The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.

[Machjo]

I believe that most Canadians are more libéral-conservative at heart, but still expect a competent leader of a character that is compatible with theirs.

On the economic front, the Conservatives had it on the bag. Had the Conservatives run a campaign that was even close in quality to the Liberal campaign, they would have won.

I believe that that the Conservatives made three big mistakes:

1. On the economic front. Had the Conservatives focused on promising particular expenditure cuts and explained the rationale for these cuts in a knowledgeable manner, that could have won it some votes.

2. Link deregulation to social policy. Some who consistently vote left are conservatives at heart who simply falsely believe that the only way to help the most disadvantaged is to regulate the markets ever more. Strategic market deregulation targeted to benefit the poor could have changed some minds on the matter. For example, the Conservatives could have proposed that any business that serves its customers in a sign language or the local indigenous language would be completely exempted from all linguistic provisions from all Federal laws. This would be a way to deregulate language policy in such a way as to show a softer side to deregulation to socially compassionate conservatives.

3. Logical thought, consistency, and avoiding redundancy. When Harper argued that we should not allow women to wear the niqab because he would not force his daughter wear one, it probably made him seem mushy-brained in the eyes of many who properly analyzed that logic. Would this mean that if he doesn't force his daughter to wear cotton that he will therefore force all women to wear cotton at citizenship ceremonies? It just didn't make sense. The idea of taking away a woman's freedom to wear what she wants on the name of women's equality was also an oxymoron in the eyes of some, especially in the context of refusing to establish a commission to study the matter of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

The 'Canadian values' argument also ran hollow in an electorate bombarded by the media concerning the horror of cultural genocide in the residential school system in recent years.

If instead he had focused on legitimate concerns surrounding security he would have had a case except for the fact that the court had already agreed that she would have to show her face for identification purposes already.

In short, because of the rationales surrounding it, the niqab debate was a philosophical landmine.

We can see something similar with the Office o Religious Freedom which can criticize governments beyond Canada over which the Government has no power anyway but can't make recommendations concerning the one country the Government has the power to legislate in, thus making it not only redundant given the work the the UN High Commission for Human Rights but also relatively useless for the money spent

4. General character.

Harper stripped his MPs of all freedom to vote their conscience, he focused more on mean-spirited attacks (e.g. I can imagine many Canadian international businessmen, diplomats, military servicemen stationed in Germany and elsewhere abroad, and other former ex-pats feeling enraged at Harper's insinuation that to live abroad makes one less than Canadian in his attacks on Ignatius for 'just visiting'), his constant focus on attacking his opponents personally rather than focus on explaining the rationale for his own policies to people. He could sometimes be outright arrogant and insulting of other world leaders and states, even allied ones. In short, he came across as a nacissistic bully.

Dividing between Canadian and non-Canadian in immigration policy. Forgetting that international marriages have become more common than ever in Canada, sometimes even between 'Old Stock' Canadians who speak an unofficial language and foreign nationals. To attack immigrants was inevitably to attack the spouses and in-laws of immigrants, many of whom would be Old-stock themselves. I guess it boiled down to the fact that Harper would never force his daughter to marry a foreign national.

I could go on, but I think I'ce made it clear enough that the Liberals did not win. The Conservatives lost.

[Boges]

I do think Harper certainly got stale. How often do we have leaders for a decade in this country? Perhaps he should have stepped down half-way through his term like Chretien did and Dalton McGuinty did in Ontario. He probably stayed too long and another leader may have had a better shot at winning this election.

The Liberals got about the same popular support as the Conservatives in 2011 and the Liberals and the NDP switched spots. There's a base support for every party but swing voters that will go either Conservative or Liberal are the key. That's why I don't believe an NDP/LPC merger will make a huge difference because there's a faction of Liberal voters that will rather vote CPC than a party that has to answer to a faction of NDPers.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Boges

[BC_chick]

After a decade, it's almost always the incumbent who loses, that's nothing new. People just want change after a while in a democracy. By the same logic, Liberals lost in 05, Conservatives didn't win.

But here's the difference - the Conservatives lost big. Harper had to prove himself in two minority governments before getting a majority. Interestingly he got a royal boot as soon as he he finished his majority government because his policies were finally his and they did not include any appeasement to the opposition.

Nothing of the sort happened when Liberals 'lost'. they still managed to stay relevant for two elections. Your guy is irrelevant already.

[Boges]

After a decade, it's almost always the incumbent who loses, that's nothing new. People just want change after a while in a democracy. By the same logic, Liberals lost in 05, Conservatives didn't win.

But here's the difference - the Conservatives lost big. Harper had to prove himself in two minority governments before getting a majority. Interestingly he got a royal boot as soon as he he finished his majority government because his policies were finally his and they did not include any appeasement to the opposition.

Nothing of the sort happened when Liberals 'lost'. they still managed to stay relevant for two elections. Your guy is irrelevant already.

Because they're in opposition? This wasn't the 1993 PCs that got decimated to 2 seats. The CPC still has a healthy caucus. But the Liberals have 4 years to do what they do.

In 4 years the Liberals will have to face a different CPC leader. Hopefully a fresh face with new ideas similar to how the Ontario PCs are trying to rejuvenate themselves now.

[BC_chick]

Because they're in opposition? This wasn't the 1993 PCs that got decimated to 2 seats. The CPC still has a healthy caucus. But the Liberals have 4 years to do what they do.

In 4 years the Liberals will have to face a different CPC leader. Hopefully a fresh face with new ideas similar to how the Ontario PCs are trying to rejuvenate themselves now.

No irrelevant as in they are the opposition to a majority government.

[Boges]

No irrelevant as in they are the opposition to a majority government.

It's hilarious that you consider the opposition to a Liberal government irrelevant.

Everyone here was crowing how the Harper Conservatives hated democracy because they never gave the opposition any say in how the government is run.

It'll be interesting how people forget all their outrage at the defacto dictatorship our system allows when the party they like are in charge.

[PIK]

Constant media attacks, while they protected trudeau. And getting rid of Crosby in the east.

[BC_chick]

Who cares what I think? This isn't about me.

The fact is - when Liberals 'lost' the voters ensured that they retained clout in government.

When your guy lost, that didn't happen.

[Boges]

Who cares what I think? This isn't about me.

The fact is - when Liberals 'lost' the voters ensured that they retained clout in government.

When your guy lost, that didn't happen.

In the 2006 example the Liberal leader had only ran the country for 2 years. Had Chretien not stepped down perhaps Harper would have gotten a majority. Who knows. Back then the BQ was still somewhat relevant, not so much anymore.

[BC_chick]

Had Harper stepped down, Liberals might have a minority and if Jack Layton were alive NDP might be governing.

Who knows, I'm not talking the what ifs. I'm talking actual.

In addressing the OP - when your guys lost, they lost to a majority government and became irrelevant.

That's a pretty big loss.

[Moonbox]

I could go on, but I think I'ce made it clear enough that the Liberals did not win. The Conservatives lost.

Not really. The Conservatives lost and the Liberals won. Your statement is by default irrational, but I suppose you're trying to say that the election was the Conservatives' to lose from the outset. Even on that note you'd be wrong.

Harper only won the last couple of elections through the appalling weakness of his competition. The Liberal Party offered Dion and Ignatieff as opposition, and they couldn't have been less inspiring. Using your line of reasoning and given Harper's consistent unpopularity (especially among small c's/red tories), you can say Harper didn't really "win" either of those elections. He let his opponents lose.

As soon as he had even somewhat credible opposition, he was toast. All Justin had to do this election was keep his mouth shut and not say anything stupid. The idea that this was Harper's election to lose couldn't be more out of touch. He'd lost before the campaign even started. People knew what to expect from him and most of them didn't like it.

Had Harper stepped down, Liberals might have a minority and if Jack Layton were alive NDP might be governing.

Nope. People enormously overestimate the strength of the NDP during and after the last election. Jack ran a decent campaign but his platform was BS and his "success" was an anomaly. The NDP was the default anti-Harper choice left after the implosion of the Liberals and the Bloc. Predictably, their strong 2011 numbers tanked as soon as there was a credible alternative. Jack would have flopped against Trudeau just as bad as Mulcair did.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Moonbox

[Accountability Now]

In addressing the OP - when your guys lost, they lost to a majority government and became irrelevant.

That's a pretty big loss.

So by your definition, the NDP (your party) has been completely irrelevant for the history of Canadian politics. Good thing that's cleared up. Thanks.

[BC_chick]

Awww, was that supposed to hurt my feelings? lol

Yes, if it needs 'clearing up', all other parties in a majority government are pretty irrelevant.

ETA - please note I'm talking about majority governments here. Minority governments are different and all parties, NDP, LPC as well as CPC have all been relevant when there is a minority government.

Edited October 22, 2015 by BC_chick

[The_Squid]

Constant media attacks, while they protected trudeau. And getting rid of Crosby in the east.

The "liberal" media who mostly endorsed the Conservatives?

[Big Guy]

Every party which loses, blames the messenger and not the message. To blame the message would mean that the party members and/or supporters would have to admit that the plurality of the electorate does not like their policies and force them to subsequently review their policies.

The smart ones do review and change their policies. The not so smart continue on the same road and later wonder why they lose the next election also.

[Smeelious]

The "liberal" media who mostly endorsed the Conservatives?

Two types of media endorsed the conservatives, the Globe and Mail (ish) and those media owned by postmedia. Everyone else didn't endorse the conservatives.

[Accountability Now]

Awww, was that supposed to hurt my feelings? lol

No it was intended to show you how ridiculous your comment was.

Yes, if it needs 'clearing up', all other parties in a majority government are pretty irrelevant.

ETA - please note I'm talking about majority governments here. Minority governments are different and all parties, NDP, LPC as well as CPC have all been relevant when there is a minority government.

So the only time the NDP has been the Official Opposition, it was 'irrelevant'. I guess Mulclair didn't get the memo. I guess he should have just kept quiet for the last four years instead of contesting what the party in power was doing since he was 'irrelevant'.

Your whole talking point is to bash the Conservatives which doesn't really bother me. What I find funny is that you bash them with a point that is 10x more applicable to the NDP.

[BC_chick]

What's funnier is that you are trying to minimize the CPC's colossal loss by comparing them to the NDP.

[cybercoma]

Two types of media endorsed the conservatives, the Globe and Mail (ish) and those media owned by postmedia. Everyone else didn't endorse the conservatives.

That Liberal media though.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015

[Accountability Now]

What's funnier is that you are trying to minimize the CPC's colossal loss by comparing them to the NDP.

You don't really have a grasp on vocabulary...do you? 99 seats (30%) is not a 'colossal' loss nor are other parties 'irrelevant'.

Don't get caught up in the thread title. The Liberals won this election....the Conservatives did not lose. Look at this table:

The Conservatives only lost less than 1% of its votes from the previous election where as the NDP lost almost 30%. The 'colossal' loss was on the NDP side.

As per the CBC article this was taken from (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210):

The total number of votes for the parties shows that only the NDP lost a big number of votes — almost a million. The Conservatives stayed at about the same number, while the Liberals gained more than four million, suggesting they may have received the votes of a huge share of the new voters in this election.

[cybercoma]

Michael de Adder, the satire cartoonist, explains exactly what happened today.

[BC_chick]

This thread was started by someone who said about Conservatives lost, Liberals didn't win.

You're only throwing in the NDP because my profile pic says I'm an NDP supporter.

Maybe you should start a thread about the NDP cause your argument has no relevance on this thread.

[Accountability Now]

This thread was started by someone who said about Conservatives lost, Liberals didn't win.

You're only throwing in the NDP because my profile pic says I'm an NDP supporter.

Maybe you should start a thread about the NDP cause your argument has no relevance on this thread.

It sure does when you claim that a party is 'irrelevant' when its a opposite of a majority. All parties are brought into question even though your intent is to only bash the Conservative party who as you said suffered a 'colossal' loss. I guess you're not going to comment on that now that I have shown you numbers that point the errors in your ridiculous comment?

[dialamah]

I believe that most Canadians are more libéral-conservative at heart, but still expect a competent leader of a character that is compatible with theirs.

On the economic front, the Conservatives had it on the bag. Had the Conservatives run a campaign that was even close in quality to the Liberal campaign, they would have won.

I'd say this is entirely a matter of opinion. I can find "expert" opinion saying that Harper was absolutely the best economic leader; I can find "expert" opinion that says he was extremely bad. My personal opinion is that I would rather not have spent money on actual bombs and air strikes, that the money would have been better spent on humanitarian efforts, and maintaining funding for some key elements of our society. For instance, the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano and the various women's groups the Conservatives chose not to fund. Ultimately, I think he did an adequate job on the economy and that his success, whether you count it as exceptional or not, was due in large part to the way our economy functions and what had gone on in previous governments, as much or more than his specific policies. To me, many of his economic policies seemed mean-spirited and too partisan.

The opinion held by Conservatives that Harper was such a great money manager merely reflects *their* priorities, not necessarily every Canadians. The belief that people only choose a government based mainly on their economic policy/record does not reflect the entirety of the values Canadians consider important.

2. Link deregulation to social policy. Some who consistently vote left are conservatives at heart who simply falsely believe that the only way to help the most disadvantaged is to regulate the markets ever more. Strategic market deregulation targeted to benefit the poor could have changed some minds on the matter. For example, the Conservatives could have proposed that any business that serves its customers in a sign language or the local indigenous language would be completely exempted from all linguistic provisions from all Federal laws. This would be a way to deregulate language policy in such a way as to show a softer side to deregulation to socially compassionate conservatives.

I've yet to see any proof whatsoever that the 'market' as a whole has any interest in helping the 'poor' or 'disadvantaged' unless there is some monetary gain for them, so I certainly do not see a connection between deregulation and improving the lot of the disadvantaged. It would take more than a government claiming such a thing would happen to persuade me; I'd have to see some credible information from a non-biased source to believe it.

4. General character.

Harper stripped his MPs of all freedom to vote their conscience, he focused more on mean-spirited attacks his constant focus on attacking his opponents personally rather than focus on explaining the rationale for his own policies to people. He could sometimes be outright arrogant and insulting of other world leaders and states, even allied ones. In short, he came across as a nacissistic bully.

Dividing between Canadian and non-Canadian in immigration policy. Forgetting that international marriages have become more common than ever in Canada, sometimes even between 'Old Stock' Canadians who speak an unofficial language and foreign nationals. To attack immigrants was inevitably to attack the spouses and in-laws of immigrants, many of whom would be Old-stock themselves.

I would agree with you that this all affected the outcome. But since there is still a significant base of support for the Conservatives, one wonders just how mean-spirited and anti-immigration the Conservative party would always be? Given what I've seen of Conservative supporters, notwithstanding the more progressive ones, this is not an ideology or philosophy I would ever want to be governed under again.

I could go on, but I think I'ce made it clear enough that the Liberals did not win. The Conservatives lost.

The Liberals won, and the Conservatives lost. I'm not sure how you can take the message and platform away from the success of the Liberal's campaign.

[cybercoma]

It sure does when you claim that a party is 'irrelevant' when its a opposite of a majority. All parties are brought into question even though your intent is to only bash the Conservative party who as you said suffered a 'colossal' loss. I guess you're not going to comment on that now that I have shown you numbers that point the errors in your ridiculous comment?

The Conservatives didn't win a single seat in four provinces (and all 3 territories), despite having cabinet ministers in those places and ridings that hadn't voted Liberal in 100 years (save for '93).

It's a monumental loss.