Will the Conservatives Dominate Federal Politics for 40 Years?

[August1991]

I have been thinking about this for the past few days and then I read Lawrence Martin's piece today which made me decide to start this thread. (It's the summer doldrums, news is slow, everyone's more or less on vacation - and if they're not, they should be - so it's time to think long term, outside the box.)

The Conservative leader’s foremost talent lies in political engineering. It’s the political fight that consumes his every waking hour. In that sense, a minority government was suitable for him because staying afloat required his foremost skill. It was all politics all the time. An election was always possible. Now he has four years to wait until the next one.

For a political engineering specialist, where’s the challenge? He still faces a problem in Quebec, where he has only a handful of seats (although the province is not necessary for him to win a majority). On the policy front, many of his priorities have been or are being addressed. Being a conservative, running an oversized government is a shortcoming he must address. But with the cuts demanded by the budget deficit and with built-in limits on revenue-gathering, a shrinkage will inevitably take place.

Lawrence Martin

I think Martin, ever the Liberal, is reading Harper wrong. And maybe Harper, above all, is a good custodian manager.

----

I was think about this because Peter Lougheed defeated another Manning and established a 40 year reign of (Progressive) Conservatives in Alberta.

In Ontario, George Drew defeated feuding Liberals (including a Toronto Star Hepburn) to establish a 40 year reign of (Progressive) Conservatives in Ontario.

I don't think Stephen Harper is a Peter Lougheed or a George Drew. He's more a Leslie Frost, Mackenzie King or Maurice Duplessis, confronted with an Internet world. Harper, like Jean Charest, is a survivor.

----

At present, the Conservative federal coalition is largely based on Ontario, Alberta and rural BC. These places have historically voted for the same party year after year. Many voters there pick a political party and if the party manages government affairs honestly and reasonably well, the many voters will show up to vote election after election.

It's like a Ford F150. "That's my truck, and that's what I buy." No need to do research.

I lived in Alberta under Lougheed and travelled to Ontario under Bill Davis (although I never met either of them). At the time, I was young, Leftish and my English was not good and for the life of me, I couldn't understand why people in either province continued to vote for Lougheed and Davis. (Later, through work, I met Dennis Timbrell and Frank Miller, and then I understood better why the Ontario Conservatives lost power.)

Harper may be right. Like the PCs in Ontario and Alberta, the federal Conservatives now rely on parts of the country that have solid values, or at least they use their time wisely. (To urban journalists, those yokels vote the way they pick trucks.) IOW, they pick a party and if the party manages affairs well, they leave it to do its job.

We may be facing a 40 year federal Conservative dynasty.

Edited July 12, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Harper may be right. Like the PCs in Ontario and Alberta, the federal Conservatives now rely on a part of the country that have solid values.

Sure. Anyone not voting Conservative lacks "solid values."

(To urban journalists, those yokels vote the way they pick trucks.)

?? That was precisely your assertion, a mere few lines up!

[TimG]

We may be facing a 40 year federal Conservative dynasty.

Not likely. All parties in power are eventually corrupted by power. This is partially due to complacency and partially due to the fact that parties in power attract candidates that are interested in power rather than ideals. My biggest worry is when the inevitable collapse comes that the NDP are the default alternative. The last thing we need is a party beholden to unions running the federal government. Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG

[August1991]

Sorry, I'm going to turn into a pale imitation of James Joyce for the next few lines.

?? That was precisely your assertion, a mere few lines up!

It was, wasn't it.

But then, I live in Montreal. IOW, I'm urban and probably gay. I must be Liberal/NDP or more likely separatist. I'm one of those "journalists".

Speaking of journalists, I think the MSM columnists such as Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hébert are going to have a hard time in the future.

The Louise Beaudoins of this world have paid their "gravy train" but they no longer have a ticket to ride.

[August1991]

Not likely. All parties in power are eventually corrupted by power.

For over 40 years, the Ontario and Alberta (Progressive) Conservatives were not corrupted. They delivered honest, good, conservative management of public resources. More or less.

What makes you think that we can't have that at the federal level?

Edited July 12, 2011 by August1991

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Will the Conservatives Dominate Federal Politics for 40 Years?

Yes.

Baby boomers want to keep the pyramid scam of a society they created funneling money to their needs at the expense of the younger generations. Conservatives will uphold this as grumpy old people are more likely to vote conservative. They wouldn't want to lose that vote.

[scribblet]

No - usually voters get tired of one party after 2- 3 majorities and boot them out anyway.

[August1991]

Baby boomers want to keep the pyramid scam of a society they created funneling money to their needs at the expense of the younger generations.

In the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s Ontario Conservatives won election after an election at a time of growing population. In the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, Albertan Conservatives won election after an election at a time of growing population.

So, MCC, if I understand your argument, Conservatives are successful when governments promise more State-provided services. As opposed to Leftists (eg. NDP) who want to reduce/control these public expenses.

Sorry. I'm going to follow the logic of my OP arguing that Conservatives - in two key provinces - manage public finances well, and get re-elected, year after year, for 40 years.

Conservatives will uphold this as grumpy old people are more likely to vote conservative. They wouldn't want to lose that vote.

I didn't mention this in my OP because I didn't think that it was key. But it's another factor.

Voters are getting older, older voters vote more than younger voters, and older people tend to be conservative. Get off my lawn!

Like it or not, the western world and Canada are getting older. It's another issue.

Edited July 12, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

No - usually voters get tired of one party after 2- 3 majorities and boot them out anyway.

In Alberta and Ontario, the voters didn't get tired of Conservative majorities, or boot them out. Ontario and Alberta voters elected the same party in power for over 40 years.

Scribblet, Harper now relies on Alberta and Ontario for his federal majority. That's the point of my OP.

----

Voters in Ontario and Alberta choose a party, expect it to manage public affairs well, and then the voters get on with their life. As long as the political party is honest and manages public affairs well, the voters will re-elect the party on election day.

Edited July 12, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Sure. Anyone not voting Conservative lacks "solid values."

BM, before I saw your comment, I edited my post and added the phrase about using time. IMV, most Conservative voters use their time wisely.

But to answer your post, I think most Conservative voters have "solid values." OTOH, Leftists (NDP, federal Liberals) are often flakes. They follow the mob. Their values are fungible.

[punked]

BM, before I saw your comment, I edited my post and added the phrase about using time. IMV, most Conservative voters use their time wisely.

But to answer your post, I think most Conservative voters have "solid values." OTOH, Leftists (NDP, federal Liberals) are often flakes. They follow the mob. Their values are fungible.

You win dumbest post of the day.

[Evening Star]

In the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s Ontario Conservatives won election after an election at a time of growing population. In the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, Albertan Conservatives won election after an election at a time of growing population.

So, MCC, if I understand your argument, Conservatives are successful when governments promise more State-provided services. As opposed to Leftists (eg. NDP) who want to reduce/control these public expenses.

But were Bill Davis's PCs really conservative in the present-day sense? I haven't studied it much but what I've heard and read, they were a little to the left of the Ontario Liberals of the time on labour and social programmes.

[August1991]

But were Bill Davis's PCs really conservative in the present-day sense?

As Americans say: Gee whiz, I dunno. But managing public affairs well, and honestly, I vote for that!

Then again, it's more relevant to Stephen Harper that many voters in Alberta and Ontario have established their voting pattern.

You win dumbest post of the day.

Punked, I wear your award with pride. Edited July 12, 2011 by August1991

[eyeball]

I think most Conservative voters have "solid values." OTOH, Leftists (NDP, federal Liberals) are often flakes. They follow the mob. Their values are fungible.

That doesn't automatically make Conservative values any less stupider.

[August1991]

That doesn't automatically make Conservative values any less stupider.

Eyeball, I think the point of my OP is that for Leftists, Harper can establish a 40 year hegemony. For people on the Right, Harper can establish a regime that keeps government away from ordinary people.

In Alberta and Ontario, such regimes were so successful, voters freely chose them about every four years for 40 years.

Were Alberta and Ontario one party States? Not at all. Voters had alternatives at every election.

----

With a base in Alberta and Ontario, I think Harper has arguably the basis of a federal 40 year dynasty.

[Wild Bill]

Sure. Anyone not voting Conservative lacks "solid values."

?? That was precisely your assertion, a mere few lines up!

BM, you seem to have a perpetual blind spot. Why can't many conservative voters be yokels that HAVE solid values?

It always seems that to you voters, groups or just people are all one way or another. Or maybe more subtly, you expect a writer to either totally praise them or totally lampoon them.

Human beings usually make odd mixes, you know.

[capricorn]

With a base in Alberta and Ontario, I think Harper has arguably the basis of a federal 40 year dynasty.

Since we're presupposing all types of scenarios, what if the Ontario PCs dethrone Dalton and stay in power for a decade or so. I could see Ontarians turn to a revitalized federal Liberal party en masse as a counterbalance. As a consequence, there goes Harper's Conservative base in Ontario and Liberal federal fortunes rise from the ashes.

[Remiel]

August, I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. In the unlikely event that Conservatives made it eventwenty years, I think we would be looking at a two party state soon after. If not sooner, like it twelve.

[August1991]

August, I am sorry, but you are out to lunch.

Ontario voters re-elected the same party for over 40 years. Albertan voters also voted for the the same party for over 40 years. Voters in both provinces apparently did this because the provincial Conservative party offered good government management.

Stephen Harper has a voter base in Ontario and Alberta. Following similar logic, why can't his federal Conservative party get re-elected for the next 40 years?

[Wild Bill]

Since we're presupposing all types of scenarios, what if the Ontario PCs dethrone Dalton and stay in power for a decade or so. I could see Ontarians turn to a revitalized federal Liberal party en masse as a counterbalance. As a consequence, there goes Harper's Conservative base in Ontario and Liberal federal fortunes rise from the ashes.

The idea that Ontarioans deliberately choose to alternate between Liberals and Tories is a nonsequitur. Just because it happened that way for many years doesn't mean it was a deliberate choice.

After all, Bill Davis was the most pink of Tories! It would be easy to spin an argument that despite the difference in names there really were two Liberal parties in power at the same time. Despite the fact that the left despised him Mike Harris was the first and perhaps last Conservative to rule Ontario in many decades.

Just because a thing looks like a product of something else doesn't mean it is. It can be mere coincidence. Logic is a mental exercise and you can logically prove ANYTHING as long as you restrict the facts just to those that support your argument.

Like so:

"No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore, all cats have nine tails."

[Remiel]

Ontario voters re-elected the same party for over 40 years. Albertan voters also voted for the the same party for over 40 years. Voters in both provinces apparently did this because the provincial Conservative party offered good government management.

Stephen Harper has a voter base in Ontario and Alberta. Following similar logic, why can't his federal Conservative party get re-elected for the next 40 years?

So what if he has a voter base in Ontario and Alberta? In case you had not noticed, voters in Ontario and Alberta do not vote in identical ways at the provincial and federal levels, and do not vote for identical reasons at those levels. Are you next going to argue that because Frank McKenna swept New Brunswick the Liberals were ever in a position to sweep Canada?

And the notion that the federal politics of the next forty years is going to be anything like provincial politics of the last sixty is patently absurd. We live in a different world than the one that spawned PC dominance in Ontario and Alberta. Unless you are arguing that Canada is going to be a totalitarian fascist dictatorship, the advent of new technologies will increase the pressure on politicians so much that such long term success in anything but the most uniform states will be verifiably impossible.

[Molly]

In Alberta and Ontario, such regimes were so successful, voters freely chose them about every four years for 40 years.

Were Alberta and Ontario one party States? Not at all. Voters had alternatives at every election.

I can't speak for Ontario, but 'one party state' is pretty much how I'd describe Alberta.

One of my brothers-in-law went looking for a PC federal nomination in Alberta--ooh, 3 times IIRC, and came within a recount of winning it. He ran PC because it was the only game in town, not because that party reflected his politics. (It didn't.)

[peg_city]

We may be facing a 40 year federal Conservative dynasty.

Possible, but not probable.

Conservative domination in Alberta was/is a reflection of a very strong economy which is a recipe for the status quo. The conservatives initially taking office in the 70's from a social party was a reflection on the oil boom which obviously propelled the economy. (I'm not to familiar with Ontario)

There is way to much uncertainty now (globally) to assume the conservatives will be able to ride a wave of affluency. IMO, there is a much stronger chance of a NDP government winning an election over the next 40 years then the conservatives remaining in power for that long. Again, possible, but not probable.

Edited July 13, 2011 by peg_city

[peg_city]

double post

Edited July 13, 2011 by peg_city

[jbg]

We may be facing a 40 year federal Conservative dynasty.

Stateside we heard the same logic about a permanent majority for the PCPC in 1984 and 1988, and for the LPC after the 1997 re-election and 2000. As Harold Wilson said a week in politics is a long time.