1995–2014 Social Democratic Party conflict

The 1995–2014 Social Democratic Party conflict, also known colloquially as the War for the Rose, was a series of increasing tensions between respective factions within the Telkrowin Social Democratic Party. The factions were largely determined by ideological lines as the conflict took place between the more centrist faction of the party, known as the "Moderates", and the more left-wing faction referred to as the "Reds" or "Red Social Democrats."

Background
While factions were present in the Social Democratic Party throughout the 20th century, the membership and leadership were still able to coalesce around a particular agenda and campaign during the run-up to federal elections. This amicable approach to party policy was largely driven by the notion that the working class was seen as pivotal to the party structure, so as long as they remained a key component of the party's apparatus then there existed no reason to be divisive or contradictory, especially in the face of the Communist Party of Telkrow or, later on, the Telkrowin Progressive Party. This fear of being subsumed by another political party would explain why, despite the varying leadership styles and agenda priorities of different Social Democratic leaders, the party was still largely united.

However, the federal election of 1988 uprooted a lot of the Social Democrats' assumptions about their overall party direction. The leadership of Roger Cannon, which was characterized as both economically nationalist and socially conservative, put the party on a collision course with the Telkrowin Progressives, a party that portrayed itself as a "pragmatic, centre-left force" that could siphon support from traditional working-class areas. Even after a leadership change prior to the 1991 election, the Social Democrats still lost ground and made little headway among working-class voters, but made some strides among suburban voters. While popularity for the Telkrowin Progressives waned in the years leading up to the 1994 election, the Social Democrats saw an opportunity to reinvigorate their old working-class base under the leadership of Wallace Parsons, a protégé of the late left-wing Prime Minister Quinn McDowell. In the following election, the Social Democrats gained 136 seats and took back plenty of working-class seats that were previously won by the Telkrowin Progressives. However, many of those elected were not as openly left-wing as Parsons was and the messaging of the party was a stark contrast to that of the Liberal Party, whose leader, Gilbert Spears, helped the party win the election with a more moderate platform.

Parsons/Dillon Rivalry (1995–2001)
The performance of the Social Democrats in the 1994 election was credited to two key elements of Parsons's leadership. First, the agenda he helped craft was seen as reflective of the concerns among the working class that the political spectrum had shifted more in favor of neoliberal economics over the course of the previous three decades. Second, Parson's choices for cabinet positions contained a mixture of both other left-wing partisans, such as Marcel Wells, and more moderate figures, most notably Zachery Dillon. The party's newfound popularity continued to grow during the early stages of the Spears government, sometimes surpassing the government with double-digit margins in opinion polls. However, there existed a sense of discontent among the party's centrist faction that this popularity may not last during a federal election campaign. Among many figures, such as future Education Minister Bridgette Patton, they attributed the party's success in 1994 to "a general discontent with the Atkins government and not because [the Social Democrats] are more activist." The "Moderates", as this faction came to be known, worried that the Liberals would portray the Social Democrats as too radical to control a government, which would result in a substantial loss of seats in the next election. In an attempt to avoid this fate, the Moderates called for a change in leadership and rallied behind Dillon as a possible successor to Parsons. While Parsons resisted calls in 1994 and early 1995 to step aside as leader, he recognized that "many within my party don't like my leadership, but we have to understand that at the epoch we are at, now is not the time for divisive behavior from party rebels."

As calls from the Moderates became more prevalent in party conferences and the media, enough support was gathered by the fall of 1996 to hold a leadership contest against Parsons. Despite initial optimism from Parsons supporters that he would survive, hope began to fade as the realization kicked in that many of those newly-elected in 1991 and 1994 were not of the same ideological background or, in some cases, not members of the working class as the "Red Social Democrats." As the Social Democratic Whip Kirby Bowen put it, the rising influence of the Moderates "was almost like bringing in a live beehive into your house and expecting the bees to suddenly be cooperative." When the results of the leadership election were known, it was confirmed that Zachery Dillon had won 59% of the votes from the Parliamentary Social Democratic Caucus, allowing him to become the next party leader. While the Moderates anticipated that a change in leadership would help embolden support for the party before the next election, due to be held in less than half a year, opinion polls instead showed a substantial drop in support for the Social Democrats. Whereas the party maintained a lead of roughly 12 points over the Liberals, the first round of polls after Dillon's ascension showed the Social Democrats, on average, only five points ahead of the government, in due part because of the uncertainty the party structure had at the time. While this drop-off was not enough to prevent the Social Democrats from winning the next federal election, as the party won with a 7.5 percentage point margin over the Liberals, the Red Social Democrats were adamant that the margin would've been more substantial had Parsons hung on as leader instead. This situation became another significant source of conflict between the Moderates and the Reds.

The Reds proved to be mostly rebellious during the Dillon premiership to such an extent that Dillon's tenure as Prime Minister was described by the Pellington Courier in 1999 as "the most disjointed majority government in anyone's lifetime." These divisions would become most apparent on major votes. The 1998 federal budget, for instance, was held up by 56 Reds, including the likes of Bowen, Wells, and rookie MP Lewis Hawkins, the latter of which quickly became influential among the left in Telkrow. The Red Social Democrats opposed a provision in the budget that would cut roughly $200 million from the industrial and environmental ministries, but enough support was gathered from the Telkrowin Progressives to get the budget passed. Later economic proposals by Dillon, such as capping the childcare benefit bonus to families making less than $150,000 a year, were also met with derision from the left. Further criticism from the left came from the rising gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizens, which many Reds believed the government was not doing enough in combating. On the third anniversary of the 1996 leadership contest, the Red Social Democrats and various other party colleagues, 79 in total, boycotted the session of Parliament by refusing to show up to vote. For left-wing MP Rita Howell, the move "was our attempt to show we still have grievances over how Parsons was forced out of a job and nearly cost us the election in the process." The MPs who abstained were later reprimanded by the Party Whip and were the subject of mockery from the Liberal opposition and those within in the media, thus harming the reputation of the Dillon government further.