One "Centrist" Party, or Two Parties Fighting for the Centre?

[August1991]

From Confederation to 1896, the Conservatives largely dominated Canada's federal politics. Since Laurier in 1896, the Liberal Party largely dominated Canada's federal politics. There were a few, short, exceptional interregnums - often because of a political scandal, simple fatigue or the death/retirement of a key player. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Trudeau are all identified as key power brokers in Canada's federal politics.

So, is Canada ready for a new scheme in federal politics: two ideological parties fighting for the centre?

At first glance, the coming election (2015 or so) would seem to be a fight between a right-wing Conservative Party and a left-wing NDP for the proverbial median voter. Under this scenario, the old federal Liberal Party vote will split "evenly": half going Tory and the other half going to Mulcair. (More or less.) Presumably, the Tories and the NDP will both tone down their radical fringes and play to the middle of the road.

In 2015, I think that this is a likely scenario. In attack ads, Tories will point out the extreme leftist nature of the NDP. Similarly, the Left will refer to Harper & the Tories as C.R.A.P. (Conservative Alliance Reform Party). Ultimately though, reasonable Mulcair and Harper will force the swing federal to choose (wedge style) between Leftish and Rightish.

And I suppose in theory, every federal election after 2015 will have a similar scenario: the Tories and the NDP will fight for the centre, but arriving from different ideological origins.

Federal Canada will be a two party state.

-----

I doubt however that this will come to pass. Canada's history suggests otherwise.

IMV, regionalism - not ideology - drives Canada's federal politics. It would be wiser to look at how the median voter in regions votes than a mythical "Canadian" median voter.

For example, Macdonald's Conservatives and King's Liberals, arguably, had no ideology and succeeded because they managed regional interests. These regional interests still exist today. To be successful, a federal government must manage them.

As much as I would like to see two different (ideological) parties competing for control of the federal parliament, I happen to think that Canada's federal scene will more likely return to one dominant party managing regional interests internally. This is how Macdonald, King, Laurier, St-Laurent, Trudeau managed the federal government.

Who will be the next dominant party in Canada's federal politics?

Harper & the Tories have visibly botched Quebec. In so doing, they have lost a large chunk of the Ontario vote. I suspect that too many voters in too many parts of Canada no longer believe that Harper has the ability/credibility to broker Canada's regional interests. IMV, this explains why the federal Tories are stuck at about 35% in polls.

The NDP comes with baggage but Mulcair still has the credibility to mesh regional votes.

[Remember Swissair? It's now Swiss Plus - after a plane crash and bankruptcy. Similarly, the federal NDP is the federal Liberal Party, rebranded after going through a criminal investigation and bankruptcy proceedings.]

Edited June 16, 2012 by August1991

[Fletch 27]

Steve Harper has already accomplished this.. Who will be the next dominanat party? You are in it! Thank god for the changing tide,.... We have reached financial prudence and Steve Harper has captured the middle ground... The middle class...

No more Liberals Sponsorship scandals,no more NDP flops or flop houses (jack layton and his rub n tugss). We Finally have a Gov that is the envy of the world over..

Canada is now the TOP of the G20..... We are dictating policy....... We are the "teacher" we have the highest standard of living (if your outside of ontario).

The Tories ha e brow-beaten the left and the right... Finally... The Natural governing party of Canada. I'm feeling great about our next 8 years or more..

From Confederation to 1896, the Conservatives largely dominated Canada's federal politics. Since Laurier in 1896, the Liberal Party largely dominated Canada's federal politics. There were a few, short, exceptional interregnums - often because of a political scandal, simple fatigue or the death/retirement of a key player. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Trudeau are all identified as key power brokers in Canada's federal politics.

So, is Canada ready for a new scheme in federal politics: two ideological parties fighting for the centre?

At first glance, the coming election (2015 or so) would seem to be a fight between a right-wing Conservative Party and a left-wing NDP for the proverbial median voter. Under this scenario, the old federal Liberal Party vote will split "evenly": half going Tory and the other half going to Mulcair. (More or less.) Presumably, the Tories and the NDP will both tone down their radical fringes and play to the middle of the road.

In 2015, I think that this is a likely scenario. In attack ads, Tories will point out the extreme leftist nature of the NDP. Similarly, the Left will refer to Harper & the Tories as C.R.A.P. (Conservative Alliance Reform Party). Ultimately though, reasonable Mulcair and Harper will force the swing federal to choose (wedge style) between Leftish and Rightish.

And I suppose in theory, every federal election after 2015 will have a similar scenario: the Tories and the NDP will fight for the centre, but arriving from different ideological origins.

Federal Canada will be a two party state.

-----

I doubt however that this will come to pass. Canada's history suggests otherwise.

IMV, regionalism - not ideology - drives Canada's federal politics. It would be wiser to look at how the median voter in regions votes than a mythical "Canadian" median voter.

For example, Macdonald's Conservatives and King's Liberals, arguably, had no ideology and succeeded because they managed regional interests. These regional interests still exist today. To be successful, a federal government must manage them.

As much as I would like to see two different (ideological) parties competing for control of the federal parliament, I happen to think that Canada's federal scene will more likely return to one dominant party managing regional interests internally. This is how Macdonald, King, Laurier, St-Laurent, Trudeau managed the federal government.

Who will be the next dominant party in Canada's federal politics?

Harper & the Tories have visibly botched Quebec. In so doing, they have lost a large chunk of the Ontario vote. I suspect that too many voters in too many parts of Canada no longer believe that Harper has the ability/credibility to broker Canada's regional interests.

The NDP comes with baggage but Mulcair still has the credibility to mesh regional votes.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Fletch 27

[August1991]

Steve Harper has already accomplished this..

Harper has not shown that he can successfully manage Canada's varied regional interests.

The Tories are not on the radar of Quebec voters. Because of this, many voters in the Maritimes and Ontario have lost interest in Harper.

Worse, with his "energy" promotion, Harper is open to perceptions that he defends only Albertan interests.

----

In English Canada, Trudeau and Laurier were constantly attacked for defending Quebec interests over other regional interests. They survived by bending over backward to defend regional interests elsewhere. (In Laurier's first cabinet, he alone was the only francophone minister; all the others were WASPs.)

As an MP from Calgary, Harper should know Canada better. It is a federal state for a reason: Canada works best when individual Canadians are not forced to choose between the federal government, and their region.

Edited June 16, 2012 by August1991

[Fletch 27]

No one will manage qc.... Unless it's done go sooth them....Canada has figured that out

Harper has not shown that he can successfully manage Canada's varied regional interests.

The Tories are not on the radar of Quebec voters. Because of this, many voters in the Maritimes and Ontario have lost interest in Harper.

Worse, with his "energy" promotion, Harper is open to perceptions that he defends only Albertan interests.

----

Trudeau and Laurier were constantly attacked for defending Quebec interests over other regional interests. They survived by bending over backward to defend regional interests elsewhere. (In Laurier's first cabinet, he alone was the only francophone minister; all the others were WASPs.)

As an MP from Calgary, Harper should know Canada better. It is a federal state for a reason: Canada works best when Canadians are not forced to choose between the federal government, and their region.

[jacee]

Steve Harper has already accomplished this.. Who will be the next dominanat party? You are in it! Thank god for the changing tide,.... We have reached financial prudence and Steve Harper has captured the middle ground... The middle class...

No more Liberals Sponsorship scandals,no more NDP flops or flop houses (jack layton and his rub n tugss). We Finally have a Gov that is the envy of the world over..

Canada is now the TOP of the G20..... We are dictating policy....... We are the "teacher" we have the highest standard of living (if your outside of ontario).

The Tories ha e brow-beaten the left and the right... Finally... The Natural governing party of Canada. I'm feeling great about our next 8 years or more..

That doesn't give me much confidence.

BTW ... you do know that Harper HATES to be called "Steve"?

And Harper is not "dictating" to the G20: It just happens that he agrees with them - ie, that the richest must be toadied to at all costs, and the rest of us must suffer "austerity".

It's not exactly an original idea.

[TheNewTeddy]

Parties contain more than one group of voters.

At one time, Labour voters would vote Conservative. Of course this was back in the 1870s and 1880s.

Up to the 1930's, Liberals had free-traders, capitalists, and generally wanted a smaller government. These are all voting groups that vote Conservative today.

Some groups have remained with their parties throughout history. Voters who want an evolving social policy have always been Liberal. Voters who want a traditional social policy have always been Conservative.

Confusing things; people can belong to more than one voting bloc. A Motorist, who wants less traffic, can also be a Home owner, who wants reasonable/low property taxes. Of course, property taxes are needed to build new roads. This is what creates a swing voter.

Looking to the future, what do I see personally?

Shrinking Groups:

>Any group that has an interest in any social policy. Gays, Abortion, etc etc. This debate is on the way out.

>Socialists and Pro-Union types.

Growing Groups:

>Those who want radical change of some sort.

>Those who want lower taxes, or stable tax rates at current levels.

>Fiscal Libertarians

[August1991]

Looking to the future, what do I see personally?

Shrinking Groups:

>Any group that has an interest in any social policy. Gays, Abortion, etc etc. This debate is on the way out.

>Socialists and Pro-Union types.

Growing Groups:

>Those who want radical change of some sort.

>Those who want lower taxes, or stable tax rates at current levels.

>Fiscal Libertarians

Blah-blah nonsense. Like too often, the MSM.

BTW ... you do know that Harper HATES to be called "Steve"?

jacee, your comment is stupid. Why bother posting it?

-----

The question is about Canada's federal politics.

Will we have one party that argues/negotiates internally, or two parties who argue in the street.

Edited June 16, 2012 by August1991

[Topaz]

Fletch, I gotta ask you this, what would Harper have to do, to lose your vote? As far as the Middle-Class, many of them are unemployed and many will be joining the unemployed so don't say Harper is for the middle-class cause it isn't true. Sometimes the way you go on about Harper, only a son could love.....are you really Ben?

[Wild Bill]

Harper has not shown that he can successfully manage Canada's varied regional interests.

The Tories are not on the radar of Quebec voters. Because of this, many voters in the Maritimes and Ontario have lost interest in Harper.

August, times have changed! Harper has proven that a party can win a majority without Quebec!

Quebec IS a very different culture with very different values. Unfortunately, those values seem to be unique and not shared by most of TROC.

Quebecers may have made themselves irrelevant.

[cybercoma]

imho, the Liberals will collapse and a new third-party will form (unless the Liberals can manage to sell this themselves). That party will be fiscally liberal (in the European sense) and socially liberal. They will carry some of the Reform values and some of the social values of the NDP. That's where the Liberals need to be. That kind of party would ideally be able to show how far Harper has moved from his Reform roots, while showing that the NDP cannot handle fiscal matters responsibly. That's what needs to rise from the Liberals' ashes and I believe that kind of pragmatic party can be successful in Canada. A party that "tells it like it is," as Andrew Coyne called it.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper has not shown that he can successfully manage Canada's varied regional interests.

The Tories are not on the radar of Quebec voters. Because of this, many voters in the Maritimes and Ontario have lost interest in Harper.

The problem with Quebec is that Federal leaders have in the past tried to include Quebec by throwing money at it. The reality is that Quebec has become much different than the rest of Canada - far more socialistically inclined. That's why they have so much debt. Harper's approach is right - respect their difference but stop trying to buy them off. It's time for Quebec to realize that they have to start taking some steps towards Canada - less corruption, more fiscal responsibility. We're not going to throw money at them any more. If you'd step back for a minute and looked at things objectively, you could make a strong argument that the NDP would like to make Canada more like Quebec. And to that I say, no thank you!

Edited June 16, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Fletch 27]

+ 1

No more feeding the pig with fancy bacon... Nice post BTW

The problem with Quebec is that Federal leaders have in the past tried to include Quebec by throwing money at it. The reality is that Quebec has become much different than the rest of Canada - far more socialistically inclined. That's why they have so much debt. Harper's approach is right - respect their difference but stop trying to buy them off. It's time for Quebec to realize that they have to start taking some steps towards Canada - less corruption, more fiscal responsibility. We're not going to throw money at them any more. If you'd step back for a minute and looked at things objectively, you could make a strong argument that the NDP would like to make Canada more like Quebec. And to that I say, no thank you!

[Topaz]

Speculation of maybe Andrew Coyne taking a run of the leadership for the Liberals, some say he could lead the new centrist liberal party. I've seen and heard him on tv but don't know enough to know where his views are. The following article which talk about Coyne, thinks also that Dominic Le Blanc may not run and if not then Justin could be nothing has be announced officially. Thoughts on Andrew as leader of a party? http://www.bourque.org/

Edited June 17, 2012 by Topaz

[punked]

imho, the Liberals will collapse and a new third-party will form (unless the Liberals can manage to sell this themselves). That party will be fiscally liberal (in the European sense) and socially liberal. They will carry some of the Reform values and some of the social values of the NDP. That's where the Liberals need to be. That kind of party would ideally be able to show how far Harper has moved from his Reform roots, while showing that the NDP cannot handle fiscal matters responsibly. That's what needs to rise from the Liberals' ashes and I believe that kind of pragmatic party can be successful in Canada. A party that "tells it like it is," as Andrew Coyne called it.

That party would never be able to raise the money to get off the ground. The Liberals govern like they do because they can't take positions that would drive the money away. The NDP and Conservatives to. Like it or not a party can only go so far with its donors before its donors leave the party and the party dies.

[August1991]

imho, the Liberals will collapse and a new third-party will form (unless the Liberals can manage to sell this themselves). That party will be fiscally liberal (in the European sense) and socially liberal. They will carry some of the Reform values and some of the social values of the NDP. That's where the Liberals need to be. That kind of party would ideally be able to show how far Harper has moved from his Reform roots, while showing that the NDP cannot handle fiscal matters responsibly. That's what needs to rise from the Liberals' ashes and I believe that kind of pragmatic party can be successful in Canada. A party that "tells it like it is," as Andrew Coyne called it.

Cybercoma, this quote shows that you (like many others) are wedded to the idea that ideology drives Canada's federal politics. (You argue that the federal Liberals would be popular if they were "fiscally liberal (in the European sense) and socially liberal".

I think this viewpoint is mistaken. Canada's federal government serves to manage competing regional interests. Ideology is not really involved.

A better comparison might be managing a hospital where there are different departments. The central administration wants to ensure that the various groups work together best. Budgets and personnel decisions are usually difficult but any kind of decision has the potential to pit pediatricians against oncologists, or professionals against support staff. Like provincial PMs, doctors are notoriously difficult to manage.

By such a comparison, it makes little sense to talk of "fiscal/social liberal" administration. For people who view politics always through the prism of ideology, this observation of our federal regime is hard to digest.

----

In my OP, I genuinely wonder whether a system of Party A and Party B competing for this mediator role is viable. I don't think it is and this may explain why one party has typically dominated Canadian federal politics.

I then venture (perhaps prematurely) that the NDP will become Canada's next federal mediator because apparently, Harper's Conservatives have visibly failed at the task.

The following article which talk about Coyne, thinks also that Dominic Le Blanc may not run and if not then Justin could be nothing has be announced officially. Thoughts on Andrew as leader of a party?

If anyone notable tries to lead the federal Liberal Party, they will just succeed in doing what Joe Clark Part II did with the PCs: they will divide the anti-Harper vote and Harper will get re-elected with a majority in 2015. Edited June 18, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

August, times have changed! Harper has proven that a party can win a majority without Quebec!

Quebec IS a very different culture with very different values. Unfortunately, those values seem to be unique and not shared by most of TROC.

Quebecers may have made themselves irrelevant.

Canada has more regions than ROC and Quebec. But admittedly, Quebec is often the first region seen by some.

The problem with Quebec is that Federal leaders have in the past tried to include Quebec by throwing money at it. The reality is that Quebec has become much different than the rest of Canada - far more socialistically inclined. That's why they have so much debt. Harper's approach is right - respect their difference but stop trying to buy them off. It's time for Quebec to realize that they have to start taking some steps towards Canada - less corruption, more fiscal responsibility. We're not going to throw money at them any more. If you'd step back for a minute and looked at things objectively, you could make a strong argument that the NDP would like to make Canada more like Quebec. And to that I say, no thank you!

[in fact, Quebec's fiscal situation is not bad once you take into account the assets of the Caisse, and Hydro-Québec. Moreover, Quebec's public sector obligations are smaller than elsewhere in Canada since public sector wages/benefits are less generous. But that's a debate for a different thread.]

[is Quebec more leftist than the rest of Canada? I'm not prepared to say that. About 30% of Quebec high school students attend private (State-subsidized) schools.]

[in 2012, are relations between Quebec and ROC at a nadir? Is Quebec more distinct/likely to separate than before? I doubt it. In 1970, the FLQ kidnapped and killed a federalist cabinet minister. In 1940, the federal government arrested and imprisoned (without trial) the mayor of Montreal. Relations have been worse.]

Keepitsimple, yours is a classic meme in English Canada and it's really just the start to understanding Canadian federalism. Why? Because after Quebec, there's also the Maritimes that get a free ride in Canada. And how about Hogtown? Or the bailout of GM in southern Ontario? With oil at $100 a barrel, Alberta seems to be calling the shots now but just 15 years ago, oil was at $15 a barrel. Do Canadians want to put all their economic eggs in an oil price basket? Like the gold mining towns of northern Quebec and Ontario, Calgary has a casino mentality: quitte ou double.

What I mean to say is that Alberta may be rich now, but most Canadians are uncomfortable with wealth earned the way Alberta earns it. And anyway, one region should not dictate federal government direction. The federal government must broker various regional interests. Ideally, a plurality of people in each part of Canada will be happy with the federal governments decisions.

----

When English-Canadians engage in Quebec bashing, I generally figure that they are Canadians frustrated with the regional compromises of our federal system and they are picking on the first obviously different region of the country.

Au Québec, il y en a qui détestent les Anglais mais au fonds, ils veulent simplement diriger leurs propres affaires chez eux à leur manière. Ils sont tannés du régime fédéral. Such is Canada.

Edited June 18, 2012 by August1991

[Guest Derek L]

From Confederation to 1896, the Conservatives largely dominated Canada's federal politics. Since Laurier in 1896, the Liberal Party largely dominated Canada's federal politics. There were a few, short, exceptional interregnums - often because of a political scandal, simple fatigue or the death/retirement of a key player. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Trudeau are all identified as key power brokers in Canada's federal politics.

So, is Canada ready for a new scheme in federal politics: two ideological parties fighting for the centre?

At first glance, the coming election (2015 or so) would seem to be a fight between a right-wing Conservative Party and a left-wing NDP for the proverbial median voter. Under this scenario, the old federal Liberal Party vote will split "evenly": half going Tory and the other half going to Mulcair. (More or less.) Presumably, the Tories and the NDP will both tone down their radical fringes and play to the middle of the road.

In 2015, I think that this is a likely scenario. In attack ads, Tories will point out the extreme leftist nature of the NDP. Similarly, the Left will refer to Harper & the Tories as C.R.A.P. (Conservative Alliance Reform Party). Ultimately though, reasonable Mulcair and Harper will force the swing federal to choose (wedge style) between Leftish and Rightish.

And I suppose in theory, every federal election after 2015 will have a similar scenario: the Tories and the NDP will fight for the centre, but arriving from different ideological origins.

Federal Canada will be a two party state.

-----

I doubt however that this will come to pass. Canada's history suggests otherwise.

IMV, regionalism - not ideology - drives Canada's federal politics. It would be wiser to look at how the median voter in regions votes than a mythical "Canadian" median voter.

For example, Macdonald's Conservatives and King's Liberals, arguably, had no ideology and succeeded because they managed regional interests. These regional interests still exist today. To be successful, a federal government must manage them.

As much as I would like to see two different (ideological) parties competing for control of the federal parliament, I happen to think that Canada's federal scene will more likely return to one dominant party managing regional interests internally. This is how Macdonald, King, Laurier, St-Laurent, Trudeau managed the federal government.

Who will be the next dominant party in Canada's federal politics?

Harper & the Tories have visibly botched Quebec. In so doing, they have lost a large chunk of the Ontario vote. I suspect that too many voters in too many parts of Canada no longer believe that Harper has the ability/credibility to broker Canada's regional interests. IMV, this explains why the federal Tories are stuck at about 35% in polls.

The NDP comes with baggage but Mulcair still has the credibility to mesh regional votes.

[Remember Swissair? It's now Swiss Plus - after a plane crash and bankruptcy. Similarly, the federal NDP is the federal Liberal Party, rebranded after going through a criminal investigation and bankruptcy proceedings.]

I agree to an extent with your assessment about regionalism, but with said regionalism (Ontario aside) there very much so is a divide between ideologies, with namely Alberta and Quebec being at the polar opposites and the other Provinces gravitating to either with varying degrees (Ontario aside).

The reality is the “West” based on demographics, growth etc can reasonably be considered “New Canada” with Quebec & East as “Old Canada”, and this will be reflected with the next distribution of seats for Parliament…..Where does this leave Ontario, the provable “King maker” to Government?

Simple, at the crossroads between both “New” and “Old” Canada, with Ontarians ultimately in the drivers seat of their own destiny and by extension, that of Canada’s. Which way will Ontario trend will quite obviously become key in the next few federal elections……As mentioned by another poster, in another thread, will the hurting manufacturing industry of Ontario reinvent itself to one of supporting the growth of Western Energy (Note not solely Oil sands) development or will it “stay the course”, wither and become Canada’s Michigan or Ohio? This will be key, and won’t be decided by the ROC.

As to the next election itself, I feel it very much so will be one fought on regionalism, or “Old Canada” versus “New Canada” with Ontario becoming the battleground…….As to results, this next election very much so will decide the future of the Liberal Party of Canada, in that if they continue with more of the same resulting in a split of the left, quite clearly the CPC will win a second Majority mandate………As mentioned by another poster, will they reinvent themselves into the “mushy middle”, perhaps. I would then feel the results clearly would rest with what way the wind blows in Ontario.

My partisan prediction, is that the Liberals will continue with more of the same and deliver another CPC majority, only then could I see a serious attempt at a merger between the Liberals and NDP…….The key will be who is in the driver seat? And how many newly combined party members defect an to where.