Thursday, October 11, 2007

Red Tories = Dead Tories

OK now let's see, that's two back-to-back election losses for Red Tories in Ontario.

By contrast, small "c" Conservative Mike Harris won two back-to-back majorities in the same province.

Hmmm, I may not be a political scientist or anything, but I think there's a pattern emerging here.

I wonder if the Tory party will pick up on it?

9 comments:

Marc-André Mongeon said...

It seems to me though that Tories need everyone in the coalition ( blue tories, red tories, social cons ) to win. No one can win this on their own as the federal experience of the 1990s has shown. It is not always easy I'll admit, but there are more things in common between members of this coalition that with other parties.

Anonymous said...

You are giving way too much credit to the lazy Ontario electorate my friend...Red tory, Blue tory...It does not matter at all...it all has to do with word of mouth, this time being:
"Faith based school BAD", brought to you by a Conservative (Bad), you know, like "bad bad Mike Harris" which was the word of mouth created by Gov. labour unions at the last election.

I want Ontaxio license plates to read: "Status Quo: The Devil we Know"

"Yours to discover" is innapropriate because 'discovering' means looking beyond...This does not suit a hoard of fenced in sheeple with blinders on.

SUZANNE said...

Why vote for a fake liberal when you can get the real thing?

That's what it boils down to.

Iain G. Foulds said...

... Gerry... good angle... keep on it.

Anonymous said...

Good analysis. It seemed that the conservative vote just stayed home - turnout was 52%, an all-time low. The Liberals actually lost votes themselves, while the Greens picked up some protest votes.

Anonymous said...

From my perspective since all three candidates seemed to be uncharismatic carbon copies of each other, I am not actually convinced that Tory's ideology had much to do with the loss.

Three words: faith based schools.

Anonymous said...

Wait... Look at Danny Williams... He stands up to unions, and seems to be turning the perpetually lost cause, Newfoundland and Labrador, around economically.

He's extremely popular, and guess what... he is a Red Tory.

Perhaps it is just that Ontario's Red Tories are so boring.

NB taxpayer said...

IMHO, the true conservative movement is balkanized.

First of all, it would seem to me that Ontario has to find a way to spread the small c conservative message without relying so heavily on their Alberta counterparts.

Right now they sometimes allow themselves to fall off message only to be pulled back to the right by staunch conservatives like yourself, Coren, Tuns and Daifallah to name a few.

Furthermore, Tuns made a good point regarding the Western Standard, "It was one of the few mainstream media news outlets that challenged liberal orthodoxy in this country."

A couple of coments to be made here from an eastern small c conservative who bought the Standard weekly.

First of all, Tuns' point on the Western Standard raise a few issues pertaining to the the small c conservative movement in general. One, that they may have challenged the "liberal orthodothy", but in doing so, they sometimes came across as anti-central Canada, anti-liberal and even anti-PC.

Now I understand why they are approaching the situation in that manner, however, it does nothing for those trying to strengthen the small c conservative message in Ontario nor does it increase readership in my neck of the woods or in other parts of Canada outside Calgary for the western Standard. If the small c conservative movement is ever going to be strong, they can't just preach to the choir, they must reach out to those who don't hold their views [right now].

Don't get me wrong, I love the great work Ezra has done with the WS and it will be greatly missed in my household. However, at the same time, and as a maritimer, I found their message to be very "reformist" or anti-government or anti-liberal or anti-PC. Take your pick.

Again I'm not against the principles of the approach, I'm just against the approach. Just to clarify, I understand why this is, however, what I am saying is sometimes this approach comes across as too harsh. So harsh that many people who want to join the movement may be turned off because they perceive themselves to be unwelcomed. In other words, central Canadians may feel they are being blamed for something they had no part in.

If the movement is ever going to grow, we can't have a balknaized conservative movement with orders coming from Alberta. We all must walk the same path and fight the good fight. If not, we are in for a long haul.

Miles Lunn said...

I would disagree with your analysis. I think Tory's faith based funding sunk his campaign. In addition, while Ernie Eves may have been a Red Tory, most Ontarioans didn't see him that way since he was a member of the Harris government. How often do you hear the term Harris-Eves government. In addition, although I agree with many things Mike Harris did, most the people I talk revile the guy, so going back to the CSR will only ensure they continue to get defeated. In addition while a more conservative leader would have brought out the conservative vote, many Green and NDP supporters likely would have swung over to the Liberals if there was a threat of a Tory win. After all McGuinty only got 2% more than what he did in 1999. Never mind there were probably just as many left wing voters that stayed home and you can bet they would have come out to vote if the Tories had a more right wing leader.

If you want a truly Conservative government, you need to convince the public to support conservatism first. There are several fundamental Canadian values you will not change such as the fact we believe in compassion, equality, and tolerance. The only way the Conservatives can win is argue that those ideals can better be achieved through less government rather than more government. Trying to sound as if you don't care for any of those less fortunate will never work.