Centrist Party of Canada (CEN)

[Thomas Kwon]

No one really needs a degree for this kind of stuff!

I seriously hope that you're trolling

[Mr.Canada]

No one really needs a degree for this kind of stuff! Leadership should be about working together and not about how adversarial a person is like the two major parties. I think that what politics needs is change and a party that works for all Canadians!

There's more to being in politics then what you see on Question Period and in news interviews.

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

What are you implying by that?

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

If I were to be a politician I would always want to be in front of the camera and I would feel that I owe Canadians a services because I would want to change the world and the country for the better. Isn't that the dream of most people who enter and once they enter they forget why they do so?

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

ThomasKwon, don't be a person that has to take apart everything a person says and use it against them because that is just rude. I just wanted to lay my ideas forward because I feel that most people are sick of the partisanship in Ottawa. Even if I wasn't the leader, I would still want someone who has the experience to lead this party like a renowned Red Tory that has the experience and make them get the party on the right footing! When you say that you hope that I am trolling, are you implying that I am somehow insane or you hope I am joking since if a person really wanted something like this they would be insane or something like that. Is that what you are saying!!!

[wyly]

There were a couple of things I forgot about, which is that I wanted to know if anyone was ever interested because this has been an idea that I just didn't think about but one that I have had for a long time coming. We can set something up because I believe that many Canadians are sick of partisanship from the two main parties and Canada needs a change. I believe also that this party can have a few tweaks to it since the ideas were just off the top of my head in just a couple of minutes. I think that more can transpire from it.

we've had 142 years of two party partisanship and you think a new/old party is going to change that???

[wyly]

I seriously hope that you're trolling

we have a very uneducated parliament...we have fewer MPs with post secondary education than both UK and USA...too get elected in Alberta you need only say I hate Trudeau, I hate the gun registry and send immigrants back to where they come from and you get elected for life...

the only thing I like about this idea is it will drive out the racist right-wing red necked gun strokers and they'll form their own party again instead of hiding in today's conservative party

[Mr.Canada]

we have a very uneducated parliament...we have fewer MPs with post secondary education than both UK and USA...too get elected in Alberta you need only say I hate Trudeau, I hate the gun registry and send immigrants back to where they come from and you get elected for life...

the only thing I like about this idea is it will drive out the racist right-wing red necked gun strokers and they'll form their own party again instead of hiding in today's conservative party

Have you ever lived in Alberta? If so where?

Which Alberta MP's have stated they want to send all immigrants back where they came from?

Which Alberta MP's are racist?

Which Alberta MP's are red necks?

Which Alberta MP's are gun strokers?

[August1991]

I expect that at least once a week, somewhere in Canada, someone decides a new party should be formed.

...

I see, it will stand for everything.

...

Most Canadians are Red Tories?

...

Which ended up stuck in a handful of ridings in the Maritimes.

...

I'm not sure kudos from dead guys count.

...

Have you ever actually read anything about our fine first PM?

...

That's pretty amazing, considering it didn't exist until well nigh a century after his death.

...

So Diefenbaker's signed up too? That's amazing. Imagine what will happen when you get some living supporters.

...

That could be because the goal is impossible, somewhere along the lines of "we want every Canadian to have a pony".

...

So you'll cut taxes, but somehow pay for poverty reduction.

...

Ban attack ads? I do love how these things tend to devolve into attacks on liberties. If only there was less liberty, we'd all be better off!

...

Never allowed to criticize? You started out claiming Sir John A. was your biggest fan, but now you're beginning to resemble Vladimir Lenin.

...

So my private drug and supplemental plan is going to be tossed out the window? What would Sir John A. say?

...

By banning a fair chunk of political advertising. You might just want to read that ol' document you claim to want to uphold.

...

An odd claim, considering Canadians were involved in several wars between 1867 and the Korean War. Strikes me that we weren't peacekeepers at all, but peacemakers.

...

Wow! You throw money around like a drunken sailor.

...

I can't wait until you get to the part where you explain how all of this is paid for.

...

Good luck to you there.

Brilliant, Toadbrother. Your comments are so much better than the OP.

Or as I like to say, you could fill Yankee Stadium with unpublished novelists.

[Shady]

I'm not sure how you're going to get Conservatism and Social "progressivism" to co-exist in the same party. And the more you explain your political ideas, the more this "new" party sounds like a benevolent dictatorship, taking away people's rights, "for the good of the country."

Edited October 7, 2009 by Shady

[madmax]

I'm not sure how you're going to get Conservatism and Social "progressivism" to co-exist in the same party.

.......those visions can never work together.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_C...Party_of_Canada

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (PC) (French: Parti progressiste-conservateur du Canada) (1942–2003) was a Canadian political party with a centre-right stance on economic issues and a centrist stance on social issues.

The party began as the Conservative Party in 1867, became Canada's first governing party under Sir John A. Macdonald, and for years was either the governing party or the largest opposition party. The party changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in late 1942.

[Pliny]

So the strategy is to take the very "best" from the liberal and conservative parties, combine them and get rid of partisan politics.

The premise that both parties are pegged around the centre and win elections by being centrist is in error. It seems the centre is not pegged and keeps moving left. It doesn't sound like your plan will stop the drift. Conservatives are not on the right of centre just on the right of the liberals who are on the right of the NDP. The current Conservative party under Harper has tried to distance itself further to the right from the Liberals but has a long way to go to reach central station.

Some people, mostly Liberals, think somehow that Conservatives are to the right of centre and under Harper moving toward Fascism. In both Canada and the US Conservatives and Republicans are often pejoratively labeled Fascist right wingers. How can that be when Canadians, and even some Conservatives are still generally considered to the left of even some American Democrats?

The asnwer is that the centre is gradually moving to the left. It seems few have noticed how far left we have come from the fifties but at least we are still in the centre!

You describe yourself as being a red Tory. The implication of that is that you are socially progressive but fiscally conservative. The term red Tory is an oxymoron. Social progressivism implies increasingly larger costs to government as it implements greater intervention in social engineering. The promise of government fiscal responsibility is entirely political and is always a failed promise. The Liberals under Chretien and Martin were great at showing a surplus but Adscam showed their party to be spendthrifts that lived off the backs of cuts to transfer payments to the provinces. Harper, educated as an economist, has managed to balloon government spending beyond anyone previous. I'll give him a little leeway in that central banks on a global level are advising all nations on fiscal and monetary policy and he is towing the line on that but I believe Canada is more sound economically than other G20 countries because of cuts to the GST and other Harper economic policies. His counterpart in the States, Obama, seems to have no understanding of economics and is purely a progressivist spendthrift, along with his right hand man - "Nasty" Pelosi.

Politics is a dirty game. Basically, it's a power struggle that increasingly has little to do with the "welfare of the nation" and more to do with the buying and selling of votes with political pork.

The proposal for greater representation by population just means widening the trough for special interests to trade favour and does nothing to improve partisanship.

Almost 50% of Canadians didn't vote in the last election. People don't really care about government political games much except to complain about it. Keep health care costs down and service up, educate the kids without behavioral modification, keep your hands out of the economic till and that would about sum up the demands of the majority, in my opinion. All the squabbling is about progressives and special interests vying for a piece of pork and a place at the political trough.

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

How can you say, Pliny, that the term Red Tory does not exist. It did back when there was a Progressive Conservative party. There was the left flank and the right part of the Progressive Conservative party. Red Tories believed in some aspects of a welfare state with moderate social policy and centre-right economic initiatives.

The fact of the matter is that the way to have a truly centrist party is to stay in course with Liberal and Conservative policies at the time in question. Also, when you say that Canada has shifted to the right, I think that the Conservative Party is hiding its agenda and when it gets a majority government it will put forth its true agenda. Another thing regarding the fact about Liberal and Conservative policy is that this party can be a true alternative for Canadians who are thinking about jumping ship from one party to another. They can give a Centrist alternative a second look because I believe that there is a big difference between the two main parties than ever before.

This is a way of not having a fringe party as stealing votes away from all parties, but one that is a true contender to the two main parties. A way to do that is by appealing to people in certain regions of the country and gaining their approval. This is the true way to govern. You need to listen to people and they will come. Lastly, the final thing I wanted to say is that I created this party as an idea to basically get people thinking. I doubt it could ever happen.

The only way it could happen is if there was real grassroots organization related to it and people who were hating the two major parties a lot. The two parties still have great popularity. Their brands are as strong as ever. The Liberals may be weak now but they will improve. To give people confidence during economic times is to show that you are listening and giving people hope. Hopefully, this party can catch on. Hope that you enjoyed reading this!

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

wyly with the right leader that could combine the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism it can be done. canada deserves better than the partisanship from the libs and the cons. it would even be enshrined in the party constitution that this party would never change its attitude and it would respect the wishes of canadians which is to never engage in low-ball politics. these two parties in ottawa back in the 60s and 70s used to respect each other and debated and disagreed but never resorted to the tactics that they are practicing today. basically, the leader makes and shapes the party into the way it is, not the ideologies!

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

everyone talks about widening our parties scope as being ways to increase partisanship. if you combine many tiers into a party that party will have people working together from all walks of life and in that sense the people will cooperate because we will be building a relationship from many walks of life. That is what I believe and if there are people lobbying other parties and even our party or at least trying to, laws can be passed to end this and if these parties are caught red-handed they will of course be sent to court. This is the best solution that can be done. Canadians expect democratic parties to be independent but to work in the public sense. In this fashion, a true democracy can be created since it will make people follow the rule of law and understand that there are consequences at the end of the tunnel. Government is the answer to making sure that the rule of law is enforced. It also depends on the right party that comes into office.

[Guest Gregory Thompson]

madmax you posted that thing about the progressive conservative party and yes they did work together when joe clark was in power and when brian mulroney was in power and it has worked just fine in britain. i plan to take the party in those directions. it would be a party that this centrist to centre-right on economic issues and centre to centre-left on social issues. this is a good way to run a party and it take liberalism on social issues and conservatism on economic issues. this is a pretty good way to run a party. it appeals to a wide spectrum of people.

[wyly]

Have you ever lived in Alberta? If so where?

Which Alberta MP's have stated they want to send all immigrants back where they came from?

Which Alberta MP's are racist?

Which Alberta MP's are red necks?

Which Alberta MP's are gun strokers?

mocking /sarcasm must be to subtle for you....

Rob Anders conservative MP...a fine specimen if there ever was one...ask him to move to your riding you'll get along fine, just don't ask him to actually do any work he's too busy at the gym...

[ToadBrother]

everyone talks about widening our parties scope as being ways to increase partisanship. if you combine many tiers into a party that party will have people working together from all walks of life and in that sense the people will cooperate because we will be building a relationship from many walks of life. That is what I believe and if there are people lobbying other parties and even our party or at least trying to, laws can be passed to end this and if these parties are caught red-handed they will of course be sent to court. This is the best solution that can be done. Canadians expect democratic parties to be independent but to work in the public sense. In this fashion, a true democracy can be created since it will make people follow the rule of law and understand that there are consequences at the end of the tunnel. Government is the answer to making sure that the rule of law is enforced. It also depends on the right party that comes into office.

This is a lovely theory, but expansive parties do not really work that way. Either they fall apart from a lack of shared vision (and no, "we're everything to everybody" is not a shared vision) or ultimately get taken over by one wing or another.

The two main American political parties are good examples. Both encompass a very wide band of people; the Democrats from a socialist fringe to relatively just-this-side-of-right-of-center, and the Republicans everything from Libertarians to Evangelicals to just-that-side-of-right-of-center. What ultimately happens is that both parties tend to swing on their centers of gravity (which change over time). Too much of a swing and you see some of the centrist politicians jump to the other side, but all in all, both parties tend at any given moment to be dominated by one wing or another.

Look at the Tories. During Mulroney's years the Red Tories were dominant. This lead, in the end, to a fracture in the party. Now the only way the reunited Tories can stay together is to pretty much not ask anyone tough questions, stick close to the Center and have a leadership that basically lays out stark terms; down the middle road or electoral defeat.

I think you need to turf some of your idealism. It's all very lovely, but it has been tried before in many different contexts, but almost inevitably never leads to victory, at least in functioning democracies. Politics, as the old saying goes, is the art of the possible.

Try to remember most voters are not dedicated to one party or another. They tend to be very situational, and depending upon the current social, economic or political environment, will often vote based upon rather large archetypes. For instance, in tough economic times, the Conservatives tend to be more successful (archetypal they are small government and economically sensible). When times are good, or when there are social upheavals, the Liberals tend to get the upper hand, because they are the party of social conscience, protectors of the more vulnerable..

Naturally, these archetypes are never really all that accurate, but they are generalizations which people use to decide on election day. Communicating grand ideals is very difficult, and the effort doesn't always seem to be that successful.

Edited October 7, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

How can you say, Pliny, that the term Red Tory does not exist.

The term "Red Tory"does exist and I didn't say it didn't, I said it was an oxymoron.

Why don't you describe the centre of the political spectrum for me. It sounds to me like you feel it is the place where Conservatism and Liberalism meet and the former never goes left with economic policy and the latter never goes right with social policy and the Centrist party will be the happy medium.

Now, where is "socialism" on the political spectrum? Canada certainly has some concepts of socialism, more so than Americans, Wouldn't you agree? After all, Obama is having trouble passing any kind of health care bill let alone one that is run by government. Although there is some socialist concepts in the American political landscape there is more in Canada. So how could our political parties be on either side of the political centre?

A more understandable and descriptive political spectrum goes from no government on one extreme to total government on the other. This political spectrum isn't stagnant in where the political parties sit.

On the left/right spectrum the centre shifts to accommodate changes in political party policy and the people still think we are sitting in the centre, with the Liberals slightly to the left and the conservatives slightly to the right.

On the no government/total government spectrum the centre doesn't shift. It is the policies and platforms of political parties that shift the parties further from or closer to total government.

So I am saying the political parties are measured by how much government they propose.

History shows us on the no government/total government spectrum that we are being subjected to bigger and bigger government over time. There is a tendency to put on the brakes sometimes but big government creeps up on us and the tendency is toward total government.

[Machjo]

we have a very uneducated parliament...we have fewer MPs with post secondary education than both UK and USA...too get elected in Alberta you need only say I hate Trudeau, I hate the gun registry and send immigrants back to where they come from and you get elected for life...

the only thing I like about this idea is it will drive out the racist right-wing red necked gun strokers and they'll form their own party again instead of hiding in today's conservative party

Jesus Christ, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, 'Abbas Effendi, and many other such greats surpassed the 'educated' of their time and had no university degree, and Goebbels (the Nazi Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda) had a doctorate degree. Which would you rather have as head of state?

[punked]

Jesus Christ, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, 'Abbas Effendi, and many other such greats surpassed the 'educated' of their time and had no university degree, and Goebbels (the Nazi Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda) had a doctorate degree. Which would you rather have as head of state?

Why would I want any of these people as my head of state? No offence to Shakespeare he could tell a great story what would make him a good head of state? Your point is silly. You just name a bunch of people others admire and say "they should be the head of state" because people like them? Nothing shows me they would be good at running any country. Your argument is the poorest one I have seen on this board to date.

Edited October 12, 2009 by punked

[Machjo]

Why would I want any of these people as my head of state? No offence to Shakespeare he could tell a great story what would make him a good head of state? Your point is silly. You just name a bunch of people others admire and say "they should be the head of state" because people like them? Nothing shows me they would be good at running any country. Your argument is the poorest one I have seen on this board to date.

The point I was making was that a degree alone does not guarantee good character. And the idea that experience alone suffices is ridiculous. Without a doubt Goebbels had more government experience than the rest. So, do you still wnat to go with the one with the most experience and formal accademic education?

When it comes to running a country, the examples above prove that character is more important than skill. No matter how unskilled a politician Tolstoy might be, his literature clearly indicates he would never approve of the 'Final solution' at least.

Goebbel, on the other hand, actually did prove to be highly skilled. Does that win him applause?

In the end, we really ought to vote for our politicians based on character, not just academic skill that can be used equally for good or evil.

[Topaz]

IF a party has the NDP ideas of social programs, the Libs ideas to balancing of budgets and the Tories ideas of business, then perhaps a new party could be accepted by Canadians. This would ease Canadians minds about their lives with security for all families. If a government can ease the minds of Canadians that everything is ok, then that party will have power.

[Machjo]

Now it sounds like in the OP, the poster was looking for a progressive conservative party. If that's what he's looking for, then why not just look to the successor of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Progressive Canadian party:

http://progressivecanadian.ca/

Or, if he's looking for a more major party, then among the big 5, the Green Party would likely come closest as a red tory party, albeit with an environmental streak to it. Or among the big 4, then it would be a toss up between the CPC and LPC I suppose.

[Machjo]

Now it sounds like in the OP, the poster was looking for a progressive conservative party. If that's what he's looking for, then why not just look to the successor of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Progressive Canadian party:

http://progressivecanadian.ca/

Or, if he's looking for a more major party, then among the big 5, the Green Party would likely come closest as a red tory party, albeit with an environmental streak to it. Or among the big 4, then it would be a toss up between the CPC and LPC I suppose.

I haven't looked at the Progressive Canadian Party website for awhile, so I decided to take another quick glance at it. To my surprise, it's policies are very similar to those of the Green Party. Now I realise I shouldn't be too surprised by this considering that many current members of the GPC are former members of the Progressive party of Canada. I don't see why the Greens and the Progressive Canadian Party chouldn't create centre-right coalition, perhaps called the Centre Democratic Coalition.