Scrooged

Shorter Assorted Conservative Hacks with Too Much Time On Their Hands:

In keeping with the conservative movement's holiday spirit, we pose this most humanitarian of questions: why are there no workhouses?

On value judgments

Apparently the Conservative exercise in spin isn't about to end anytime soon just because Stephen Harper has lost power. Here's Ken Boessenkool as a representative spokesflack on the Cons' time in office:

The Conservative party has a remarkable opportunity to prepare to regain power in the wake of our equally remarkable nine-year run in government. Together we have moved Canada in a conservative direction on a broad range of policy fronts. And we owe it to our record, to our movement and to our party to continue to do so.

Key to regaining power is selecting the right leader.

Politics today is more leader-driven than ever before. This campaign, if anything, reinforced this. The public did not turn away from the broad policy agenda of Conservatives, instead they turned toward “change” as embodied in Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

In response, let's set the record straight: Harper has done nothing at all to persuade Canadians to accept a more small-c conservative worldview. In fact, public opinion has moved in the opposite direction on his watch.

And that reality is reflected the Cons' election strategies and results.

In 2006, they won power primarily demanding accountability and reassuring voters they wouldn't be in a position to change Canada much at all. In 2008 and 2011, they focused mostly on nebulous concepts like "not a leader" and "just visiting" for lack of any belief that their value system would resonate beyond a 28% base. And in 2015, forced to abandon leadership politics due to Stephen Harper's unpopularity, they lost their place in power pushing a right-wing worldview as their final campaign message.

Which isn't to say the Cons haven't tried to sway public opinion and turn Canada into a meaner society. But while they've misused their power to temporarily silence anybody they could control, there's no evidence they've ultimately managed to win Canadians over.

On splits

Ken Boessenkool and Brian Topp offer their own take on vote splits in the recent federal election. And they're absolutely right to note that the Libs appear to have been the main beneficiary in last week's election: in fact, the full list of ridings where a party won 50% or more of the vote includes only two Lib seats (both in Newfoundland).

That said, though, I'm not sure that the observation speaks to much more than the inherent relationship between a party's baseline support and its top riding results.

By way of comparison, the same list from 2008 includes only seven NDP seats to a handful more Lib ridings, while the list of ridings with the lowest winning share included numerous NDP seats - suggesting that there isn't a huge structural difference between the two parties in how many vote splits they rely on when their party support is in a similar range. And it stands to reason that as a party's national support level drops, it will have a more difficult time compiling massive margins of victory in any given seat - not to mention little incentive to fight for them if it's possible to win a plurality with less.