I think the current trend towards voting Conservative started in the ‘60s.
There was considerable support for the Tories in the ‘40s – mostly because the overseas military, a volunteer, duration of hostilities only, citizens’ military hated King for his dithering over conscription. That changed in the ‘50s. St Laurent and, to a lesser degree Pearson, were seen as pro-military – not just in terms of spending but also in terms of what I would an agenda of respect for the military itself, and for defence policy issues.
Three hammer blows fell in the ‘60s:
1. Peacekeeping went from being a useful sideshow – something to do while we waited for the main event – the Red hordes streaming across the North German Plain – to being a raison d’être in and of itself (favoured by both Conservatives and Liberals as a way to contain spiralling defence budget demands which occurred just as the country wanted, expected huge social spending);
2. Paul Hellyer’s misnamed unification scheme (it was, really, integration but that’s whole other debate (happened on Pearson’s watch); and
3. Trudeau’s ’68 foreign and defence policy vandalism.
Mulroney talked good defence policy but did nothing. Chrétien was another vandal – for much the same reasons as Trudeau: he wanted to spend, Spend, SPEND! on personal, social entitlements and being anti-American (and America being the sine qua non of ‘military’) always plays well in Canada. Harper? Let’s wait and see – so far, so good. Dion – as I said over here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54132/post-490454.html#msg490454 – two cheers, so far, on one issue. Time will tell, but I suspect his political heart is not in foreign and defence policy.
The last time, perhaps the only time, we had a PM with significant interest and real skills in foreign and defence matters was in the ‘50s: Louis St Laurent.
I think the shifting political preferences of the military reflect the reverse of the preferences of the PM of the day. For the most part, from around 1965 to 2005, ‘we’ have been anti-government.