Nik Bethune said:One thing I really don't get though is why there's all this focus on the Leaders when it really seems to me like was an election about policy. Admittedly, at a point where the Conservatives probably wanted to distance themselves from Trump/Ford-esque conservatism being led by a guy with an American passport who fudged his resume didn't help but I still think what sunk them is their lack of a clear message.
Obviously there was a massive problem for the Conservatives in that the traditional measurements of the economy that they like to use(Stock Market, GDP, Unemployment Rate) are actually doing very well right now so they couldn't really paint Trudeau as having wrecked the economy. They tried to make a big deal about deficit spending but in a country where most people have mortgages and student loans, it's pretty tough to tell people that spending money you don't have adds up to fiscal irresponsibility.
So what were they left with? Vague pledges to lower taxes and cut spending, mainly. Now, I understand that modern Conservative economic theory relies on the pillars of Lower Taxes and Less Spending but even then they muddled on messages. When the NDP and Liberals say they'll cut my phone bill, I get that. Every Conservative ad I saw seemed to talk about various tax credits and assorted esoterica within the tax code which may very well have lowered some people's end of year tab but honestly, I didn't even know if any of it would have applied to me as I don't do my own taxes.
Then there's the spending. I know conservatives like to paint themselves as the grown-ups making tough choices and being honest with people vs. progressives and their fanciful promises but that didn't come through at all either. We saw it Ontario where Ford ran on cutting unspecified "waste" but when elected all of a sudden "waste" meant higher class sizes in schools and less money for disabled people. I think most voters understand that if you're going to cut taxes while caring about the deficit it means spending cuts and those spending cuts have to come from somewhere. I get that actually detailing what money you're cutting isn't popular but, well, if you're going to run on fiscal conservatism you need to be upfront about it.
Again, this is an issue where Progressives, even if you disagree with them, have a much clearer message. Deficit Spending? Acceptable. How are you going to finance new Pharma or Dental Care programs? Higher taxes on Businesses and the Wealthy.
Throw in a lack of actual measurable policy on an issue like Climate Change, which is a major and growing concern for Canadians, and I just don't even know what this election was for for the Conservatives.
Well, I mean Toronto was always going to be a hard area for the cons to make inroads considering what we're seeing with the provincial government also. Where else would the Cons have made gains potentially? Atlantic Canada? Seems hard to see how the cons had a true path to victory here, but that's exacerbated by what you mention above. How long can cons act like it's the 50s and completely ignore climate science? How effective is MONEY IN YOUR POCKET sloganeering really? Cons have generally not done a very good job of managing the deficit in general either as far as I remember.
I think it's hard for most people who aren't really pro small government, less social services to back this type of conservatism. I think you can be conservative, pro business, anti-deficit but pro pharmacare and climate action. I mean the start of the pro-environmentalist movement could arguably have started as a conservative movement. Isn't that sort of the basis of the word?
Edit: I'm a bit young to really know the term, but weren't there Red Tories in the past?