Why are Liberals successful federally but fail provincially?

[thurmas]

It seems historically and currently that the Federal Liberals usually do well governing Canada for 90 years since confederation compared to just 65 for the Tories. However on the provincial side its reversed. Ontario has mostly always been PC governing Ontario for almost 60 of the last 80 years. Quebec Liberal party is in 4th place in the low teens and they haven't had ties to the federal party since the 60s. Bc liberals aren't really liberal and now changed their name to BC united. Alberta and Sask i don't think even have liberal parties anymore ? They might but no one votes for them. Manitoba liberals now polling at 10%. Just seems like a very odd phenomenon this inverse success on one end and constant failure on the other.

[Architype]

Is it fair to say that the country seemed much more politically homogenous until recent years? Our fragmented system is perhaps the result of a provincial versus federal power struggle. It could be that we are trending towards separate federal and provincial political parties, with the Liberals finding their strength only federally. Additionally, I think we can say that the wider political diversity is one more thing that separates us from the highly polarized US.

[SteelTown]

Well...it's a different story east of Quebec that you neglected to mention.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Well...it's a different story east of Quebec that you neglected to mention.

The Maritimes true they seem to rotate in and out more evenly. Personally I feel federally its easier to be a mushy centrist and change postitons that the Liberals are good at because you can pit regions against each other whereas provincially not so much. Provincially you need more concrete firm positions as its much more tribal in a sense the voting positions and atleast in Western Canada always Conservatives vs Social Democrats

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by thurmas

It seems historically and currently that the Federal Liberals usually do well governing Canada for 90 years since confederation compared to just 65 for the Tories. However on the provincial side its reversed. Ontario has mostly always been PC governing Ontario for almost 60 of the last 80 years. Quebec Liberal party is in 4th place in the low teens and they haven't had ties to the federal party since the 60s. Bc liberals aren't really liberal and now changed their name to BC united. Alberta and Sask i don't think even have liberal parties anymore ? They might but no one votes for them. Manitoba liberals now polling at 10%. Just seems like a very odd phenomenon this inverse success on one end and constant failure on the other.

As far as I know, only the federal NDP is officially affiliated with the provincial NDPs. The federal Liberal party doesn't have anything to do with the provincial Liberal parties, nor does the federal Conservative party have anything to do with the provincial Conservative parties. I don't think you can compare them. (Imagine comparing the NS PC to the CPC!)

[WarrenC12]

The Libs (now BC United) do fine in BC. They are basically the Conservatives, while our NDP is basically centrist/Federal Liberal.

Hardcore dippers here hate to hear that, but it's the way the BC NDP is successful in the polls, and when they govern.

[WhipperSnapper]

How different are the maps for Ontario's last provincial and federal elections? The federal one should be more red. How much more red?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

[...] our NDP is basically centrist/Federal Liberal.

I think the BCNDP and LPC are highly aligned but I wouldn't call either centrist. Centre-left at least.

[hipster duck]

I can't speak for the other provinces, but in Ontario the provincial Liberals and Conservatives aren't really parties with big ideological differences*, they're just "the other party" that people vote in when the party in power has become long in the tooth.

The provincial Liberals look weak right now, but I think they'll be back. I wouldn't say that they're uninfluential at all; they were in power for 15 years between 2003-2018 and David Peterson was also in power between 1985-1990.

It's true that Ontario had a 40 year long streak of Conservative premiers from the 1940s until Bill Davis resigned in 1985 (there was Frank Miller who was like a Kim Campbell replacement), but that's ancient history.

*The big ideological differences are intra-party over time. The Bill Davis, Mike Harris and Doug Ford are radically different from one another.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

It's true that Ontario had a 40 year long streak of Conservative premiers from the 1940s until Bill Davis resigned in 1985 (there was Frank Miller who was like a Kim Campbell replacement), but that's ancient history.

In the Bill Davis era, weren't the PC's also more generally ideologically aligned with the federal Liberals than the Ontario Liberal Party was? The dynamics were different from today, but at least from what I understand the PC's were moreso the centrist urban/suburban party, while the Liberals represented more rural interests (with the NDP most popular among the harder left & union-heavy areas).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In the Bill Davis era, weren't the PC's also more generally ideologically aligned with the federal Liberals than the Ontario Liberal Party was? The dynamics were different from today, but at least from what I understand the PC's were moreso the centrist urban/suburban party, while the Liberals represented more rural interests (with the NDP most popular among the harder left & union-heavy areas).

The Liberals were the Catholic party in those days compared to the Orange Order affiliated Conservatives.

It's nonsensical to a 2023 brain, but that's how it used to be.

[Denscity]

Liberals were just as successful in BC as anybother party.

[TorontoDrew]

The Liberals do just as well provincialy as they do federally.the left grows each year in Canada while the right shrinks. But we have a 3 party system where the lefts votes get split. So ya the cons win some times.ford does not represent about 60% of Ontarians.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The Liberals were the Catholic party in those days compared to the Orange Order affiliated Conservatives.

It's nonsensical to a 2023 brain, but that's how it used to be.

That's interesting, didn't know about that! Makes sense though - religious sectarianism played a pretty big role throughout Ontario's history up until the relatively recent past. Kind of amazing how it's just entirely disappeared from the public consciousness in the past 3 decades or so.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I can't speak for the other provinces, but in Ontario the provincial Liberals and Conservatives aren't really parties with big ideological differences*, they're just "the other party" that people vote in when the party in power has become long in the tooth.

This is the same for us.

We're currently in the middle of transitioning to the Canadian norm of voting for right-wing parties in rural areas, and left-wing parties in urban ones. Provincially and federally. For the past couple of generations, the opposite has been true here because the Liberal party was pro-Confederation with Canada, which had broad, mostly rural support, and the Progressive Conservative Party was opposed to Confederation with Canada, which had broad, mostly urban support. Obviously, despite my ramblings, that's a non-issue here today.

The changeover has been slow, but it is moving quite rapidly in this final phase. I expect within my lifetime it'll become the norm that Newfoundland reliably returns 4 Conservative MPs to Ottawa every election, unfortunately. St. John's will continue to swing between the Liberals and NDP, with the Conservatives a distant third (2 MPs). And Labrador will remain a wild card where any party can win depending on the candidate and which rural/industry/Indigenous/union-related issues are dominant in the campaign.

Provincially, ideology doesn't really matter much. Both parties are passionately left-wing on social issues, to the limited extent they ever come up in our politics, and they tend to mostly employ the same means to the same ends in power, with slight differences in areas of emphasis. The Progressive Conservatives, for example, are always on top of reducing child poverty and increasing immigration. The Liberals are often focused on improving health outcomes and securing federal funding for anything and everything, etc. But 99.9% of the work of government doesn't change a single bit between the two.

[ssiguy]

The Liberals in BC have absolutely no relationship with the ones in Ottawa. In fact when they first came out the Liberals in Ottawa tried to bar them from using the name. This is why the party is called BCLiberals and not the Liberal Party of BC. The BCLiberals are just a more modern name of the old Socreds.

As for the Liberal not doing well provincially, I don't think that's really the case as it only applies to Western Canada where the Liberal name has never garnished much respect or electoral success. Provincial non-Liberal parties give the Western premiers the political advantage of being able to say they are standing up to Ottawa and hence "Canada's natural governing party".

[SpongeG]

wrong thread

[J.OT13]

Bill Davis from what I've read was more centrist. Very reasonable policies. He seemed do govern the Province in the right direction for the most part. Nothing like Mike Harris and today's Mike Harris-Lite who make dumb mostly dumb policy changes to benefit themselves and their friends, destroy public health care, burden municipalities with more responsibilities and give pointless tax breaks. Blows my mind how these terrible Governments get reelected.

Liberals in Ontario weren't perfect. Definitely some corruption and questionable decisions, but overall their tenure moved Ontario forward (nearly completed decarbonizing power supply, new green policies like cap and trade partnered with Quebec and California, huge hospital expansions, pharmacare for 25 and under, transit expansions across the Province (not just the GTA), investments in education). Of course Doug reversed much of it.

[swimmer_spe]

Look at the policies. Look at how each policy fits with each level party. So, for your province, look at the different policies within each party, then find the matching policy within the federal parties and you start to see that they do not seem to align well.

Another thing, look at the share of votes provincially and then the same riding federally. They don't line up well. If it did, federally, out west, there would be a lot more Orange.

Here in ON, the PCs are more of a centre right party than the CPC currently are and have been for some time. Since there is no centre right federal party, people are voting liberal. This is why the CPC need to move more centre to win.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Liberals in BC have absolutely no relationship with the ones in Ottawa. In fact when they first came out the Liberals in Ottawa tried to bar them from using the name. This is why the party is called BCLiberals and not the Liberal Party of BC. The BCLiberals are just a more modern name of the old Socreds.

As for the Liberal not doing well provincially, I don't think that's really the case as it only applies to Western Canada where the Liberal name has never garnished much respect or electoral success. Provincial non-Liberal parties give the Western premiers the political advantage of being able to say they are standing up to Ottawa and hence "Canada's natural governing party".

For a time BC provincially had the Liberals, NDP and Social Credit. In those days the Liberals was an irrelevant party provincially but more in sync with the federal party. In 1991, Social Credit messed up badly, the Liberals went from 1 or 2 seats to become official opposition. Many of those in Social Credit caught on that it was a sinking ship and moved over to the Liberals. The Liberals they shifted right of center. Social Credit was left to die a slow painfully death. The federal liberals were not amused with the shift to the right.