Rob1963

And this from someone who wants his party taken over by Alliance Fanatics. Give ME a break!!

This is from the Politics Canada web page: HISTORIC NATIONAL POLLS Date Liberal PC Alliance NDP Bloc Others Compas 21/10/2003 50 14 10 14 9 Ipsos-Reid 21/10/2003 46 15 11 11 8 Environics 10/10/2003 46 13 14 15 Ipsos-Reid 06/10/2003 47 14 13 12 9 SES Research 13/09/2003 46 19 13 15 8 Ekos 17/07/2003 54 17 11 10 5 Leger 09/06/2003 55 14 12 10 8 Ipsos-Reid 06/06/2003 45 15 14 11 9 5 SES Research 01/06/2003 52 18 12 10 7 Ekos 04/05/2003 50 17 13 10 Ipsos-Reid 27/04/2003 50 13 14 10 9 4 SES 24/02/2003 48 16 13 14 7 Ekos 23/02/2003 47 14 11 17 8 Ekos 21/01/2003 52 14 11 14 7 Ipsos-Reid 23/12/2002 41 13 15 10 Ipsos-Reid 14/12/2002 41 17 16 12 8 6 Ekos 09/12/2002 47 14 16 11 8 Ekos 01/11/2002 48 16 13 14 8 Politics Canada 31/10/2002 23 26 25 18 1 7 Ekos 27/08/2002 53 15 10 10 8 Ipsos-Ried 18/08/2002 41 18 16 13 8 Focus Canada 11/08/2002 40 15 18 16 9 Ipsos-Ried 21/06/2002 43 16 17 14 Ekos 07/06/2002 50 13 16 11 8 Ipsos-Ried 03/04/2002 45 15 15 10 10 Ekos 18/02/2002 55 19 9 9 Ipsos-Ried 30/09/2001 51 18 10 9 10 Gallup 24/09/2001 60 16 10 9 10 Compas 23/09/2001 55 18 7 4 Ekos 02/09/2001 53 18 10 9 8 Leger 17/08/2001 48 16 10 9 9 Ipsos-Ried 09/07/2001 48 21 10 10 9 Ipsos-Ried 27/04/2001 49 15 13 11 9 Environics 04/02/2001 45 23 8 8 10 Clearly showing the PC's leading the CA. Nonetheless, even if they were both dancing around 15%, the JMCK poll shows quite an improvement in CA and quite a drop in the Liberal numbers. I would be sceptical of any of the results until there is a clear trend. Also, any polling about the Conservative Party is going to be exaggerated until a new leader is chosen, and platform is laid out. Until then it is all things to all people. And it seems those in favour of this takeover (er, merger) are the ones doing the scare-mongering.

dnsfurlan Of course this is a takeover of the PC Party, how can you see it any other way? The founding principles mean nothing until the membership votes on more specific policy. While, in section 13 of the Agreement in Principle states “ the first convention will be based on equality of ridings, with each recognized riding association eligible to send an equal number of delegates”, future conventions may not be; it is left open. The last paragraph of section 13 reads “The constitution, statement of principles and policies may be amended at the first convention by a double majority vote (majority of votes cast by delegates, and a majority of votes cast by delegates from a majority of individual provinces). All other matters of business may be conducted by simples majority.” What this means is that former CA members will swamp the process and install their views on the new party. The first election may look like the PC Party, but, by 2008 it will have been taken over by the old Reform Party/CA ways. Where will Canadians turn then?

Why do think these results are credible? Because it shows you something you want to see? I think it is totally unbelieveble. Polls have consistently shown the PC's leading the CA for over two years, yet this one poll shows the Alliance at 16 to 11 for the PC's? No way!!

Peter MacKay has sold out the PC Party and, even worse, Canadians. Oh, sure, it is being painted as the Alliance giving in to Peter's insistence of using the PC Party method of choosing a leader. While the FIRST selection uses that method, the new Party is not bound to do so in subsequent selections. Who wants to bet that the overwhelmingly former CA membership will stick with a method that they despise. The Founding Principles warm, fuzzy, nothings, included to appease PROGRESSIVE Conservatives. Until the new Party has a set of policies voted on by the membership and a Platform, no one knows what the new Party stands for (we only know that it stands AGAINST the Liberals). Again, who wants to bet that the CA Majority view dosen't eventually prevail? Sure, it likely will not be until after the next election, when the membership gets it's say in the new Party, that it will become obvious this has indeed been a takeover. It will be too late then, Many will have tuned out completely, or gone to other parties by then, and Canadians will really have no alternative to the Liberals.

Cameron, you have not answered what I think is a reasonable question, why did you not join the Party to support the Pro-Unity Candidate? Will YOU respond?

Neal, I'm not sure where you stand on the proposed party being socially progressive, but you just threw a lake full of cold water over the main selling point. You say neither Jim Prentice nor Scott Brison could win the leadership because they are both too socially progressive. Same reason Lord, Charest, Long, Ablonsky, Binns, maybe others who are more socially progressive would not run or do well in a leadership contest. Thank you, you have proven my point and given me the reassurance I knew would be coming out. Keep it up.

Mr. Chater, who is going to pay hell, and to whom? RT 1984, The Founding Principles are nothing more than warm fuzzy statements, 90% of which the NDP and Green Parties likely could support. The crunch comes when the membership puts in place policy and platforms. There are several areas where I and the PC Party disagree with the CA. Issues like Capital Punishment, recall, referenda, regional economic development, hate legislation, bilingualism, etc. dnsfurlan, There is nothing wrong with new members signing up with the new Party if it comes to pass, and that is the party they support. They can do that if and when the new Party is created. I take issue with people who have never supported the PC Party, coming in with the sole purpose of destroying something which I and many others have worked very hard at rebuilding. I just spent over $1000 of my hard-earned money to go to Toronto to elect a leader to lead the PC Party into the next election, as the PC Party of Canada. I don't take too kindly to someone plunking $10 down to vote to negate that. I have no problem if someone can prove that they have been a member of the PC Party in the past, say the last five years (certainly someone who was a member during the rebuilding phase, not someone who was a member in 1993 and then left because they didn't think the PC Party was worth working for), but someone who can prove they were a member at some point within the last five years can have a say in this process. Just because Lord, Mulroney, and Crosby are endorsing this doesn't mean they have a monoploy on right over wrong. After all I supported Peter MacKay (after Scott Brison) for the leadership of the PC Party. Let's just say, It will be a long time before I could support or trust him again!!

Odd to hear CA'ers calling on their membership to swamp the PC Party in order to vote for this agreement. And I thought one of their platforms was "democracy". Is this democracy? My only guess is that they can't sell it any other way. Shows the desperation of the CA to take over the PC Party since they can't get elected otherwise! Anyone who thinks the New Party (if it happens) will be anything other than the CA/Reform think about this: - Peter MacKay may have gotten his way on the leadership selection, but the one-member, one-vote is still in place for the policy. Whose policies will prevail then????

So why haven't the Blue Tories voted for the Alliance in the past rather than staying home and 'letting' the Liberals win?

Gugsy, Not all want a merger. And believe me, I'm not the only one who does not want it!

Borotsik is against merger. Brandon Sun

I think you will find that REX Barnes, John Herron, nad Gerald Keddy are not in favour. Where did you get your info?

I'd like to know which governments have been fiscal and social conservatives in this country!

I think it's because this notion of merging with the Alliance hasn't been put to bed for once and for all.

Because America is not liberal. I agree though, that argument is a bit simplistic. Just a gut feeling I have. And I am not afraid of displaying my patriotism, I just don't do it in your face like the Americans and CAer's.

You don't have to be a member to vote for the party. Polls have consistently shown the PC Party ahead of the CA for some time now.

OK, so SOME conservative governments get elected. And maybe someday the CA may get elected to government. By and large, provincial governments in Canada have been center-of-the-road. And, when was the last federal government that one could consider small 'c' conservative. I don't think you can find one. I did not say "Principled" Parties don't get elected, it's the "unprincipled" parties that do not get elected (with the exception of the Chretien government). I am saying that a Party with small 'c' conservative principles such as the CA will not be elected to government in Canada. And any merged CA-PC Party is either not going to have many principles or it will just be another name for the Canadian Alliance Party. If you think conservatism can be sold to the Canadian people, then do it through the CA. Why do you need the PC Party? I say Harper sees the need for the PC's to help moderate the CA's stand so that the CA will be acceptable to Canadians across the country, not just in the West. I also, say, the PC Party should stay where we are and we will show you that our vision of Canada will emerge as the more popular. Your last couple of paragraphs are what scares me about the Alliance. I think they want to make Canada the northern USA

The best way to have a leadership contest (in this case at least) would be a delegated convention. The CA has far more members signed up than does the PC Party, but their numbers are concentrated in the west. In a one-member-one vote contest the CA would overrule any chance a PC Candidate would have. With a delegated system, the CA would likely still take the western delegates (where their membership is strongest) while the PC's would likely take Atlantic Canada. The rest would likely be split up in some proportion (I'd venture a guess that there would be more PC than CA delegates in those areas, but maybe not) However, I hope this dosen't come about as I have discussed in the "Letter from Peter MacKay" thread. I will not be a part of it.

If you feel that being labelled far right is a form of demonization, then so be it. Ontario appears about to elect a liberal government, there are non-conservative governments in Nfld, Que, Man, and Sask. NB, NS and PEI do not have 'c'onservative governments. So there goes whatever argument you were trying to make there. As far as differences between the two parties, how about Capital Punishment, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Regional development, Immigration, ... Now tell me where the two parties have similar positions.

Ryan, I want to echo what has been said by others here, namely that your views are most closely reflected in the PC Party. I would urge you to join and get involved. You will meet a lot of interesting people and a lot of opportunities to get to know your community. (last part applies to all parties, I expect)

to: dnsfurlan I'm not trying to "demonize" CAers, just pointing out what I percieve the difference between PCers and CAers. What do you mean by "principled conservatism"? What common ground do you see between PCers and CAers (that is not in common with other parties)? I think there may be some common ground, especially on the economic side, but on social issues there is too much to bridge. I have never used the word "extreme" to label members of the CA, in fact I don't consider them "extremists" as a whole (yes there are some extremists in ALL Parties). What I'm trying to say is that the CA is a far right party (nothing wrong with that, I just don't share the same view of Canada), and Canadians are generally a more moderate society, therefore, any Party hoping to form government has to be where Canadians are - generally in the centre. to the Watcher: I need to know what the new Party would stand "for" rather than "against". And as Craig Read thinks, Harper and the CA should set the Policy. Not acceptable to me.

I don't think Chretien has said that he is personally against gay marriage.

I don't think Chretien has said that he is personally against gay marriage.

But, Gugsy, why do you need the two to merge. I still haven't heard a good reason why the two should merge.