Progressive Canadian Party

Wild Bill · October 19, 2008

I'd say that they share an interest in most of the things Reform believed in. However, the Harper Conservatives are a lot more pragmatic than the Reform Party was. They recognize that you can't do a thing if you're not in power. And being in power in Canada means compromise. You can't just lay down a platform that is pleasing to the right wing. You have to attract a lot of middle-of-the-roaders or you'll forever be a complaining voice in the wilderness.
I don't like seeing them spending money on things the federal government should not be spending money on. But I have watched the Liberals buy election after election since the seventies, and so it's hard for me to be really harsh on the Harper Tories as they spend more money than they ought to. Likewise, they are trying to suck up to the two groups which have always been barren wastelands for Tory votes; Quebec, and the huge immigrant communities. If they're going to get a majority, demographics are pretty firm in that they have to make major inroads into one or the other. And without a majority they are forever in pre-election mode, at the mercy of the polls. So yes, they've had to soften stands on a variety of issues, but at heart, they remain conservative, and where they can apply conservative beliefs they will.

Well, that's the age old problem, isn't it? Pragmatism vs. idealism. The problem here is that the new party now is asking those of us who believe in populism, a Triple E Senate, free votes and such are now expected to just have faith that after a long, slow process of incrementalism these goals will be achieved.

That's a LOT to ask on faith! Particularly when the Canadian record of parties delivering on such promises is so poor. Eventually the need to achieve and hold power consumes so much of a party's attention that the original goals become forgotten.

Also, the danger in such a policy is that it only works if the old Reform base has no alternative but to support the CPC by default.

If any other party, new or old. launches an appeal to this particular demographic I see little or no way Harper's team would be able to hold onto that voting segment.

Meanwhile, being 56 myself I guess I'll have to resign myself that I won't see much in my lifetime...

OddSox · October 19, 2008

... And being in power in Canada means compromise. You can't just lay down a platform that is pleasing to the right wing. You have to attract a lot of middle-of-the-roaders or you'll forever be a complaining voice in the wilderness.

Too bad some other party(s) wouldn't realize this...

cybercoma · October 20, 2008

So if the new party has abandoning everything that made it the Reform Party, how can you make the claim that the present party is Reform in disguise?

Because he's a history major, not a political science major.

Argus · October 20, 2008

Sir John A. was a loyal British subject, Steve H. is a republican neo-con who wants to turn us into another United States.

In other words, you have no idea.

kengs333 · October 21, 2008

In other words, you have no idea.

Oh, wah! I'm soooo hurt...

kengs333 · October 21, 2008

I don't understand your rationale behind making this claim. I was a Reformer and am quite familiar with all the planks of the old Reform platform. It's my perspective that ALL of them were quietly dropped after the merger with the Progressive Conservative Party! The new party seems to actually be a clone of the old Mulroney party, with a bit more Chretien-style of a controlling PMO.
So if the new party has abandoning everything that made it the Reform Party, how can you make the claim that the present party is Reform in disguise?

Or are party platforms irrelevant to your definitions?

We don't see the old Reform in the party because they don't have a majority. If they did, it would all come out of the closet post haste.

Wild Bill · October 21, 2008

We don't see the old Reform in the party because they don't have a majority. If they did, it would all come out of the closet post haste.

Again, how do you justify your opinion? When the parties merged, there were a huge number of Reform/Alliance MP's and only a handful of Progressive Conservatives.

Seems that Reform obviously had an overwhelming majority from the start! Which makes it all the more strange that they would choose to abandon their platform.

I'd be interested in your explanation of how they didn't have a majority.

kengs333 · October 21, 2008

Again, how do you justify your opinion? When the parties merged, there were a huge number of Reform/Alliance MP's and only a handful of Progressive Conservatives.
Seems that Reform obviously had an overwhelming majority from the start! Which makes it all the more strange that they would choose to abandon their platform.

I'd be interested in your explanation of how they didn't have a majority.

You can't tell me that all is forgotten and that if they got a majority it wouldn't all start to be rediscovered.

peter_puck · October 21, 2008

"Canada's sound banking system and robust fiscal position is owed to Paul Martin's reign at the Finance department.
Liberals are the party of fiscal discipline in Canada."

I wouldn't be so eager to credit Martin with much to do with the banking system or his great ideas as finance minister. Even Chretien has given credit to Michael Wilson for the financial plan that got us out of deficit, well that along with a number of other external factors and the FTA, Gst etc. The late Dalton Camp (who was a lifelong Liberal) had few good words for Martin or his fiscal abilities.

I thought Dalton Camp was a life long Conservative ? I believe he held a senior position in the party (as opposed to government).

Anyway, the big thing I credit Martin for was being able to not spend the money. It seems almost impossible for a politician have money and not spent it, but Martin managed just that.

Wild Bill · October 21, 2008

You can't tell me that all is forgotten and that if they got a majority it wouldn't all start to be rediscovered.

Ah, now I see! I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about an internal majority within the new CPC, which would establish who has the power to determine the party's actions.

You are talking about what would happen if the CPC achieved a majority government.

In the immortal words of Gilda Radner: "Nevermind!"

Mr.Canada · October 21, 2008

Ah, now I see! I misunderstood you. I thought we were talking about an internal majority within the new CPC, which would establish who has the power to determine the party's actions.
You are talking about what would happen if the CPC achieved a majority government.

In the immortal words of Gilda Radner: "Nevermind!"

That may have been true in 2000 but not anymore as all the Red Tories have come back to the Conservatives now, which is obvious from the amount of seats they have won in the most recent election.

The Canadian people overwhelmingly support the PM and want to give him a majority. Everywhere except Quebec, for now. Quebec is the only province holding the CPC from majority. The CPC has even won over the majority of votes in Ontario.

Just a matter of time before the CPC gets its majority.

kengs333 · October 21, 2008

That may have been true in 2000 but not anymore as all the Red Tories have come back to the Conservatives now, which is obvious from the amount of seats they have won in the most recent election.

Some voters, perhaps; but my guess is that most voted Liberal or Green. Those who vote for the Conservatives vote for the name and the colour blue, and probably have not real understanding about what the party's agenda is really all about. These are people who pay little attention to politics outside of elections.

Many of the Red Tories who formed the Progressive Canadians have joined the Liberals.

The Canadian people overwhelmingly support the PM and want to give him a majority. Everywhere except Quebec, for now. Quebec is the only province holding the CPC from majority. The CPC has even won over the majority of votes in Ontario.
Just a matter of time before the CPC gets its majority.

Nice delusion. Only 37.7% of voters voted for the Conservatives, which means that the minority do not want Harper, let alone a Conservative majority. The Conservatives only gained about 1% point over the last election, but with about 200,000 fewer votes. Somehow that translates into about 14 more seats for a total of about 48% of the total seats. You can't tell me that there's something wrong with the system when this kind of nonsense can be the result of an election.

Conservatives always tend to govern for 5 to 8 years before they wear out there welcome. If the election was any indication, this parlaiment should be filled with many gaffes and scandals, and this time people won't be so willing to turn a blind eye.

And wait until the economic numbers come out. We're probably in deficit right now, and it should hit $10b in a couple of years. Hopefully this will make people finally realize just how much of a bald face liar Harper really is...

Alta4ever · October 21, 2008

We don't see the old Reform in the party because they don't have a majority. If they did, it would all come out of the closet post haste.

Read the conservative platform, this the mandate a elected CPC member has. Their course has been laid out for them by the grassroots of the party.

stignasty · October 21, 2008

We don't see the old Reform in the party because they don't have a majority. If they did, it would all come out of the closet post haste.

We don't see a Reform party anymore because they seemed like a fringe party. By calling themselves the Conservative party of Canada and having the media buy into the rebirth by calling them the Tories, they have a much more marketable item.

Argus · October 22, 2008

Conservatives always tend to govern for 5 to 8 years before they wear out there welcome. If the election was any indication, this parlaiment should be filled with many gaffes and scandals, and this time people won't be so willing to turn a blind eye.

In the old days the Liberals could count on a guarantee of over 60 seats from Quebec every election. That meant they only needed to get about 1/3 or the seats elsewhere to win power. That ended with the BQ, but nobody noticed because the PC party split apart into its Progressive and Conservative factions and thus split the vote. Now that they're together once more the Liberals will not find it nearly as easy to win elections, especially with a majority, no matter who their leader is.

kengs333 · October 23, 2008

Read the conservative platform, this the mandate a elected CPC member has. Their course has been laid out for them by the grassroots of the party.

Oh, okay. All I'm saying is things would change if the Conservatives would get a majority: the secret agenda would come out...

Mr.Canada · October 23, 2008

Oh, okay. All I'm saying is things would change if the Conservatives would get a majority: the secret agenda would come out...

This isn't 1997. There is no secret agenda. Mr Dion has the secret agenda. He must. He certainly didn't have a plan for leading the country. He's the one with the secret agenda.

What is Mr. Harpers secret plan?

I'd like to hear it.

Alta4ever · October 23, 2008

Oh, okay. All I'm saying is things would change if the Conservatives would get a majority: the secret agenda would come out...

There is no secret agenda. Why do types harp on and on about, it is very tiresome. I think I'm going start ending every post with the secret left wing conspiracy.

kengs333 · October 23, 2008

This isn't 1997. There is no secret agenda. Mr Dion has the secret agenda. He must. He certainly didn't have a plan for leading the country. He's the one with the secret agenda.

Dion's secret agenda was to cut taxes significantly, but cleverly kept his true agenda hidden by proposing the Green Shift. So now we're stuck with the manic tax-and-spend Conservatives who are going to ruin this country...

What is Mr. Harpers secret plan?
I'd like to hear it.

How would I know--it's a secret...

Edited October 23, 2008 by kengs333

kengs333 · October 23, 2008

delete

Edited October 23, 2008 by kengs333

Mr.Canada · October 23, 2008

Dion's secret agenda was to cut taxes significantly, but cleverly kept his true agenda hidden by proposing the Green Shift. So now we're stuck with the manic tax-and-spend Conservatives who are going to ruin this country...
How would I know--it's a secret...

It seems you're getting the CPC confused with the Liberals and the NDP both would spend and raise taxes by a lot. A hell of a lot in order to pay for the pet projects.

If you're worried about fiscal spending why are you voting for the left wing parties?

All of whom would raise your taxes by a hell of a lot. If we used the NDP platform Canada would be bankrupt in about 2 years.

Alta4ever · October 24, 2008

There is no secret agenda. Why do types harp on and on about, it is very tiresome. I think I'm going start ending every post with the secret left wing conspiracy.

So how do you cut taxes by levying a new one? This doesn't make sense.

drewski · October 24, 2008

There is no secret agenda. Why do types harp on and on about, it is very tiresome.

because Harper is very controlling when it comes to information, and many people believe that he is so because he is trying to keep an agenda, which he believes many Canadians wont' like, from getting out before he can have a majority and do things as he wishes

drewski · October 24, 2008

So how do you cut taxes by levying a new one? This doesn't make sense.

different types of taxes, income vs consumption

which I would think conservatives would like. you have the government taking less of your money via income taxes and you have more control over how you are taxed via a consumption tax

Edited October 24, 2008 by drewski

Argus · October 24, 2008

different types of taxes, income vs consumption
which I would think conservatives would like. you have the government taking less of your money via income taxes and you have more control over how you are taxed via a consumption tax

You talk as if it's replacing one with the other. That might be the case for the poor. For the middle class it would simply be adding one on top of the other.