Collapse of Conservative Party a blessing in disguise?

[Machjo]

Considering that Harper has never formed a majority yet, and that his lack of respect for basic democratic practices has led even some on the right to park their votes in protest with small fringe parties, it's not likely He'll form a majority any time in the near future. Even some conservative voters tempted to vote for the Conservative party will often do so only if they are certain it will not form a majority government!

It's only a matter of time before the current Conservative Party simply implodes, but when that happens, I don't see conservative turning in droves to the left. Instead, what I think is more likely to happen is that many conservatives will turn to independent candidates, and this could have a number of advantages. For one thing, it could reassure moderate conservatives that no conservative party will be able to form a majority, thus making them more comfortable with voting their conscience. This could potentially lead to a conservative majority coalition comprising independent MPs or more likely a combination of independent MPs and one or more conservative parties. This would have the advantage of forming a conservative majority in Parliament while still keeping the conservative coalition in line by virtue of the fact that it is not a party per se with party discipline, but rather a coalition comprising various independent candidates and possibly one or more conservative parties. This would reassure conservatives that it is possible to have a conservative majority in parliament without any one party being granted excessive power.

[Bugs]

The problem is -- who else is there?

Personally, I'm not quite with you on the " ... lack of respect for basic democratic practices ..." thingy. The more I learn about proroguing, the more it seems like a routine thing that Bob Rae (for example) used repeatedly to avoid having his party shredded by public opinion. (The public was nothing less than repulsed by him at the time.) Not a single figure saw it as abusive, and it wasn't because people were trying to be kind to Mr. Rae.

It's like "Time-out for the Olympics." That's all it is. And I say, "Thank God", because all the Liberals are doing is posing and grandstanding. They don't have a single new idea to offer, and if they did, they'd hold it back so nobody else could take the credit away from them.

You have to face some facts. There is no alternative government, with its own diagnosis and solutions, to go to. The alternative would be a coalition between some mix of Liberal, NDP, and Bloc, and whatever the mix, it would solve all of its problems by spending more money. It would likely be a disaster.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Machjo]

Of course I wasn't suggesting an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition for the right, though that would likely be a wise strategic move for the left. Considering that it's almost been done just last year, it should serve as a warning to conservatives that if they don't get their act together soon, they could find themselves with a majority left-leaning coalition come next election. And as for those sitting to the right of centre, though they may prefer a right majority to a left majority, they may also prefer a coalition majority over a party majority, and it does seem that the public mood has become quite skeptical of any party majority in recent years. I've even come across conservatives hesitant to vote Conservative when they perceived that the Conservative Party could form a majority in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party was their preferred party otherwise. That says something to the fact that the public mood has become quite skeptical of parties in general. This is why I think if the right shifted to more independent MPs it could possibly attract more of these centre-right votes precisely because they'd then be less fearful of a party majority on the right.

[Machjo]

Then again,quite honestly I wouldn't mind seeing more independent MPs on the left too. Having a nice mixture of independent MPs regardless of their ideological leanings would free from from party stricture, thus allowing for a freer flow of ideas, with some independent MPs, regardless of ideology, presengin new ideas to the House that would otherwise not see the light of day. This would also make both right and left leaning independent MPs willing to adopt good ideas from each other while parties on both sides must always reject each others' ideas for fear of appearing 'weak' or of admitting that their 'opponent' has just presented a good idea. Independent MPs are likely to be more cooperative on that front, especially since they really have no choice if they want to look for support for their ideas.

[Wild Bill]

Of course I wasn't suggesting an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition for the right, though that would likely be a wise strategic move for the left. Considering that it's almost been done just last year, it should serve as a warning to conservatives that if they don't get their act together soon, they could find themselves with a majority left-leaning coalition come next election. And as for those sitting to the right of centre, though they may prefer a right majority to a left majority, they may also prefer a coalition majority over a party majority, and it does seem that the public mood has become quite skeptical of any party majority in recent years. I've even come across conservatives hesitant to vote Conservative when they perceived that the Conservative Party could form a majority in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party was their preferred party otherwise. That says something to the fact that the public mood has become quite skeptical of parties in general. This is why I think if the right shifted to more independent MPs it could possibly attract more of these centre-right votes precisely because they'd then be less fearful of a party majority on the right.

You are making some very HUGE assumptions! First off, virtually all Conservative voters are painfully aware that independent MP's have very little power in our parliamentary system. They would consider this to be a wasted vote.

Second, while many do not approve of "perogies" it is a BIG stretch to assume that they would care enough to switch their vote! There hasn't been enough time to show if the perogie issue has staying power.

Conservatives have long memories. They remember long stretches when the Liberals were in power and Conservatives had no effective voice at all. That was the whole purpose of the rise of the Reform Party and also why the Right choose to re-unite.

To suggest that they would now choose to fragment into a lot of independent representatives is VERY unlikely!

While you may know the odd Conservative voter it doesn't seem like you have enough of a representative sample to predict how most Tory voters would act.

I wouldn't put any money on your predictions.

[Machjo]

I could very well be wrong, but I do see some kind of change. The left recognizes already that it forms a majority in Parliament at the moment, but that it stays out of power merely because it cannot cooperate effectively to form a coalition, though it almost did that last year. It's only a matter of time before either the right or the left recognizes that to form a majority, you'll need some kind of coalition. The left is already starting to wake up to that, though it seems the right hasn't yet. Perhaps you're right about independent candidates, but I don't see why various right-leaning parties couldn't form a coalition of their own. For example, what about the Conservative Party and the Libertarian Party? If they should swing a little to the left, they might be able to attract members of the Progressive Canadian Party (descended from the old Progressive Conservative Party) an maybe some on the right-leaning end of the Green party. Though this would certainly prevent the formation of any kind of majority party government, it might at least allow for some kind of majority coalition government. And I think whatever side is first across the finish line to forming some kind of coalition is likely to determine whether the next Parliament will be majority left or majority right and, ore importantly, whether that majority will be able to coordinate its efforts effectively through a reasonably stable coalition.

[nicky10013]

There isn't any successer to Harper strong enough to keep the caucus together. There will be no independents and they won't swing left to pick up votes. After Harper is out and Mackay takes over, the old alliance members are going to swing hard right because Harper is the only one who has been able to keep their mouths shut over the past 4 years. They're not going to go independent, wildrose is going to make a very public and federal appearance just like reform after Mulroney. What is it that they say about history repeating itself?

[Topaz]

I would think that if there enough votes from former Alliance members that the next leader would be one of them rather than McKay.One thing is for sure, the Commons can't seat too many more. If the Wildrose Alliance did make it to Parliament, were would they seat? We have the NDP split now on both side of the aisle.

[Bugs]

Of course I wasn't suggesting an NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition for the right, though that would likely be a wise strategic move for the left. Considering that it's almost been done just last year, it should serve as a warning to conservatives that if they don't get their act together soon, they could find themselves with a majority left-leaning coalition come next election.

I can hardly believe it's possible to see things from such opposite ends ... What the last attempt showed -- it you ask me -- is that the Liberals cannot form a coalition with the Bloc without Anglo -Canada mobilizing. That was the move that ended Stephane, remember his expedited exit?

When Iggy started the countdown to the fateful vote that would either throw Canada into an election, or resurrect the poisoned coalition. The reaction of the public was negative, and immediate.

Meanwhile, the stimulus is working. The economy is bad for autoworkers and soft-wood lumber, but it isn't that bad, over the whole country. Our PM is becoming an intenational star. The Olympics is about to open. All is well ... for at least a couple of weeks, while we watch the skiers, and the hockey players.

The bigger point is ... the public may not feel warmly towards Stephen Harper, but they trust him by multiples, as the most competent leader for the times. And, when a depression is going on, its nice to have someone with some proven judgement in the top job.

I don't understand why you think that the Conservatives are on the edge of imploding. Sorry. To me, it's more like we're stuck with them, like it or not. The Liberal Party simply isn't up to the job, at the moment.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Bugs

[Bugs]

I could very well be wrong, but I do see some kind of change. The left recognizes already that it forms a majority in Parliament at the moment, but that it stays out of power merely because it cannot cooperate effectively to form a coalition, though it almost did that last year. It's only a matter of time before either the right or the left recognizes that to form a majority, you'll need some kind of coalition.

Do you know why they were able to unite? Because Harper was threatening their subsidies! Because Harper threatened to take away the $1.95/vote/year that each party gets.

For them, it was like the the end of their expense account life-styles.

That's the only reason!

Imagine the feelings of hatred and rivalry that exist between the Bloc and the Liberals, for instance, the legacy of all the dirty tricks that they had played on each other, over the years. Or the NDP and the Liberals. They hate each other.

Look at the difficulties that the PCs had in merging with the CA. Believe me, they hardly had a history together, compared to the Liberal Party's history with both the NDP and the Bloc. Barring a catastrophe, there's only one way the Liberals can return to the old days ... and that's if the Liberals let Bob Rae go on a drive to power right over the plucky Jack Layton, and the cowering band behind him.

And that's at least one election away.

[nicky10013]

Do you know why they were able to unite? Because Harper was threatening their subsidies! Because Harper threatened to take away the $1.95/vote/year that each party gets.

For them, it was like the the end of their expense account life-styles.

That's the only reason!

Imagine the feelings of hatred and rivalry that exist between the Bloc and the Liberals, for instance, the legacy of all the dirty tricks that they had played on each other, over the years. Or the NDP and the Liberals. They hate each other.

Look at the difficulties that the PCs had in merging with the CA. Believe me, they hardly had a history together, compared to the Liberal Party's history with both the NDP and the Bloc. Barring a catastrophe, there's only one way the Liberals can return to the old days ... and that's if the Liberals let Bob Rae go on a drive to power right over the plucky Jack Layton, and the cowering band behind him.

And that's at least one election away.

Subsidies ensure the healthy operations of the opposition. Though you may not like the subsidy system, brankrupting the opposition isn't healthy for democracy. Though, clearly, a healthy democratic state isn't what Harper has in mind.

[Machjo]

Subsidies ensure the healthy operations of the opposition. Though you may not like the subsidy system, brankrupting the opposition isn't healthy for democracy. Though, clearly, a healthy democratic state isn't what Harper has in mind.

And how does that subsidy benefit the independent MP in Parliament? He seems to be doing just fine without party membership and has even won a few consecutive elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Arthur

Are you suggesting that his riding is lacking in democracy because their MP has no party affiliation?

[nicky10013]

I can hardly believe it's possible to see things from such opposite ends ... What the last attempt showed -- it you ask me -- is that the Liberals cannot form a coalition with the Bloc without Anglo -Canada mobilizing. That was the move that ended Stephane, remember his expedited exit?

When Iggy started the countdown to the fateful vote that would either throw Canada into an election, or resurrect the poisoned coalition. The reaction of the public was negative, and immediate.

Meanwhile, the stimulus is working. The economy is bad for autoworkers and soft-wood lumber, but it isn't that bad, over the whole country. Our PM is becoming an intenational star. The Olympics is about to open. All is well ... for at least a couple of weeks, while we watch the skiers, and the hockey players.

The bigger point is ... the public may not feel warmly towards Stephen Harper, but they trust him by multiples, as the most competent leader for the times. And, when a depression is going on, its nice to have someone with some proven judgement in the top job.

I don't understand why you think that the Conservatives are on the edge of imploding. Sorry. To me, it's more like we're stuck with them, like it or not. The Liberal Party simply isn't up to the job, at the moment.

Hubris. There has never been an olympic bump and the PM isn't an international star. He's a reclusive leader which has been lambasted in the international press in the last few weeks and months.

Canadians don't trust him in the multiples. If they did, his poll numbers wouldn't have plummeted.

The common case of, "well, everyone in Canada must think like I do!"

Also, the CPC is a lot closer to implosion than anyone who supports it would like to think. The party is safe as long as Harper is in control but the minute Harper leaves, the inmates start running the asylum. Mackay is the only viable leader. If he becomes leader, then the party could break up. If an Alliance member gets in, the party could stay together, but without someone with dictatorial tendencies, the party is going to be ruined the same thing that ruined Harper in 2004; candidates that liked to talk a little too much about radical right wing policies they like. Whether the party implodes or stays together and can't keep their message straight, the party is doomed until they find a guy who can keep the crazies quiet.

[nicky10013]

And how does that subsidy benefit the independent MP in Parliament? He seems to be doing just fine without party membership and has even won a few consecutive elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Arthur

Are you suggesting that his riding is lacking in democracy because their MP has no party affiliation?

That assumes the system can survive without parties entirely. Although that's a nice suggestion, I think we both know that'll never happen. The fact is that strong parties ensure a check on the government. Take away the subsidies and the opposition may survive, but they'll be no where near as strong as the government. Whether people buy into the fact that it's designed to save money, it was also a clear shot at the opposition and another notch in Harper's belt marking attempts to completely destroy the Liberals. I think anyone can say with certainty that after his latest escapades that the last thing the Canadian people want are less checks against Harper's government.

[Machjo]

That assumes the system can survive without parties entirely. Although that's a nice suggestion, I think we both know that'll never happen. The fact is that strong parties ensure a check on the government. Take away the subsidies and the opposition may survive, but they'll be no where near as strong as the government. Whether people buy into the fact that it's designed to save money, it was also a clear shot at the opposition and another notch in Harper's belt marking attempts to completely destroy the Liberals. I think anyone can say with certainty that after his latest escapades that the last thing the Canadian people want are less checks against Harper's government.

I'm not questioning your assessment of Harper's motives;he does come across more as a self-interested political tactician that a representative of the people. His intentions aside though, I still liked his idea of cutting subsidies to political parties.

[nicky10013]

I'm not questioning your assessment of Harper's motives;he does come across more as a self-interested political tactician that a representative of the people. His intentions aside though, I still liked his idea of cutting subsidies to political parties.

You may like them for an ideological purpose, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. Everyone likes a cost cutting measure but in the end having a sustainable, working democracy may just be worth the extra 12 million it costs us.

[Machjo]

You may like them for an ideological purpose, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. Everyone likes a cost cutting measure but in the end having a sustainable, working democracy may just be worth the extra 12 million it costs us.

Again, I don't see why a political party is a necessary component of democracy. Nunavut is a non-partisan democratic system, and it's just as democratic as any other as far as I can tell, if not more so.

[nicky10013]

Again, I don't see why a political party is a necessary component of democracy. Nunavut is a non-partisan democratic system, and it's just as democratic as any other as far as I can tell, if not more so.

You're not wrong, it's just that your idealism is getting the best of you. What, do you have this grand notion that if you abolish the subsidy parties will disappear? Its wishful thinking. All it does is empower the Conservatives by drastically reducing the funding base of the opposition. The Liberals might be able to weather the blow, but the NDP and the Bloc probably wouldn't survive. So, you would have a government with a drastically weakened opposition. That's the best case scenario. How is that strengthening democracy?

[Machjo]

You're not wrong, it's just that your idealism is getting the best of you. What, do you have this grand notion that if you abolish the subsidy parties will disappear? Its wishful thinking. All it does is empower the Conservatives by drastically reducing the funding base of the opposition. The Liberals might be able to weather the blow, but the NDP and the Bloc probably wouldn't survive. So, you would have a government with a drastically weakened opposition. That's the best case scenario. How is that strengthening democracy?

First off, remember that this subsidy was to be cut not only for opposition parties, but for the Conservative Party too.

Let's take the worst case scenario just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose the cut in subsidies caused all but the Conservative Party to simply collapse and disappear from existence. This would not automatically cause the whole population to vote Conservative. Honestly, again just for the sake of argument, let's say that in an election you have a choice between a Conservative Party candidate and a few independent candidates with varying ideas. If you were a former NDP voter, would you honestly start to vote Conservative just because of brand recognition? I think not. If anything, such a scenario would likely even lose votes for the Conservative Party as more people would vote independent in recognition of the fact that there is no organized partisan opposition to the Conservatives. Essentially, even conservatives would likely vote for independent conservative candidates simply out of fear of a one-party state. So in that sense, ironically enough, the Conservative Party itself stands to benefit from strong partisan opposition. A weakened party opposition would lose the COnservatives votes too as people began to fear a one-party system.

[nicky10013]

First off, remember that this subsidy was to be cut not only for opposition parties, but for the Conservative Party too.

Let's take the worst case scenario just for the sake of argument. Let's suppose the cut in subsidies caused all but the Conservative Party to simply collapse and disappear from existence. This would not automatically cause the whole population to vote Conservative. Honestly, again just for the sake of argument, let's say that in an election you have a choice between a Conservative Party candidate and a few independent candidates with varying ideas. If you were a former NDP voter, would you honestly start to vote Conservative just because of brand recognition? I think not. If anything, such a scenario would likely even lose votes for the Conservative Party as more people would vote independent in recognition of the fact that there is no organized partisan opposition to the Conservatives. Essentially, even conservatives would likely vote for independent conservative candidates simply out of fear of a one-party state. So in that sense, ironically enough, the Conservative Party itself stands to benefit from strong partisan opposition. A weakened party opposition would lose the COnservatives votes too as people began to fear a one-party system.

That could happen. Every experience in real life, however, in terms of degeneration of a strong opposition says it doesn't. It supposes that this strong independent base would rise up. However, there's a reason why organization and money win elections. Independent cases usually don't stand a chance. A party represents an agreement on ideals as well as the sharing of resources to maxmize results. The only thing that would bring the conservatives down would be the growth of a new party.

[msdogfood]

There isn't any successer to Harper strong enough to keep the caucus together. There will be no independents and they won't swing left to pick up votes. After Harper is out and Mackay takes over, the old alliance members are going to swing hard right because Harper is the only one who has been able to keep their mouths shut over the past 4 years. They're not going to go independent, wildrose is going to make a very public and federal appearance just like reform after Mulroney. What is it that they say about history repeating itself?

all true but look at what happened in the end to the alliance party it split than self destructed!

[msdogfood]

I would think that if there enough votes from former Alliance members that the next leader would be one of them rather than McKay.One thing is for sure, the Commons can't seat too many more. If the Wildrose Alliance did make it to Parliament, were would they seat? We have the NDP split now on both side of the aisle.

Wildrose Alliance is unworn to all of Canada exp Alberta people will see the word Alliance and go hell NO!!!!!!!.

[Wild Bill]

Subsidies ensure the healthy operations of the opposition.

No, subsidies give political parties a free lunch! A party should be able to survive on donations from its members and the citizenry at large who CHOOSE to give money!

A party that relies on government handouts to survive is no different from a private or corporate welfare bum!

[Bugs]

Subsidies ensure the healthy operations of the opposition. Though you may not like the subsidy system, brankrupting the opposition isn't healthy for democracy. Though, clearly, a healthy democratic state isn't what Harper has in mind.

My point is that it took something that hit at their organizational sustenance to get them to agree on a coalition. If they'd ever taken power, can you imagine Iggy presiding over a cabinet with Bob Rae, Jack Layton, and Ralph Goodale in it?

[Smallc]

No, subsidies give political parties a free lunch!

In order to get those subsidies, the parties have to earn the votes of the people. That's not anywhere close to a free lunch.