Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I agree that there’s real political calculus behind those motions - they’re brought forward by constituency associations and delegates with no real consideration of the strategic electoral impact.
And no, I don’t think the Conservatives plan to reduce core immigration (though I do think they might reduce or freeze international student visa and TFW intake).
My point was that there’s nothing politically incoherent about trying to win battleground ridings and the motions to prohibit medical interventions for transgendered minors. I doubt those motions are big vote-losers in Brampton and Richmond.
|
Sure, but they're still hot-button issues that the leadership would have probably preferred weren't even brought up given their current spot in the polls. Those things can still alienate a portion of the urban and suburban voters they're going after and it can change the conversation away from the Conservative Party's current strengths.
My point was, the grass roots of the party clearly aren't worried about wading into controversial issues. So if the party honestly planned to curtail immigration significantly, or even if there was appetite among the base to do so, they'd be talking about it. Particularly because it's a vulnerability for current government. I don't buy for a second that they couldn't or wouldn't have come up with modest proposals for immigration reform because of fear of being branded as racists.