Mediaboss Marketing

On May 2, 2011, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won a majority government. That was what happened, but in the days following election day, it wasnt really the dominant narrative. Instead, commentary tended to focus on related phenomena. There had been an orange wave, with the NDP scooping up dozens of seats in Quebec and forming the official opposition in Parliamenttheir leader Jack Layton was a star. The Liberals had cratered, plummeting to only 34 seats in the House of Commonstheir leader Michael Ignatieff was a dud.

Sure, there was passing reference to the success of the Conservatives. After all, Stephen Harper had converted their minority into a majority and would have four more solid years to govern, virtually unopposed to start. But the overarching takeaway was not that the Conservatives had built meaningful public support for an ambitious political agenda and delivered on it with a resounding electoral victory. It was almost as though Conservatives landed a majority government by accident, through a combination of NDP success, Liberal foibles, and good luck. It didnt help that Conservative voters tended to be quieter and that if you ran in certain circles, the kinds of circles analysts, pundits, and other public commenters live in, they were almost impossible to find. It was hard to track down Conservative voters, and even harder to understand where they were coming from.

I was reminded of 2011s analytical incuriosity over the past couple weeks as various serious pollsters released data showing Pierre Poilievres Conservatives with a nine-ish percentage point lead. A number of analysts have sought to explain whats going on, focusing on a few different factors, since it seems clear that no one big event is what has shifted opinion. People are finally growing tired of the Liberals, they sayits just taken a long time. People are finally feeling the negative impacts of inflation, they sayits justtaken a long time. People are really starting to dislike Trudeau, they sayits justwell you get the point. Where commenters do address the leader and the party experiencing favourability gains, they bend over backward to avoid acknowledging his appeal. In fact, they inexplicably jump to analyzing areas hes struggling, describing what a challenge it will be for such a radical, scary figure to actually convert his opponents losses into his own gains. This despite most modeling showing that Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives popular vote share means they would win a majority of seats were the election called today.

You wouldnt know it from last weeks analysis, but something else happened recently in Canadian politicssomething rather major. Almost a year ago, Conservatives elected a new leader in Pierre Poilievre. Is it possible thats had some effect? Is it possible people who cant afford a home arent just frustrated the prime minister said the problem is not his responsibility, but that they think Pierre Poilievre would fix it? Is it possible theyre not only ticked off about the ever-increasing carbon tax but also now convinced the Conservatives would scrap it? Is it possible that since Poilievres been talking about inflation for literally years longer than anyone else, voters think he might be the guy who would bring spending in line and fix it? Is it possible Poilievres plan not to focus narrowly on mythical LPC/CPC vote switchers as virtually every analyst suggested he should, but to expand his voter universe by targeting NDP voters, LPC voters, PPC voters, lapsed CPC voters, and non-voters by focusing on defending fundamental freedoms, producing more goods in Canada, and improving the cost of living isworking?

We dont have to speculate as to whether Poilievre and the Conservatives are succeeding (instead of the Liberals merely failing). There is a serious third party in Canada in the NDP. If the movement in the polls had so little to do with Poilievres political success, surely, they would be the primary beneficiary. Indeed, we do have a counterfactual in Quebec, where waning Liberal popularity has benefited the Bloc Quebecois. Across the rest of Canada, including in Atlantic provinces, Ontario, and British Columbia, the Conservatives message is resonating. So why the reluctance to concede this point? What explains this unwillingness on the part of otherwise smart analysts to explore Conservative political success? Why side-step reasonably clear explanations, groping instead for any way to rationalize what, to them, is seemingly irrational?

Because when you dont know anyone who votes Conservative, its hard to put yourself in the shoes of someone who did or plans to. Understanding requires empathy and empathy is hardparticularly as our polarization and online thought bubbles mean people of different culture war tribes and political persuasions barely interact. This might be fine if our thought-leading institutions were populated with a diversity of viewpoints, but theyre not. Our analysts tend to be liberal, progressive elites who socialize with other liberal, progressive elites. Theres nothing wrong with being a liberal, progressive elite, many of them are among my dearest friends. But when youre in the business of explaining political outcomes, it helps if you know people to whom the front-runner is appealing. At least its helpful if you have any interest in trying to understand whats going on.

Political public opinion shifts for all kinds of reasons, and winning seats in the House of Commons is a zero-sum game. By definition, for one party to be winning, another party needs to be losing. But when it comes to analyzing the factors contributing to Conservative political success, our commentariat has a massive blind spot.

The good news for Conservatives is this is a sure sign that Liberals (and their ideological brethren in the commentariat) are stricken with their infamous kryptonite. Only arrogance, the kind for which our countrys self-described natural governing party is famous, can explain the unseriousness with which theyre confronting the strongest competitor theyve faced in a decade. Only arrogance can explain why theyve opted not to try to define Pierre Poilievre in the public consciousness before hes had the chance to define himself. Only arrogance can explain why our countrys analysts refuse to entertain the notion that the Conservatives might just have a plan and that it might just be working. Historically, when Liberal arrogance has peaked, Conservative electoral success has followed.

Continued here:
The Liberals arent just losing, the Conservatives are winning - The Hub

Manitobas Liberals are counting on a growing number of women to carry the partys flag into the fall election campaign.

Announcing six women expected to be nominated as candidates to the five already confirmed to run in the Oct. 3 provincial race Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont said Monday the party has not set a target for gender parity, but is trying to reduce barriers to female participation in the political system.

They already know how the systems work and what needs to change, he said at a news conference outside the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

MIKAELA MACKENZIE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

Liberal Leader Dougald Lamont said the party has not set a target for gender parity, but is trying to reduce barriers to female participation in the political system at a news conference outside the Canadian Museum for Human Rights Monday.

At this point, 44 per cent of the Liberals 25 confirmed or expected candidates are women; Lamont said the party will nominate people to contest all 57 provincial ridings.

Of the 44 candidates nominated so far for the provincial NDP, 18 are women or non-binary candidates (41 per cent). The Progressive Conservatives have nominated 51 candidates so far, out of which 16 are women (31 per cent).

Lamont pointed to high provincial rates of violence against women as the most pressing equality issue in Manitoba, saying the party has introduced policies aimed at providing safe shelter, reducing recidivism and enforcing restraining orders. He suggested the party would work to reduce systemic discrimination in medical research and in the health system, as well as supporting nursing and teaching, two fields dominated by women.

When you think about how we made it through the pandemic, it was overwhelmingly education and health systems that bore us through, and they are overwhelmingly run by women. And they have faced freezes, cuts and, really, contempt, he said.

Rhonda Nichol, who retired from her Grace Hospital nursing career in February after 37 years working in the health-care system, spoke about why shes running in Kirkfield Park.

There was no question in my mind I needed to get involved in politics, she said. As a nurse working in the system, I can only say so much. Now that Im out of the system and retired, I am at more liberty to speak, to speak up for people working in the system and also to speak up for the public.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Eddie Calisto-Tavares, who ran for the Liberals in 2019, was outspoken early in the pandemic about horrible conditions inside Maples Personal Care Home, where her 88-year-old father Manuel Calisto resided prior to his death in November 2020. She recalled donning personal protective gear and going into the residence as an example of her willingness to get things done.

MIKAELA MACKENZIE / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

Rhonda Nichol, who retired from her Grace Hospital nursing career in February after 37 years working in the health-care system, is running in Kirkfield Park.

I can fight hard until I get what I need done, said Calisto-Tavares, who is running in Maples.

A lot of us dont want to be politicians. We want to get into community and do what we need to do, she added.

The nine others are Alvina Rundle in The Pas Kameesak; Katherine Johnson in Fort Rouge; Cyndy Friesen in Steinbach; Monica Guetre in La Verendrye; Nellie Monias in Keewatinook; incumbent MLA Cindy Lamoureux in Tyndall Park; Michelle Budiwski in Spruce Woods; LeAmber Kinsley in Riel; and Shandi Strong in Fort Garry.

katie.may@freepress.mb.ca

See the original post:
Liberals add more women to candidate ranks Winnipeg Free Press - Winnipeg Free Press

The Coalition is attempting to claim it supports a legislated Voice to Parliament because it is important in the way it may close the gap and the way it may improve the lives of indigenous people, but that a Voice protected by the Constitution on which Australians will vote in a referendum later this year is dangerous and will wreak chaos.

The opposition has struggled to articulate what precisely it thinks the risks are, and recent off-the-record backgrounding indicates the aim appears to be to damage Prime Minister Anthony Albaneses standing, in the hope this will extend to voters general faith in the government.

Perhaps the party leadership feels this is the only viable strategy given their political position, but it comes with risks.

This logic rests on several assumptions:

The first two factors are unknowable. But it is worth noting that Albaneses biggest downside risk is in being seen to have shied away from his heartfelt commitment. That is because it goes to his authenticity and trustworthiness. Losing after standing up for a point of principle is a different calculus. It is also an empirical fact that more prime ministers have lost referendums than won them.

It is possible Labor will turn on itself in the wake of a referendum defeat and a looming economic crisis. Both the ill-discipline and lack of nerve of the Whitlam and Rudd-Gillard governments made it possible for the extreme negative politics of the Snedden-Fraser and Abbott oppositions to succeed.

However, the government has so far shown itself to be composed largely of tough-minded pragmatists in economically ill-favoured times.

The idea that Australian electoral seats end up with either Labor or Coalition was an article of faith in Australian politics. It was underwritten by very high levels of party loyalty and our compulsory, preferential voting system.

Read more: What now for the Liberal Party? A radical shift and a lot of soul-searching

But the conditions that buttressed this orthodoxy have been in decline for decades, and have been shaping election outcomes for some time. There are now multiple viable political alternatives, and while it is not possible to predict whether voters will continue to abandon the major parties, offering voters more of what they just rejected is unlikely to be a winning strategy.

The strategy could backfire and the Coalition may reinforce a perception that its approach to politics remains cynical and tactical, rather than focused on finding solutions to longstanding problems and building a better future.

The electoral rout in 2022 was the Liberal partys worst ever. While some of that is attributable to the unpopularity of former prime minister Scott Morrison, much of it was also the result of long-term trends, including voter dealignment and a growing generational gap in ideological outlook.

Why have voters abandoned the major parties, and young people and women in particular turned their backs on the Coalition? The reasons are complex, but can be summarised as a growing sense that politicians dont listen, dont act in the national interest, and pursue partisan aims over the wider public good. The result is that governments appear unwilling to solve a growing number of pressing problems and voters have rationally sought alternatives.

Virtually every royal commission weve had has come about because governments failed (often wilfully) to listen to those affected or those in a position to give good advice.

The Liberals approach to the Voice is illustrative of the partys ongoing commitment to negative campaigning with a minimal positive agenda.

In the wake of the election, the party said it heard what women had to say. Others argued the party needed to do more for young people, particularly in relation to housing and global heating.

But the response so far has been largely backward-looking reheating old policies, invoking old platitudes and, in the case of the Voice, reviving arguments and language from the 1990s.

First-term oppositions typically arent imaginative, but they are usually reflective on some level. After all, they have just lost an election.

The Liberals have made much of their claims to being a broad church. In reality, this refrain has been a useful tool to quickly end discussions about how much internal debate the party should allow. The party has always consisted of two irreconcilable political traditions after all, Liberals and Conservatives were the government and opposition of the 19th century.

The Liberal party, like other hybrid Conservative-Liberal parties, has managed this dilemma by having one faction dominate the other. What was different in the past was the degree to which the party was prepared to tolerate differences of opinion in open forums.

Debate within the Liberal Party has been in decline for decades. Genuine debate has been eroded by message discipline and the centralisation of power with party leaders.

These are worldwide trends facing all parties. But the Liberal Party now also faces the dilemma of having lost a significant number of its moderate flank.

There are simply far fewer countervailing voices in todays Liberal party room.

The 2022 election saw many of the partys most able political leaders, capable of articulating a centre-right vision of the good life in the 21st century, exit parliament. Many of the remaining moderates are in the shadow cabinet, where discipline means they cannot publicly articulate the range of views that would truly denote the broad church that has historically so successfully appealed to Australian voters.

Read more: View from The Hill: Without those 'lefties' the Liberals can't regain government

The Liberal Party is not going anywhere. It draws on considerable institutional buffers, including public funding and electoral and administrative laws that protect established parties from some competition. Significantly, it retains the support of more than one-third of the electorate.

But with public movement away from both major parties now an established trend, and the partys seemingly entrenched backward-looking focus, it remains an open question as to how long will remain in the wilderness and whether it will choose to remain, permanently, a smaller and narrower party.

See more here:
Accentuate the negative: why the Liberal Party's fondness for 'no ... - The Conversation

In what could be a troubling sign for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a byelection this week in Nova Scotia, fraught with debate about the carbon tax and the state of the Liberal brand, ended in a once-safe provincial Liberal seat being lost in a landslide to the Progressive Conservatives.

As the federal Liberals grapple with the soaring cost of living and sagging poll numbers, political veterans across the Atlantic provinces say the byelection result could be a sign of things to come across Canada.

Its not uncommon for perhaps a swing riding to flip in a byelection, but for what had been a relatively safe seat to flip is something bigger, says Stephen Moore, who served as director of communications for former Nova Scotia Liberal Premier Stephen McNeil.

The riding of Preston had been held by the Nova Scotia Liberals for the last 20 years, but the byelection saw their support collapse with the Liberal candidate placing third behind the Progressive Conservative winner and the NDP runner-up.

The Progressive Conservatives heavily focused on criticizing what they described as the Liberal carbon tax, which PC Premier Tim Houston has been vocally opposed to.

Chad Bowie, a Conservative consultant and political commentator, says federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, a staunch critic of carbon taxes, has reason to be encouraged by the Preston byelection result.

We know that the Liberal carbon tax was a key issue in this byelection, and one of the key vote drivers, so of course, I think there could be ramifications. Perhaps even a sign of things to come, says Bowie.

There have increasingly been signs that Atlantic Canada, which was a stronghold for the Liberals in the 2015 election and has mostly stayed red since, is wavering. A recent poll by Abacus Data found the Liberals in the unenviable spot of lagging behind in all regions of the country, with the Conservatives leading in Atlantic Canada and the Bloc Qubcois leading in Quebec.

There are also signs the Liberals are circling the wagons in ridings and regions that have previously been bulwarks. Both cabinet ministers from Newfoundland and Labrador were retained with increased portfolios. The Nova Scotian MP Sean Fraser was promoted to housing, one of the most visible and thorny cabinet jobs as the country copes with a housing crisis.

And as ire on the east coast about the carbon tax mixes with general frustration about inflation and the cost of living, the Conservatives could see an opportunity to tear down the Liberal red wall in the Atlantic provinces.

I do think that the Tory decision to call the byelection just as the federal carbon tax was coming into place was likely a wise political calculation on their part, but certainly one that would have stung the Liberal brand, says Moore.

David Tarrant lauds Twila Gross, the PC challenger in Preston, for a strong campaign but says external factors also helped turn Prestons voters against the Liberals.

The biggest additional force is, without question, the carbon tax, says Tarrant. This summer for the first time, Nova Scotians felt the full vice of the Trudeau Liberal carbon tax, with immense pressure and pain to peoples cost of living, and the rather indifferent response from the federal government and the prime minister has massively damaged the Liberal brand in Nova Scotia.

A recent Nanos Research poll found 73 percent of Canadians surveyed in Atlantic Canada believe it is the wrong time to implement a carbon tax. Canada-wide, the poll found just 32 percent of Canadians surveyed believe carbon taxes are an effective way to reduce carbon emissions.

Unlike the Ontario Liberals, who are operationally independent of the federal Liberals despite strong grassroots ties, the Nova Scotia Liberals are an official branch of the federal party. The NSPCs and the federal Conservative parties are not organizationally linked, even if both parties members hold overlapping memberships.

I think the big lesson from the byelection is two-fold, says Bowie. First, Tim Houstons brand of progressive, pragmatic conservatism is a winning formula in Nova Scotia, and secondly, Zach Churchill has a Justin Trudeau problem.

Tarrant says Prestons voters did not differentiate between the provincial and federal Liberal parties when it came to their frustrations about the carbon tax.

A key issue that the PCs ran on was the carbon tax and gas prices, and the people I talked to said it was getting amazing traction, says Tarrant. No other single issue drove this more than the carbon tax.

Tarrant says the negative reaction to the federal carbon tax will be felt in all parts of Canada, with the exceptions of B.C. and Quebec which implemented their own provincial carbon taxes years ago.

In every other part of the country, particularly rural, suburban, small town parts, if Im a federal Liberal caucus member, the number one drag on the LPC right now is the carbon tax, says Tarrant. Its gonna cost them seats if Im a provincial Liberal, one of my big strategic dilemmas is how do I separate myself from the national party?

See the rest here:
In a troubling sign for Trudeaus Liberals, the Atlantic red wall looks ... - The Hub

QUEENS PARK Today, the Auditor General of Ontario released the findings of a new report detailing how the Conservatives Greenbelt Giveaway was hand-picked and directly influenced by wealthy developers that stood to benefit to the tune of 8.3 billion dollars.

In the new report, the Auditor General found that the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Housing hand-picked the land sites that would be removed from the Greenbelt 92% of which were suggested to the Chief of Staff by prominent and wealthy developers who had inside access to Ministry staff, and who would be the direct beneficiaries of the land swaps.

The report also makes it clear that the Housing Ministers Chief of Staff was operating under the direct authority of the Minister and the Premiers Office.

There is no way on Gods green Earth that Minister Clarks Chief of Staff acted without the Ministers full knowledge or direction, said MPP Fraser. Ministers make decisions; their Chiefs of Staff implement them.

While everyday Ontarians struggle to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living, this Conservative government is focused on ensuring their closest, most well-connected friends get richer. It is evident that Minister Clark is unable to conduct his ministerial duties in good faith or in the interest of Ontario families, and as a result, he must step aside.

Ontario Liberals are also calling on the provincial government to freeze all development on the lands involved in the Greenbelt Giveaway and end the multi-billion-dollar wealth transfer that has come at the unnecessary expense of our protected greenspaces, our sources of water, and the health and well-being of future generations.

Doug Ford knew from day one that he was going to do this, added MPP Fraser. Five years ago, the Premier got caught promising a room of his wealthy friends that he would crack open the Greenbelt for development. The Premier needs to do the right thing by coming clean about his deception and ending the Greenbelt Giveaway.

Read the original post:
Ontario Liberals Call for Minister Clark to Step Aside, End of the ... - Ontario Liberal Party