Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there's no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny's. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.

Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we're reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.

There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well

But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.

The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.

That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.

From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They've been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they're still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven't clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn't an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don't know what is.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

I mean if we're being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That's what they're prepared to do when they see corruption

And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner

When you're reduced to below party status you've been wiped out politically. You might recover but let's not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I'm afraid you're 100% incorrect there

The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now

The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they've been returned to a majority. And we're already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don't care

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it's getting to the point where it's practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.

That's the first I've heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.

But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption

Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.

When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.

This doesn't really change much, despite what you're arguing. There are a few exceptions but I'd argue that's less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.

When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there

Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you're saying the conservative voters kicked them out.

Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.

You had me in the first half - but I'd argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they'd have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.

I'd argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I've seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he's taking are actually good and in line with the party.

[–] Foxer@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's the first you've heard of it then glad to help educate you 😜

There's no doubt that the original architects of the party very much felt that the west was being excluded. But that's not why the public flocked to them.

And yeah, the PC party did worse than the reform who had no support outside of western Canada. And reduced them to 4 seats. And that would just keep getting worse for the PC until the reform took them over. You're kind of making my point for me here . Conservative voters turned their back on the PC and it no longer exists. And conservative voters did not wait 15 or 20 years before taking that party out permanently.

As to your claim that a core 20 to 30% that the Liberals and Conservatives have will refuse to vote for anyone else, while that may be true, the difference is that the liberals will still keep voting Liberal, whereas the Conservatives will not vote at all. Even if they know that it means that a party they dislike will get in and sees power they will refuse to vote for the corrupt party or they will break down and vote for someone else.

For example when the PC party was wiped out as you correctly note only a tiny percentage of the party was still willing to vote PC. And that was so scattered as to be meaningless.

On the other hand despite the snc leveling scandals the we scandals the agacon scandals and all of the other scandals which seem to show up about once every two or three months the core liberal supporters kept showing up and voting liberal. The CPC actually won more of the popular vote and two out of the three last elections but the core liberal support kept the liberals empowered despite obvious corruption

There's no comparing them. Conservative and NDP voters will trash their party completely and have done so many times if they detect corruption. Liberal voters do not

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

the difference is that the liberals will still keep voting Liberal, whereas the Conservatives will not vote at all.

No idea where you're pulling this from. All the election data I look at shows a very consistent PC/Reform party of 30% of the popular vote. Liberals typically hit a low of 20-30% as well, through the Mulroney days. Even when both parties were 'destroyed' (2014 Ontario Provincial Liberals hit 19% popular vote, PCs hit 16% in '93 but rebounded to 19% in '97), they retained nearly identical as percentage of popular votes. Please show me elections years with significant drop in conservative or NDP voting numbers due to scandal.

I've shown you an example of the liberal party voters doing exactly what you claim they're not and you're glossing over. I'm happy to continue the conversation, but I need you to start showing more than your own internal biases and opinions. Show me dates, facts, and numbers to back up what you're saying.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)