The Liberals didn't win. The Conservatives lost.

[BC_chick]

I remember it. I was 7 years old at the time. It was in the election year. She did it because she claimed she was trying to show that she was 'hip' and 'modern.' Voters ended up feeling pretty nauseous leaving the conservative party with 2 seats.

You were 7 and you remember that?

[biotk]

And, BTW. By 1993, Canadians were so fed up with Mulroney that they turned on him from both the left and the right; and the Progressive Conservatives under poor Kim Campbell got just 2 seats.

Mulroney was deeply unpopular at the time, but Campbell was popular - more popular than Chretien. The PCs under Campbell were tied with the Liberals in the polls for the first 3 weeks of the campaign before starting to slide. The infamously stupid ad attacking Chretien for having a facial deformity finished the PCs off, and tanked Campbell's approval rating.

[BC_chick]

Hmmm, Campbell's niqab moment.

[ReeferMadness]

Mulroney was deeply unpopular at the time, but Campbell was popular - more popular than Chretien. The PCs under Campbell were tied with the Liberals in the polls for the first 3 weeks of the campaign before starting to slide. The infamously stupid ad attacking Chretien for having a facial deformity finished the PCs off, and tanked Campbell's approval rating.

Campbell was popular until the public started to hear her talk. Remember her being quoted as saying a campaign was not time to discuss serious issues? The Conservatives had already lost the election by time the ad came along.

[biotk]

Campbell was popular until the public started to hear her talk. Remember her being quoted as saying a campaign was not time to discuss serious issues? The Conservatives had already lost the election by time the ad came along.

Yes the PCs had lost the election by the time the ad came along. I had said that they had started to slide. However, the ad was what shifted them from likely official opposition to unrecoverable destruction. Regardless it was not the deeply unpopular Mulroney who sunk the PCs.

As for the famous quote about an election not being the time to discuss serious issues. It is a great line that is talked about all the time, but may have been completely taken out of context:

"Did prime minister Kim Campbell once quip that “an election is no time to discuss serious issues”?

Not really. This is one of the most famous Canadian political quotations of all time, but according to Campbell’s memoirs, Time and Chance, it’s cited completely out of context.

During the 1993 federal election, Campbell’s Conservative government was accused by the NDP of having a “secret agenda” to unilaterally reform various social programs, including unemployment insurance, without first engaging in customary consultations with the provinces. Campbell responded by reaffirming that she was absolutely committed to holding such discussions — after her government was re-elected.

“I was then asked [by a reporter],” writes Campbell, “if I didn’t think that it was possible to have that dialogue during the election campaign, and I replied ‘I think that’s the worst possible time to have that kind of dialogue.’”

“When [the reporter] asked why, I explained, ‘Because it takes longer than forty-seven days to tackle an issue that’s that serious.’”

She later added, “This is not the time, I don’t think, to get involved in a debate on very serious issues.”

In other words, Campbell’s comment about not wanting to discuss “serious issues” during an election was quite focused and specific. She did not want, as prime minister, to discuss social program reform with the provincial governments during the election she was currently running in, though out of context her phrasing made it sound like she was making a broader statement about serious issues and elections in general."

http://www.thecanadaguide.com/canadian-urban-legends

Edited October 27, 2015 by biotk

[CITIZEN_2015]

Mulroney was deeply unpopular at the time, but Campbell was popular - more popular than Chretien. The PCs under Campbell were tied with the Liberals in the polls for the first 3 weeks of the campaign before starting to slide. The infamously stupid ad attacking Chretien for having a facial deformity finished the PCs off, and tanked Campbell's approval rating.

Very true and plus Campbell's statement that unemployment would remain high until the end of century (for another 7 years). Unemployment was high and people unable to find jobs or losing theirs and needed some hope and Chretien gave that hope to them by his red book promising to create hundreds of thousands of jobs soon.

[G Huxley]

You were 7 and you remember that?

Sure why not? This was before every 7 year old was wired into an Ipad.

Edited October 27, 2015 by G Huxley

[SpankyMcFarland]

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.

The PCs (16%) and Reform (18.7%) got something like 35% of the vote in 1993, down from 43% for the PCs in the previous election. So just two seats for the PCs was due to the split and the vagaries of FPTP.

[-TSS-]

Btw, has it ever happened in Canada that the leader of the governing party, ie. the PM, would have faced a serious leadership-challenge while being PM? I think not and certainly has never lost such a challenge.

A question of political culture there. The party-folks of the governing party stand behind their leader as long as they are the governing party. A bit like in the USA where an incumbent president seeking re-election doesn't have to worry about primaries. If he faced a challenge it would be embarrassing for the whole party.

A different political culture in Australia where it has happened a lot of times that the leader of the governing party has lost a leadership-challenge and the challenger automatically becomes PM as well as party-leader. Happened last time last month and the previous time 7-8 years ago even twice in the latter occasion the previously toppled PM and party-leader challenged the party-leader and PM and the got his revenge and rose as PM again.

[ToadBrother]

A different political culture in Australia where it has happened a lot of times that the leader of the governing party has lost a leadership-challenge and the challenger automatically becomes PM as well as party-leader. Happened last time last month and the previous time 7-8 years ago even twice in the latter occasion the previously toppled PM and party-leader challenged the party-leader and PM and the got his revenge and rose as PM again.

To be fair, this isn't exactly the norm in Australia, and it's a phenomenon that has developed over the last five or six years.

The UK, particularly the British Conservative Party, uses a similar system to Australia and it's not like leaders are deposed right, left and center. Heck, the British Tories don't even have leadership conventions. The Tory caucus has elected the leader since the Conservative Party was formed by Sir Robert Peel in 1834. It's been spectacularly successful, with the British Tories essentially being the UK's "natural governing party".

[-TSS-]

Ok, perhaps saying "a lot of times" was exaggeration but at least four times:

In 1991 Keating beat Hawke

In 2010 Gillard beat Rudd

In 2013 Rudd beat Gillard

In 2015 Turnbull beat Abbott.

[The_Squid]

http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2015/11/02/Tories-Fail-BC-Issues/?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=021115

Of the roughly 230,000 votes the Tories lost on Oct. 19, about 150,000 were lost in B.C. That took the party from 21 to 10 seats despite six ridings being added to the province in 2012.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Conservatives lost the most B.C. seats in ridings that physically touch salt water, where concern about oil spills is high, Nagata said. In total, they lost 96,000 votes in seaside ridings compared to the 2011 election, according to his analysis.

Can anyone think of a more devestating loss to the CPC other than BC? Maybe the Maritime, but that was probably more expected.

Having your federal government treat everyone in BC who disagreed with their policies as "radicals" didn't go over well out here.

Also the cuts to the CCG hurt their chances more than people expected.

[socialist]

Can anyone think of a more devestating loss to the CPC other than BC? Maybe the Maritime, but that was probably more expected.

Having your federal government treat everyone in BC who disagreed with their policies as "radicals" didn't go over well out here.

Also the cuts to the CCG hurt their chances more than people expected.

This is neither a Shiny Pony nor a naughty Notley moment. The money leaving the country has been tracked only to June 2015. Justin's shiny pony doesn't start pulling the plow until Wednesday.

BUT, if I was Harper I would be leaving with a smile because it's going to get ugly.

[eyeball]

Can anyone think of a more devestating loss to the CPC other than BC? Maybe the Maritime, but that was probably more expected.

Having your federal government treat everyone in BC who disagreed with their policies as "radicals" didn't go over well out here.

Also the cuts to the CCG hurt their chances more than people expected.

It's telling that the Liberals didn't pick up many votes near the water either. I doubt either party can count on support from anyone associated with fishing, aside from big corporations. There was certainly little if any difference in how BC's fisheries were managed between Conservatives and Liberals and the results speak for themselves.

I think the issue most people have out here is with Ottawa and how it governs rules us.

Edited November 4, 2015 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

It's telling that the Liberals didn't pick up many votes near the water either. I doubt either party can count on support from anyone associated with fishing, aside from big corporations. There was certainly little if any difference in how BC's fisheries were managed between Conservatives and Liberals and the results speak for themselves.

I think the issue most people have out here is with Ottawa and how it governs rules us.

Not many votes near the water in BC, to be sure, but they have every seat in the Maritimes, so I think fisheries, at least East Coast fisheries, will be an important agenda item going forward.