Ontario Liberal supporters explained

[sharkman]

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there. The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again.

Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully? Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC? Is Harper seen as a scary politician? I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

[apollo19]

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there.  The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again.

Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully?  Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC?  Is Harper seen as a scary politician?  I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'll offer up a view of things from the 905 even though I plan to vote CPC:

-It isnt so much about supporting Liberal ideas as it is rejecting the Conservatives

-All people heard about Gomery was "scandal, corruption, etc" over and over again; we know this is bad, we know it was the Liberal party, but no big-name faces could be attached to it, so it got repetitive and ignored

-There is still the percieved view of the CPC as an Alberta-based consortium, which combines both some social and fiscal conservative aspects

-People here are fiscal conservative, but not socially conservative -- this means get Harper and the CPC to shutup about gay marriage, shutup about abortion, shutup about every social issue and leave everything in regards to the "family" or "religion" at the status quo

-People don't really think Harper is scary, we just view him as a different kind of conservative -- a guy from smalltown Alberta who doesn't know how things work here

-Finally, in the 416 code (downtown Toronto), there are masses of first-generation immigrants. Almost all of them vote for the government in power, which is the Liberals. They feel sort of a loyalty to them for allowing them to come to the country.

[tweedledee]

Your right it the scare tactics and the demographics partly.

[sharkman]

So it sounds like a change in leadership might do it it the new leader didn't want to touch any social issues.

[Kiraly]

So it sounds like a change in leadership might do it it the new leader didn't want to touch any social issues.

That, however, might alienate many of the party's other supporters.

[apollo19]

So it sounds like a change in leadership might do it it the new leader didn't want to touch any social issues.

That, however, might alienate many of the party's other supporters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at the numbers, if Harper goes for the centre-right socially moderate Liberals and sheds the rural socons, he could get a large net gain of seats. It all lies in where the party's priority lies, and at this time, it seems content to try to fuddle halfway between socon and socially liberal.

[Kiraly]

Look at  the numbers, if Harper goes for the centre-right socially moderate Liberals and sheds the rural socons, he could get a large net gain of seats. It all lies in where the party's priority lies, and at this time, it seems content to try to fuddle halfway between socon and socially liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is debatable whether there would be net gain or net loss.

In my opinion, the Conservatives already are centre-right, socially moderate. They've abandoned most of their socially conservative policies at the last convention. Now if they were to become pro SSM, pro embryonic stem cell research, pro marijuana legalization, then they would be socially liberal.

Were the PC's moderate?....

....cause I don't see much difference between the Conservatives in 2005 and the Progressive Conservatives pre-merger.

[Vancouver King]

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there.  The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again.

Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully?  Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC?  Is Harper seen as a scary politician?  I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we start with the simple proposition that Ontario & Quebec will not support outsiders (defined as politicians outside their regions) you have an explanation for why Harper will again run headlong into an invisible brick wall at the Manitoba/Ontario border.

This simple, unspoken truth also has the benefit of explaining the failure of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Preston Manning. Not a member of the Golden Triangle establishment? Don't bother campaigning here, you outsider. It's discrimination disguised as regionalism. Is it any wonder BC & Alberta have notable separation movements?

[Argus]

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there.  The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again.

Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully?  Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC?  Is Harper seen as a scary politician?  I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a word - immigration. More than half the population of Toronto are immigrants brought in by the Liberals so they would vote Liberal. And for the most part, they do. In Ottawa, Ontario's second city, there are the immigrants, the French, who always vote Liberal, and the civil servants, who think a Harper government would fire them all.

[Leader Circle]

In Ontario, the Liberals have a sizable lead, and I'm curious as to the political climate there.  The Liberal party has had many controversies over the years and the Gomery Inquiry has revealed one which may tip the scales for Quebec to seperate, and yet if the vote was held today, the Liberals would take Ontario again.

Those of you in Ontario who support the Liberals, what is it about the Liberal party that you support it so faithfully?  Or is it memories of Harris that cause you to shun the CPC?  Is Harper seen as a scary politician?  I am conservative, so I hope you can make allowances for my bias, but I am baffled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'll offer up a view of things from the 905 even though I plan to vote CPC:

-It isnt so much about supporting Liberal ideas as it is rejecting the Conservatives

-All people heard about Gomery was "scandal, corruption, etc" over and over again; we know this is bad, we know it was the Liberal party, but no big-name faces could be attached to it, so it got repetitive and ignored

-There is still the percieved view of the CPC as an Alberta-based consortium, which combines both some social and fiscal conservative aspects

-People here are fiscal conservative, but not socially conservative -- this means get Harper and the CPC to shutup about gay marriage, shutup about abortion, shutup about every social issue and leave everything in regards to the "family" or "religion" at the status quo

-People don't really think Harper is scary, we just view him as a different kind of conservative -- a guy from smalltown Alberta who doesn't know how things work here

-Finally, in the 416 code (downtown Toronto), there are masses of first-generation immigrants. Almost all of them vote for the government in power, which is the Liberals. They feel sort of a loyalty to them for allowing them to come to the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nicely put and very accurate apollo!

Although,

Harper was born and raised just north of Steeles Ave on Leslie(or Somewhere east of Young) in Markham. Would that not make Mr. Harper a local?

Is it the taint of the Esso dollars that makes him such a scary dude?

Big oil money corrupted him, like the rest of us in Alberta?

Ontario, as I can see it, is a big bully, who has to have it their way, or they will steal your lunch money and give you a wedgy! The unions have made them a ME kind of people and they hate anyone who would threaten to take that comfort seat away and actually make them work.

I think you nailed it on the first generation immigrants! They love their new host, and seem to think Ontario IS Canada and as long as they are allowed to bring friends in they will vote for the party in power!

[shoop]

I don't think it is such a simple proposition. Lumping Clark, Campbell and Manning together is an example of the faultiness of what you are trying to say. All three failed to gain support in Québec for a variety of reasons. To chalk that up as just an anti-BC/Alberta bias ignores a number of issues. Including Clark's inexperience and brutal French, and Campbell's just plain horrific campaign.

Believe me, I am no Liberal apologist either. I just feel the Conservatives need to do a better job at running to win, instead of running losing campaigns just to point fingers after the fact.

If we start with the simple proposition that Ontario & Quebec will not support outsiders (defined as politicians outside their regions) you have an explanation for why Harper will again run headlong into an invisible brick wall at the Manitoba/Ontario border.

This simple, unspoken truth also has the benefit of explaining the failure of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Preston Manning. Not a member of the Golden Triangle establishment? Don't bother campaigning here, you outsider. It's discrimination disguised as regionalism. Is it any wonder BC & Alberta have notable separation movements?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Duke]

Mike harris proved that you can win If you appeal to the 905ers. However note that he never came across as a leader of the religous right. Right or wrong Harper has been painted by the Libs as a scary member of the US style religous right. Too bad. But he needs to combat this impression imo to win in Ontario.

Ontario 905ers are not bible bangers!

[shoop]

He is going about that the only way he can, slowly but surely.

Mike harris proved that you can win If you appeal to the 905ers. However note that he never came across as a leader of the religous right. Right or wrong Harper has been painted by the Libs as a scary member of the US style religous right. Too bad. But he needs to combat this impression imo to win in Ontario.

Ontario 905ers are not bible bangers!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Ontario is as Conservarive as any other region of Canada. It has, historically, hasd Conservative governments for very long periods of tome, includng a recird spell of 42 years. However, it divides fairly evenly and has a more sophisticated and national outlook than any other region. It was not for nothing that it was described as the "honest broker of Confederation."

The immigrant isue is nonsense. Ontario has had Conservative governments with large scale immigration. Immigrants may tend to vote Liberal in somewhat larger numbers of those who do vote. But recent immigrants tend not to be politically involved or to vote. Most of them are too busy trying to survive in a country that does not treat them fairly.

Ontarians do and have supported "ousiders." Diefenbaker comes readily to mind. They do not sipport politicians with a regional bias .": those who refer to Canada as a "Community of communitiesor as "not a real country," for example. Ontarians have usually considered themselves Canadians first. Only parts of the Maritimes can say that of themselves as well.

This constant harping on Ontario running the country or, as one poster put it, being bullies is too silly for words. Until recently, Ontario did not have a controlling block of MPs and had not since Bennett in the 1930's.

Perhaps when Conservatives become conservative again and become the Party of Canada again as they were until the advent of Reform and Regional blocs, Ontarians may not divide so widely from some of the so-called Conservative leaders.

Remember that the simple definition of conservatisn is that it aims to conserve the best and to make change slowly and only when it can be shown to be beneficial. Present day Conservative parties are a far cry from conservative: they are radical and impetuous. They are the livng dmonstration of the adage that "Fool's rush in...."

[Vancouver King]

"I don't think it is such a simple proposition. Lumping Clark, Campbell and Manning together is an example of the faultiness of what you are trying to say. All three failed to gain support in Québec for a variety of reasons. To chalk that up as just an anti-BC/Alberta bias ignores a number of issues. Including Clark's inexperience and brutal French, and Campbell's just plain horrific campaign.

Believe me, I am no Liberal apologist either. I just feel the Conservatives need to do a better job at running to win, instead of running losing campaigns just to point fingers after the fact."

-----------

Proof might come after Jan. 23rd when Harper's head rolls over yet another disappointing election result. The logical heir apparent is McKay who will, I predict, enjoy a more positive national reception - not because of any policy shift or "the cut of his jib" - only because he is not from Alberta or BC.

[tml12]

"I don't think it is such a simple proposition. Lumping Clark, Campbell and Manning together is an example of the faultiness of what you are trying to say. All three failed to gain support in Québec for a variety of reasons. To chalk that up as just an anti-BC/Alberta bias ignores a number of issues. Including Clark's inexperience and brutal French, and Campbell's just plain horrific campaign.

Believe me, I am no Liberal apologist either. I just feel the Conservatives need to do a better job at running to win, instead of running losing campaigns just to point fingers after the fact."

-----------

Proof might come after Jan. 23rd when Harper's head rolls over yet another disappointing election result. The logical heir apparent is McKay who will, I predict, enjoy a more positive national reception - not because of any policy shift or "the cut of his jib" - only because he is not from Alberta or BC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree it would be harder to pin the right-wing card on McKay.

BTW: If Liberals win minority and Harper and Martin get dumped, am I the only one who would *LOVE* to see Belinda vs. McKay?

[Vancouver King]

Quote; Eureka:

[

"Ontarians do and have supported "ousiders." Diefenbaker comes readily to mind. They do not sipport politicians with a regional bias .": those who refer to Canada as a "Community of communitiesor as "not a real country," for example. Ontarians have usually considered themselves Canadians first. Only parts of the Maritimes can say that of themselves as well."

..........................................

Interesting example although it is half a century old. Wasn't Diefenbaker's success less a Conservative victory than a revulsion to Liberal arrogance - ie. to cost over runs on govt supported pipe line project, then Finance Minister responded in the Commons, "what's a million?"

Ironic that 45 years later the Libs are accused of similar disrespect of the public purse.

[August1991]

It was not for nothing that it was described as the "honest broker of Confederation."

The only people who ever said that were people from Ontario.

The immigrant isue is nonsense.

Canada has had sustained relatively high immigration levels (over 200,000 per year) for the past 30 years or so. About half of those immigrants live in southern Ontario. Of course they have had an effect.

Ontario has had Conservative governments with large scale immigration.

The Conservative provincial hegemony ended with Davis, and he was hardly what could be called a Conservative.

Diefenbaker comes readily to mind.

For gawdsakes, eureka. That was in 1958.

This constant harping on Ontario running the country or, as one poster put it, being bullies is too silly for words. Until recently, Ontario did not have a controlling block of MPs and had not since Bennett in the 1930's.

106 out of 308 seats is significant. You also ignore the significant facts that Ottawa is in Ontario and Toronto is the centre of English Canadian media.

The closest Canada ever came to be being managed without Ontario was when Mulroney managed to put together a coalition of Quebec and western Canada. Needless to say, the media elite and many Ontarians still dislike Mulrioney.

----

But I don't mean this to be a "bash Ontario" post.

Instead, the question is: "Why is Harper so unpopular in Ontario?" All polls indicate this, despite Harper's good campaign start.

I agree with many points in Apollo's good post. Underneath it though, I still believe that Ontarians have difficulty voting for someone from Alberta.

[Guest eureka]

If those are your weapons, August, don't try bashing. Ontario was not hostile to Stanfield, either, and Davis was a true Conservative who merely tried to improve not to rebuild.

It does not matter how many immigrants Canada had taken - or Ontario. Their Liberal allegiance is grossly exaggerated and it is a matter of concern that very many immigrants and first generation Canadians do not vote at all. Most recent imigrants these days would have no clue what the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives is or who was responsible for allowing them into Canada.

Come to think of it, the first part of that sentence could as readily apply to several of the posters here.

[Kiraly]

The immigrant isue is nonsense. Ontario has had Conservative governments with large scale immigration. Immigrants may tend to vote Liberal in somewhat larger numbers of those who do vote. But recent immigrants tend not to be politically involved or to vote. Most of them are too busy trying to survive in a country that does not treat them fairly.

I wouldn't be too quick to discount this.

I live and work in the suburbs of Vancouver and interact with many new Canadians. I do agree that many I have spoken to do not vote, but those that do, do vote Liberal and the reason being a sense of gratitude / loyalty to the party that they perceive to be responsible for bring them in. I know it is anecdotal, but this is what I've experienced.

[Guest eureka]

I am using reported surveys of voting patterns. There was a recent article on one poll in Toronto where only 18.5% voted- the lowest in Canada in the last election. Most of the residents there were immigrants struggling in poverty.

[Argus]

The immigrant isue is nonsense. Ontario has had Conservative governments with large scale immigration.

True. But where did that support come from? Rural and suburban areas. The famous 905 belt. NOT from Toronto. Toronto went Liberal.

Immigrants may tend to vote Liberal in somewhat larger numbers of those who do vote. But recent immigrants tend not to be politically involved or to vote. Most of them are too busy trying to survive in a country that does not treat them fairly.

A brief glance at the candidates for all three major parties in the Toronto area would give evidence to the contrary.

[tml12]

The immigrant isue is nonsense. Ontario has had Conservative governments with large scale immigration. Immigrants may tend to vote Liberal in somewhat larger numbers of those who do vote. But recent immigrants tend not to be politically involved or to vote. Most of them are too busy trying to survive in a country that does not treat them fairly.

I wouldn't be too quick to discount this.

I live and work in the suburbs of Vancouver and interact with many new Canadians. I do agree that many I have spoken to do not vote, but those that do, do vote Liberal and the reason being a sense of gratitude / loyalty to the party that they perceive to be responsible for bring them in. I know it is anecdotal, but this is what I've experienced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Liberal Party has recently been more supportive of immigrants, if only because they have written the last few immigration acts.

[Kiraly]

I am using reported surveys of voting patterns. There was a recent article on one poll in Toronto where only 18.5% voted- the lowest in Canada in the last election. Most of the residents there were immigrants struggling in poverty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I imagine the poorest of the poor don't rank high in voting percentages.

For the record, the immigrants I referred to are typically middle class professionals.

[August1991]

I am using reported surveys of voting patterns. There was a recent article on one poll in Toronto where only 18.5% voted- the lowest in Canada in the last election. Most of the residents there were immigrants struggling in poverty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the 2001 census, there were 5.4 million people born outside of Canada. Of these, 3 million live in Ontario and 1 million in BC, representing in both provinces about 25% of the population. This means that elsewhere in Canada, immigrants represent on average about 10% of the population. StatCan

Even if immigrants are less likely to vote than native born, their sheer numbers have an effect, particularly in Ontario and BC. The real question is whether immigrants are more inclined to vote Liberal or not.

I think Argus point about Toronto and voting patterns in BC lower mainland are telling.