If Canada had a new federal party called the Centrist Party of Canada

[ccen]

Well I do have some help from some people in the party but ya I guess I am sort of the person doing most of the work. Anyways, on the main site page is email information if anyone wishes to contact me. The main site page is http://www.centristparty.piczo.com/?cr=5.

Edited January 19, 2011 by ccen

[ccen]

Are you going to promise to get the government off people's backs while jumping up and down on them at the same time?

In other words are you going to talk about legalizing pot at the same time you're passing legislation that further criminalizes it?

A simple yes or no will speak volumes to this particular issue not to mention completely illuminate your party's ability to maintain a consistent principle in a flash.

Well what the party stands for is reducing the size of government and focusing on the issues that work for Canadians like protecting health care and education and making them essential services and reforming them to make them work more efficiently. I feel that spending too much money on the military does not work and we need to focus on the areas that will give us the most savings. Also we would decriminalize marijuana and we would lower taxes on the taxes that matter like small and medium sized business and we would invest in manufacturing in the areas that create the most jobs. We would increase our fuel efficiency standards and we would invest in clean energy and get away from investing in dirty sources of energy. Also, we would try to get more people to vote and make the decorum in the House of Commons improve with a positive message. We would disagree on the issues and never attack our opponents personally.

[ccen]

What socially compassionate in the British tradition means is that we would be one nation conservative and wanting to respect our opponents and make sure that voter intention increases.

We would be conservative in the Burkean tradition.

[ccen]

To those who believe the party won't go anywhere I spent a lot of time with the Progressive Canadian party but I told them that the party is not going anywhere so that party is dead and there is no hope of reviving that party. I ever told them you cannot win the with the Canadian in the name. That thing "Conservative" is worth a whole lot and without it the party is not going anywhere. I also said you need the Centrist name since it may be popular with a lot of people and it could be the balance between the two major parties so a balance party may be something that is good to a lot of people.

This party wants to be centre to centre-right ideologically and that is something important since we would balance people and profit and never step away from that position. We would never be taken over by corporations and big business just like we will never be taken over by unions and the public sector. We want that middle position.

[ccen]

Well the name I saw under Mel Hurtig showed up under the National Party of Canada but my name has been used in Centre Party (Germany) in fact if you check out this party at wikipedia and use "Centre Party (Germany)" then you will see what I want to model it after. I also got this party idea from "Conservative Party (UK)" and want to model it after the British tory party which would lie between the two major parties ideologically and that is centre to centre-right.

[Michael Hardner]

Get yourself a star candidate to start.

[ccen]

Get yourself a star candidate to start.

Well we were thinking about trying to model our party after the old PC party of Canada so maybe Danny Williams will do or maybe someone like David Orchard or Joe Clark.

[ccen]

Get yourself a star candidate to start.

You also know creating a party like this would also be to make the Liberals and NDP merge while this party is the true party to take on the Conservatives and then the NDP and Liberals would be weaker and since we are blue liberal and red tory we would give Canadians a strong choice. I also feel most Canadians would welcome a merger between the NDP and Liberals since the Liberals are a dying breed and their name is toxic out west. This way we also help to create a strong party with a strong name.

[M.Dancer]

Get yourself a star candidate to start.

Would Eugene Levy be too much of a star?

[ccen]

Well I only mentioned Joe Clark, David Orchard and Danny Williams since they are statesmen who are worthy of the House of Commons and we need to send people of principle and not bottom feeders.

[ccen]

Would Eugene Levy be too much of a star?

I will never be like Harper and nominate celebrities but people who know what they are doing and are capable people who have experience in growing jobs and in small business. That is where the jobs are and where opportunity is had.

[ccen]

Harper and his party members are beneath the way it means to act Canadian.

[Michael Hardner]

Would Eugene Levy be too much of a star?

Yes. I'm thinking one of the popular shopkeepers in the Annex is big enough.

[ccen]

Yes. I'm thinking one of the popular shopkeepers in the Annex is big enough.

You guys are making a mockery of what I am trying to create I think it is best if you engage in discussion about the fact that both the parties are not working for all Canadians and they could care less if voter intention goes down and more voters will turn away from voting. That is what I want being discussed.

[ccen]

Well we are at the point where we need about of the 250 electors we have 25 so far and we need one more officer and a president but so far we have the other things which are the leader, vice-leader, 2 officers, an agent and an auditor.

The website is on http://www.centristp...iczo.com/?cr=5.

[ccen]

The whole point of this post was not to waste other people's time but to give them a choice and to talk kindly about what they would want to see in a party that may or may not get created in the future and like everyone who ever comes to my topic always says rude things. What do you people want miracles? I mean this is the kind of stuff you get from people who are elitist I guess.

[ccen]

I want positive people to actually give their unbiased opinions about the idea of a party between the two major parties one that is fiscally conservative and socially progressive and wants to cut taxes to stimulate growth and has an environmental plan and won't spend like drunken sailors on the military like the Conservatives are.

Edited January 19, 2011 by ccen

[ccen]

The whole merger in 2003 was a farce. I talked to people in the PC party and they told me the truth about what went on and they said it was bought and paid for by the Conservatives and the merger was a done deal. You say that the party was fair but it is now owned completely by Canadian Alliance people and what voice do red tories have. Oh ya that's right Harper thinks there is no such thing as red tories and they are just Liberals.

I wonder what Conservatives would say if you told them blue toryism is not real they would be up in arms.

[ccen]

Canada needs a new party also to save Canada from splitting up. This Centrist Party is a good idea so it will bring people together and not divide them to win an election. As moderate conservatives, we need to think about the next generation and about protecting essential services and protecting health care and education. Those are the main priorities and also the economy and the environment.

[Esq]

What socially compassionate in the British tradition means is that we would be one nation conservative and wanting to respect our opponents and make sure that voter intention increases.

We would be conservative in the Burkean tradition.

The Social Party link seems to indicate some concepts of a responsible society that seems linked to Thatcherism; however that commonality seems to end on the public/private divide.

The Social Party talks about heavy monetary controls to adjust the economy at the Federal Level, as opposed to market Keynesian Economics - that is instead of borrowing money, it is created. Instead of having loans, you deflate the economy and redistribute it. Since generally lack of employment does not equate lack of resources, but lack of demand or lack of ability to persuade production.

So by redistributing capital by creation of capital exchange - you create the potential for wealth redistrobution. Since money may always pool with the same individuals, monetary creation much like taxes forces the people who hold the most wealth to redistribute it - however letting the government decide what segment of the economy to stimulate, rather than the person pooling wealth to reduce the effect of monopolization of wealth.

Taxes are much the same but there are equalized thresholds based on performance of tax legislation. Monetary creation does so without the requirement to conform to people who play the tax game, instead it allows the government to determine what needs to be stimulated. This does not require the banks or wealthy individuals to loan money or buy bonds - all it requires is a willingness to inflate the economy by depreciation of the currency.

This is not an anti wealth - it is anti hoarding. Since people who produce wealth will be able to reaccumulate it, and are actually at a greater incentive to accumulate more relative wealth due to decreased cost of production based on non variable employment contracts and term contracts. Since the cost factor takes a little time to catch up due to stocks, the effect is not immediate on the lower classes either.

Some areas of the economy need to be insulated though such as essential foreign imports - so that domestic need can be met without drastic increases in costs of essential goods such as gasoline and foodstuffs.

The Social Party also advocates for more populus based forums and direct accessable mediums for regulating some laws, as well as public corporations.

The social party is very fiscal conservative, actually fundamentally so by a couple main measures:

-Removing the debt

-Removing income taxes

-Allowing the public to create and fund their own programs

-creating or modifying to protect "self funded" programs for major tax burdens like Medicare and OAS/CPP

-allowing private competition for previous federal programs - without privatizing, instead competition would be between self funded programs and private companies.

-shifting to public private crown corporations for major agencies that are non essential, such as development organizations, through designated publically decided "pay for" projects, as well as public support for governmental programs

This I think except for overt privatization is very Thatcheristic.

It does provide for "market regulation" by the people. Allowing them a medium to pool their resources for programs through a central bank to serve the public without simply handing things over to the chaos of deruglation.

Clarity is important in many close to essential programs.

The social party does recognize though that social welfare should be a provincial concern, while the federal government is suppose to delegate disagreements among the provinces, and conduct the security and wellbeing of Canada on an international basis.

It does not advocate for a lowering of programs or well being of Canadians, it rather allow Canadians to determine what they are willing to pay for, rather than the government running a century old debt and having interst on top of that so Canadians pay more for what they would pay less for if they actually had the money.

The social agenda is to let it rest with the law - such as public safety code for physical attacks against persons or the state, as well as civil litigation protections - but for free. With more access to individuals interested in access to the courts. Through free electoral courts - facilities space provided - and determination/ruling paper/eletronic document access, this all underneath appelate courts where the old court system existed. If provinces were not willing to accomodate this it would be soley at the federal level. Since it is clear the provinces are failing miserably at access to justice with many month waits for court determinations and hearings.

Likewise there is a massive divide between lay law and supra legal law. The notion of "cases to correct social ills" vs. supra legal context is badly problematic. There should be more of a focus on social correction not criminilization of minor offences. Restitution for monetary crimes, recognition and reparation of accidental crimes related to emotional disturbances. Just bridging a problem with time doesn't remove it, all it does is allows it to fester. Justice must concentrate on healing society, so the Social Party puts out with their Social Agenda.

This is essentially the extent of social correction - since it effecitvely, the whole social aspect is a provincial matter. But since Canada itself could be deemed a pennitentary, so to can application of sentencing be done on a federal basis. However ultimately the provinces through preemption of courts control social policy - it is left to appeals to federal courts such as electoral courts or appealate courts to correct any difference.

Ultimately I think the social party to a certain extent describes what you are speaking of in part.

I think it may be far more radical than what you have in mind though.

I'm guessing libertarianism isn't what you are after with your discription.

[Wild Bill]

The whole merger in 2003 was a farce. I talked to people in the PC party and they told me the truth about what went on and they said it was bought and paid for by the Conservatives and the merger was a done deal. You say that the party was fair but it is now owned completely by Canadian Alliance people and what voice do red tories have. Oh ya that's right Harper thinks there is no such thing as red tories and they are just Liberals.

I wonder what Conservatives would say if you told them blue toryism is not real they would be up in arms.

Interesting. I read your links - they say almost nothing in detail about your party planks or platform. Just some comparisions "We're a bit like this party and a bit like that".

You repeatedly stress a bond to the old PC party and now you rail against the merger. I left the PC party because I was very dissatisfied with how non-populist and elitist it was structured and was one of the first memberships for Reform in Ontario. Now, some time after the merger I see virtually no trace of Reform in the present CPC party. For all intents and purposes, it is being run very much like a clone of Mulroney's old party.

So from my POV, what the hell are you complaining about? The little rump of the PCs, which was rejected by millions of its former supporters in favour of Reform, ends up running the new merged party and burying everything Reform stood for!

If we argued long enough we might come up with one Reform plank that is still part of the CPC platform but I don't think we could ever find 3! As a matter of fact, do the present Tories HAVE a codified platform? Reform developed policies from grassroots workshops of members that were binding on the party leadership. From the CPC website all I could find was a list of motherhood "beliefs", not binding on anyone or anything! That was the way things were with Mulroney and before - the party brass expected us mules to bang in those campaign signs and drum up those donations but when it came to policy we were to just shut up and they would get around to telling us what it was going to be.

I can only speak for myself but I left the Progressive Conservatives for what seemed to me to be good reasons. Now someone like you shows up and wants me to re-enlist!

No thanks! I have enough trouble holding my nose to vote for Harper. When you post Joe Clark as some kind of role model for me to support I'm afraid I just can't seal my nostrils well enough to do it!

[ccen]

Interesting. I read your links - they say almost nothing in detail about your party planks or platform. Just some comparisions "We're a bit like this party and a bit like that".

You repeatedly stress a bond to the old PC party and now you rail against the merger. I left the PC party because I was very dissatisfied with how non-populist and elitist it was structured and was one of the first memberships for Reform in Ontario. Now, some time after the merger I see virtually no trace of Reform in the present CPC party. For all intents and purposes, it is being run very much like a clone of Mulroney's old party.

So from my POV, what the hell are you complaining about? The little rump of the PCs, which was rejected by millions of its former supporters in favour of Reform, ends up running the new merged party and burying everything Reform stood for!

If we argued long enough we might come up with one Reform plank that is still part of the CPC platform but I don't think we could ever find 3! As a matter of fact, do the present Tories HAVE a codified platform? Reform developed policies from grassroots workshops of members that were binding on the party leadership. From the CPC website all I could find was a list of motherhood "beliefs", not binding on anyone or anything! That was the way things were with Mulroney and before - the party brass expected us mules to bang in those campaign signs and drum up those donations but when it came to policy we were to just shut up and they would get around to telling us what it was going to be.

I can only speak for myself but I left the Progressive Conservatives for what seemed to me to be good reasons. Now someone like you shows up and wants me to re-enlist!

No thanks! I have enough trouble holding my nose to vote for Harper. When you post Joe Clark as some kind of role model for me to support I'm afraid I just can't seal my nostrils well enough to do it!

Well why do you have to hold your nose and vote for anyone. In today's politics we have to vote against someone but not for someone. You don't say anything about voter intentions maybe when this next election comes around 50% or even lower.

If a party can do that I see no harm in wanting to help bring up voter intention and I am on here to help make sure this party gains awareness with other people and nothing more.

I don't want anyone to re-enlist to anything I am mainly trying to see if people want to help create the party or just be electors and we need 250 electors and if the party helps bring kindness, respect for opponents and a good moderate economy in the process I say it is good for all of us.

[ccen]

Well I know for a fact that the current Harper administration has people who are not worthy of political office since they want to put down the opposition to the point of crippling the political parties and that is not part of the Tory tradition which states that working with the parties to find middle ground and compromise is part of parliamentary democracy.

I thought you knew that the Alliance side is the side which dominates the party more than the Progressive Conservative side and PCers I talk to in Atlantic Canada say that the party is dominated by the Canadian Alliance members and I talked to PCers in the Progressive Canadian party and they said the merger was bought and paid for by people who wanted the merger and they never gave voice to what the PCers within the Progressive Conservative party wanted which was all members agreeing to it. Check out David Orchard's site and it tells you exactly what went on.

Joe Clark never wanted it and he was the only PC MP by 2004 and the Conservatives wanted to silence him and Peter MacKay was nothing but a liar and PCers joined the Green Party by then with about 4 to 5 percent support. I think a PC Party successor will be a truer alternative than the Green Party since the Green party will only be seen as an environmental type party but never as a centrist party which they are.

Lastly, how can you explain the problem with low voter intention and the division of Canadians by Harper and what has to be done to fix that problem. I think this party is being created for all the right reasons and I will stop at nothing to create a party that is a blue liberal/red tory type party between the two major parties built on positive solutions for everyone.

[ccen]

We need a centrist party for one important thing having a policy to cut taxes and be about compassionate conservatism. That is one important thing and another is being balanced on foreign policy instead of unilaterally supporting Israel. Another important reason for having another party is to save Canada from separating and having a party that is strongly supported across the country. Also, another important reason is because voter intention is low and Canada needs strong leadership and a moderately ran economy and one that is led by someone who is pragmatic and willing to work in the old Tory tradition which is about parliamentary democracy and about middle grounds and compromise.

That is why we need a centrist party.

[M.Dancer]

Another important reason for having another party is ... having a party that is strongly supported across the country.

*cough*