Conservative Merger: Right Idea, Wrong Time
There has been much debate recently as to how things would have turned out had the two "right wing parties" not united. Some believe we would now have a Progressive Conservative government while on the other end, some believe we would have had a fourth Liberal majority government. My views lie somewhere in between the two.
The Progressive Conservatives likely wouldn't have formed government for a few elections, but unlike the Canadian Alliance, they were moderate enough they could appeal to mainstream Canadians. They were not only the second choice of most Alliance voters, but also of most Liberals. On the other hand, the Canadian Alliance was the second choice of only around 10% of Liberals and only about 25% of the Progressive Conservatives, while 50% of progressive Conservatives had the Liberals as their second choice. This explains why, despite the Corruption, the Conservatives fell well below the combined vote of the two parties and had one of the worse showings ever in Canadian history for a Conservative party.
Had the parties not merged, the PCs likely would have done better in Atlantic Canada as no party at either the provincial or federal level (with the exception of the Confederation of Regions Party of New Brunswick) has ever been as right wing as the Conservatives and won seats. Atlantic Canadians tend to be close to the centre so hard-right parties don't sell there. In fact I was surprised the Conservatives didn't do worse in Atlantic Canada. In Quebec, the prospects weren't good for either party, but at least the Progressive Conservatives had a chance at winning one or two seats and certainly they could have made a breakthrough if they had a Quebec leader. On the other hand, the Alliance was struggling to break the 1% mark in Quebec as their policies have absolutely no support in Quebec. Even Jean Charest who is relative moderate compared to Harper is become quite unpopular in Quebec since he is seen as too right wing for Quebecers. Most polls before the Merger put the PCs at around 20% in Ontario while the Alliance at under 10%. With the Liberals losing support to the NDP on the left and the fact the PCs likely would have gone up after the Sponsorship Scandal broke lose, a PC breakthrough (10-20 seats) was certainly possible. The fact is there were many who were planning on voting Conservative but switched to the Liberals at the last moment, whereas had the PCs still existed, those votes likely would have stayed with them. Likewise many who were planning to vote NDP, but switched to the Liberals to keep the Conservatives out of office, whereas had the PCs still existed, there wouldn't have been that fear, thus splitting the centre-left vote. In the West the Alliance would have done well in the Prairies, but not necessarily British Columbia as their positions on key issues such as gay marriage, War in Iraq, BMD, and Kyoto Protocol were offside with most British Columbians. Much of their previous success came from protest votes as opposed to genuine support who historically went NDP and likely would have returned to the NDP with or without the merger. Even in conservative Alberta, the PCs were averaging around 25% in 2003 while the Alliance couldn't break the 40% mark. Albertans are not a bunch of right wing wackos like many believe, but rather frustrated at the perceived anti-Alberta bias of the Liberals. Since the PCs were more acceptable to Albertans, but also moderate enough for Ontario, I think it is quite possible they could have picked up some seats in Calgary and Edmonton since many in Alberta are tired of always electing opposition MPs.
I supported the merger at the time since I felt the agreement in Principle was a balanced one, but I must say I really wish the Progressive Conservatives still existed since I am not too happy with the Liberals but cannot stomach the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. Had they waited until after the 2004 election, the PCs likely would have been from a position of strength rather than weakness. The Alliance had a stronger base than the PCs, but very little room for growth as their policies were out of touch with most Canadians. On the other hand the PCs were seen as arrogant and needing a time out in 1993, but once the Liberals began to exhibit those traits they might have picked up some support again. Some say the PCs were in such bad financial shape they would have gone under while the Alliance was a better financial shape than any other party, but my view is once a party reaches its ceiling in support, it doesn't matter how much money they have. Elections are about whose ideas are the best and whose values are closest to ones, not about who has the most money in the bank. I agree that their needed to be one centre-right party, but the PCs should have waited until they were in a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. The Conservative Party would have been in much better shape than it is now.
In the next few days, I will discuss the problems with the Conservative Party today and how conservatism can be made into a viable force again.
The Progressive Conservatives likely wouldn't have formed government for a few elections, but unlike the Canadian Alliance, they were moderate enough they could appeal to mainstream Canadians. They were not only the second choice of most Alliance voters, but also of most Liberals. On the other hand, the Canadian Alliance was the second choice of only around 10% of Liberals and only about 25% of the Progressive Conservatives, while 50% of progressive Conservatives had the Liberals as their second choice. This explains why, despite the Corruption, the Conservatives fell well below the combined vote of the two parties and had one of the worse showings ever in Canadian history for a Conservative party.
Had the parties not merged, the PCs likely would have done better in Atlantic Canada as no party at either the provincial or federal level (with the exception of the Confederation of Regions Party of New Brunswick) has ever been as right wing as the Conservatives and won seats. Atlantic Canadians tend to be close to the centre so hard-right parties don't sell there. In fact I was surprised the Conservatives didn't do worse in Atlantic Canada. In Quebec, the prospects weren't good for either party, but at least the Progressive Conservatives had a chance at winning one or two seats and certainly they could have made a breakthrough if they had a Quebec leader. On the other hand, the Alliance was struggling to break the 1% mark in Quebec as their policies have absolutely no support in Quebec. Even Jean Charest who is relative moderate compared to Harper is become quite unpopular in Quebec since he is seen as too right wing for Quebecers. Most polls before the Merger put the PCs at around 20% in Ontario while the Alliance at under 10%. With the Liberals losing support to the NDP on the left and the fact the PCs likely would have gone up after the Sponsorship Scandal broke lose, a PC breakthrough (10-20 seats) was certainly possible. The fact is there were many who were planning on voting Conservative but switched to the Liberals at the last moment, whereas had the PCs still existed, those votes likely would have stayed with them. Likewise many who were planning to vote NDP, but switched to the Liberals to keep the Conservatives out of office, whereas had the PCs still existed, there wouldn't have been that fear, thus splitting the centre-left vote. In the West the Alliance would have done well in the Prairies, but not necessarily British Columbia as their positions on key issues such as gay marriage, War in Iraq, BMD, and Kyoto Protocol were offside with most British Columbians. Much of their previous success came from protest votes as opposed to genuine support who historically went NDP and likely would have returned to the NDP with or without the merger. Even in conservative Alberta, the PCs were averaging around 25% in 2003 while the Alliance couldn't break the 40% mark. Albertans are not a bunch of right wing wackos like many believe, but rather frustrated at the perceived anti-Alberta bias of the Liberals. Since the PCs were more acceptable to Albertans, but also moderate enough for Ontario, I think it is quite possible they could have picked up some seats in Calgary and Edmonton since many in Alberta are tired of always electing opposition MPs.
I supported the merger at the time since I felt the agreement in Principle was a balanced one, but I must say I really wish the Progressive Conservatives still existed since I am not too happy with the Liberals but cannot stomach the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. Had they waited until after the 2004 election, the PCs likely would have been from a position of strength rather than weakness. The Alliance had a stronger base than the PCs, but very little room for growth as their policies were out of touch with most Canadians. On the other hand the PCs were seen as arrogant and needing a time out in 1993, but once the Liberals began to exhibit those traits they might have picked up some support again. Some say the PCs were in such bad financial shape they would have gone under while the Alliance was a better financial shape than any other party, but my view is once a party reaches its ceiling in support, it doesn't matter how much money they have. Elections are about whose ideas are the best and whose values are closest to ones, not about who has the most money in the bank. I agree that their needed to be one centre-right party, but the PCs should have waited until they were in a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. The Conservative Party would have been in much better shape than it is now.
In the next few days, I will discuss the problems with the Conservative Party today and how conservatism can be made into a viable force again.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:36 PM
1 Comments:
I was a PC Party member and I was - and am today - a supporter of the merger and the CPC.
Part of me would like to believe what you say in your message. Heck, I *did* believe it, till Election '00 came and went.
That time 'round, we had an experienced leader with a reputation for honesty (regardless of my own feelings, pro or con). We had a tired-out Lib government. And we had a CA that started wtih promise but appeared, by the end of the campaign, to be inept, especially insofar as its leadership was concerned.
And yet, what happened? The PC's won the fewest # of votes since Confederation (even fewer than '93!) and barely held on to official party status. I was living in St John's then, and I remember when everyone else was celebrating Norm Doyle's re-election in St John's East, I was watching the seat totals at the bottom of the screen with a lot of dread.
Had we missed just 1 more seat, we would've lost official party status, and that would likely have been the ballgame.
Let's say we would've stayed "as is" for Election '04; granted, neither you nor I will ever know *for sure* what would've happened, but since you gave your theory, here's mine:
* Peter McKay would've been all-but-ignored everywhere but Atlantic Canada.
* We had little money in the bank.
* Even the most optimistic polling #'s had us less than 20% nation-wide prior to the merger. Don't believe me? Check out this site.
* That means, at best, we would've staggered in with between 12 and (MAYBE) 20 seats. It's just as likely that we would've lost official party status altogether.
* I know exactly what you think of Harper, and we'll have to agree to disagree on that, but I'll tell you this: I do *not* think his campaign as CA leader would've been as bad as Stock Day's was in '00.
* While merger foes love to say that the PC/CA total in votes in '00 was > the CPC total in votes in '04, the fact is that the CPC was able to hold the Libs to a minority, and almost won the whole thing. I wasn't confident that the CA and PC Parties, acting alone, would've been able to do so.
* In which case, Martin would have gotten a majority. How much do you think we would have heard about Gomery or anything else if the Libs had a majority in the House? They've shut down judicial inquiries before, remember.
* Thanks to the Libs' new funding rules, our supply of public funds would've crashed based on our share of the vote. What's more, the PC Party traditionally relied on corporate donations more than the Reform/CA crowd did; Chretien's new laws re: donations would have hurt us even more.
So, had we gone "on our own", the BEST we would have done would've been Charest-'97 level, and *that* is assuming PMcK could've run as effective a campaign as Charest did.
More likely, we would've lost official party status, and been in a very deep hole.
So ... while part of me might wish I could agree that the PCs were only a few elections away from winning, or that the PC's would've been in a better position re: the merger had we run on our own in '04, I just don't see how it would've happened.
Fact is, if you take the '04-'05 period as a whole, we're closer now than we've been in a long time to beating the Libs. I think Harper and the rest of the CPC aren't in a perfect position by any stretch, but they're not in desperate straits either.
Now, I suppose we *could* continue to beat the hell out of the leader, the party, the MP's, each other, etc. If that's what you want to do, I certainly can't stop you.
I'd rather work as hard as I can in my riding, and see if we can't surprise some people. The votes haven't been cast yet - and nobody's ever won by conceding before the polls close.
Post a Comment
<< Home