall, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Willi Soon. You won't see them getting fair coverage in media, but they are out there and the evidence they present, unfashionable and politically-incorrect though it may be, is impressive. Given that the NDP-backed Liberals are likely to stay in office for a while, does this not give the Conservatives time to develop and promote a credible platform that will bring the electorate to recognize that adapation is much more achievable than the chimera of mitigation, and much more realistic in terms of economics.
I like this article. Very realistic approach to how the Conservative party could hope to win a majority government in the next election, but it would require that Conservative members have a good hard look at how collaborative and open minded their prospective leaders-in-waiting are, when all reports point to the fact that the Conservative party is so divided, cut-throat, climate change challenged, regionally biased, and not inclusive enough to ever see a majority, even if Canadians have had enough of Trudeau.
What an interesting piece. It would have been nice to have a word or two on how the CPC party can eat into PPC votes without losing more urban middle of the road voters. I believe the CPC endorsement of the trucker nonsense helped boost the support of the LPC/NDP agreement. If the one of your points,Ken, is that Canada needs a latter day version of a principled center-right conservative option then I would strongly agree.
I liked this piece and agree with a lot of it. And, I'm one of those Ontario centrist voters who definitely is looking for what Ken outlined here. These articles tend to raise the question -- what is the conservative movement really trying to accomplish besides electoral victory?
To me, what's attractive about conservatism, at least as it used to exist in Canada, is the realization that government can be a powerful force for good, but it's a fairly coarse instrument and it's really, really difficult, at the scale of the federal goverment, to predict what a policy initiative might do -- both intentionally and intentionally. Therefore, conservatives constantly weight the ROI on any new big policy initiative. What's the potential benefits? What's the potential cost? And, most importantly, what's the potential risk? Instead of an approach that government should solve almost every problem (NDP) or that government should do as little as possible (pure libertarians), Canadian conservatives used to be good at finding a good compromise, recognizing that public policy, even with great intentions, could cause more problems than it's worth if government doesn't make prudent choices.
That doesn't mean government should avoid some challenges (healthcare, climate change) altogether. In fact, Conservative goverments have come up with really effective public policy (including helping address acid rain) that used market- based approach instead of a heavy handed, top down approach.
To use a sports metaphor, the NDP want to be players in the game. Canadian conservatives used to see the role of government as coming up with a really effective rulebook and allowing citizens to use their skills and creativity to play the game themselves (and define how they wanted to 'win'). By creating a framework for citizens/organizations to act, its an approach that encourages innovation and locally-focused solutions. Within that approach, there's a balance -- a willingness to acknowledge that an issue (say, climate change) exists, along with a concern that a big, expensive government program may be very costly and still not solve the problem. Conservative policy attempts to spread out the risk, encouraging a lot of individual decisions. Frankly, when it comes to climate change, that can (and should) include things like carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes and its a shame Conservatives are unwilling to propose models that address their concerns with the current Liberal approach.
In short, I've always had the impression that Canadian Conservatism was different than US Republicanism -- that is was born from Canada being a vast country of different people living far from another, needing both to lean on a community to survive and wanting solutions that suited their local conditions. Whether or not that's what modern Canadian conservatism is about, it's what I'm looking for and no longer finding in any of the major federal parties.
Interest rate rises in the last 2 weeks alone have added ~$5B to the GoC's debt servicing costs, and at least as much for the Provinces at an aggregate level. Rates are only going to rise more, meaning that anyone supporting new spending is delusional. Governments are going to struggle to save the furniture, let alone fund any kind of vision. The CPC needs to focus on first principles: balancing the budget ASAP, creating a framework (ex. efficient infrastructure, consistent and easy to comply regulatory environment) for economic growth that doesn't involve industrial strategy and realistic climate policy (ex. achievable targets that focus on reducing demand rather than restricting supply). The last 3 election campaigns have been about nothing, which obviously favors candidates like Trudeau that have lots of style.
This is a good summary of the dilemma we in the middle are facing. The NDP and the Liberals have lost any sense of fiscal responsibility and are WOKE to the extreme. The Conservatives want to fight battles that were lost 20 to 30 years ago. They destroy leaders who may want to deal with the broader issues of the economy, health care, and defense as the priority issues. And may want to get elected. I would like to vote Conservative but not if they rather be on the far right than right.
I think you missed the social conservative albatross in the room. Until the Conservatives stop trying to tell people how they should live their personal lives, and the decisions they make, they remain unelectable...regardless of how bad the other choices may be. They need to leave the 1950 mentality behind.
Maybe I am idealistic, but I believe that sensible and actionable policies, explained well, can convince voters when set against impractical virtue signaling fluff.
Is climate change a real issue for people on the centre to centre of right? The poll was done by a group whose whole existence is about clinate change. We need a new approach to climate change, the CPC needs a new approach on how to deal with being called the extreme right, fascists and racists. Energy independence incorporating all forms of energy and a realistic approach to how the climate affects us is needed. But it's not about a tax.
Ken and I were caucus researchers at the Commons together back in the day, for different parties, with offices facing each other overlooking Sparks Street. As usual, his analysis is apt, relevant, rigorous, and will likely be ignored. He gets to say "I told you so" more than anyone else I know.
A $13B pharma/dental initiative might be "wee" to somebody comfortable, but for millions who aren't comfortable, it's a very big deal.
Perhaps it's time to accept that Canada is simply ultra woke and the Liberals have figured out how to tap into that.
The only line of attack the Conservatives could use is housing. If they had a solid housing plan I'd expect Millennials and Gen Z would flock to them, at least till the Liberals figured put how to copy it. The second alternative is Quebec finally comes into the Conservative fold.
This looks like a back door endorsement of Jean Charest to me, no thank you, I have had my fill of Quebec politicians looking out for Quebec and Quebec alone! This unholy alliance between Liberals and NDP should be the kiss of death to both parties and any CPC leader should prevail in 2025 should this alliance actually last that long!
Perhaps the time of the "big tent" party has come and gone. There is a need for a sensible centre right party which reflects the views of conservative leaning Canadian's who who have not drunk the GOP style politics. A party that speaks for "Red Tories" those members who are socially conservative, but fiscally liberal. A party that could actually work with other parties in the commons to produce compromises. It is not hard to see a liberals making deals with such a party. The liberal parties mantra is do what is needed to stay in power. Today, that means making deals with the NDP, tomorrow it could be making deals with a "Progressive" Conservative party. It feels odd to write this as I normally vote NDP. However the voices of the rational conservative Canadians need to be heard, and based on their behavior over the last few months, I don't think that will happen in todays Conservative (reform in Tory clothing party).
If the acolytes of the Right and the Conservative Party of Canada commenting on this thread are representative of the Conservative Party more generally, it's evident today's Conservative Party will not be forming a government in the foreseeable future.
Their views are antithetical to about two thirds of Canadians and inconsistent with facts, evidence, and reality. There is also a meanness of spirit, misanthropy, and a sense of victimization not shared by most Canadians.
To form the government of Canada, the CPC would need to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons, not just a plurality. A plurality would mean other parties would form a 'coalition' that would keep the Conservatives in opposition.
For today's Conservative Party there is no apparent electoral path to a majority, unlike there was for Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives.
A "a strong, stable, national majority government" sounds like a good thing. Right? It's because the words 'strong' and 'stable' seem to be positive aspects. However, Canadian history shows us that strong, stable majority governments are not necessarily good governments for most people and often don't pass sound public policy.
A strong, stable majority government is a very bad thing when it applies to a bad government, as was Stephen Harper's majority government.
So what is "a credible climate plan"? Mitigation (reduction of anthropogenic CO2) or adaptation (infrastructure actions to combat the effects of climate change)? Questioning the feasibility of mitigation does not mean denying that climate change is real, much as left-leaning pundits like to suggest. There are many reputable climate scientists, and others in related disciplines, who are skeptical of mitigation being a necessary or feasible approach to climate change, arguing that much of that approach is based on distortions and misrepresentations of IPCC data. Persons such as Canadians Patrick Moore and Ross McKitrick, and, further afield, Judith Curry, Rupert Darwall, Steven Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Willi Soon. You won't see them getting fair coverage in media, but they are out there and the evidence they present, unfashionable and politically-incorrect though it may be, is impressive. Given that the NDP-backed Liberals are likely to stay in office for a while, does this not give the Conservatives time to develop and promote a credible platform that will bring the electorate to recognize that adapation is much more achievable than the chimera of mitigation, and much more realistic in terms of economics.