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.
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.
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.
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.
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.