Conservatives vs Progressive Conservatives

[cybercoma]

So, Topaz posed an interesting question in another thread to Conservative supporters. If the Progressive Conservative Party came back and in the next election you had to choose between the two, which party would you choose?

I think it's worth discussing. Mr. Chretien made an excellent point on P&P (believe me, it pains me to give that man credit for anything), the present Conservative Party is not the Reform Party, nor it it the Progressive Conservative Party. Ideologically it's different than both. So, if there was a split in the party and more progressive conservatives formed a new Progressive Conservative Party, with similar platforms and ideology to the old PCs, which party would you vote for? Of course, this assumes you would vote conservative at all.

Edited April 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[Boges]

So, Topaz posed an interesting question in another thread to Conservative supporters. If the Progressive Conservative Party came back and in the next election you had to choose between the two, which party would you choose?

I think it's worth discussing. Mr. Chretien made an excellent point on P&P (believe me, it pains me to give that man credit for anything), the present Conservative Party is not the Reform Party, nor it it the Progressive Conservative Party. Ideologically it's different than both. So, if there was a split in the party and more progressive conservatives formed a new Progressive Conservative Party, with similar platforms and ideology to the old PCs, which party would you vote for? Of course, this assumes you would vote conservative at all.

That's totally hypothetical and likely will never happen unless the CPC move too far to the left again making a grassroots movement rise up and try to replace them.

The Harris Conservatives were technically PC but, The Ontario PCs were closer to to the Alliance or Reform than they were the Federal PCs, at the time.

[cybercoma]

Of course it's hypothetical. The question is about whether people would vote for the current Conservatives or a conservative party that's closer to the centre. It's clear this Conservative Party is further right than the PCs, given their support for the Wildrose in Alberta.

[Boges]

Of course it's hypothetical. The question is about whether people would vote for the current Conservatives or a conservative party that's closer to the centre. It's clear this Conservative Party is further right than the PCs, given their support for the Wildrose in Alberta.

I know you're a Dipper and you probably think you can't get much further right than the current CPC.

But the CPC has done an excellent job trying to be a big-tent party that steals from the centre. See the Liberals dropping to 31 seats, many of which were taken by the CPC in Ontario.

I wasn't politically aware when the Mulroney PCs where in power, but from what I hear, they really weren't that Conservative at all.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Boges

[madmax]

I wasn't politically aware when the Mulroney PCs where in power, but from what I hear, they really weren't that Conservative at all.

There are similarities.

A string of scandals in a short period of time.

A record Deficit

Incompetent Ministers

Entitlement

Pork Politics

Edited April 24, 2012 by madmax

[Boges]

There are similarities.

A string of scandals in a short period of time. String? Who's even talking about Robocall anymore?

A record Deficit: Yeah the CPCs deficit wasn't caused by the stimulus spending demanded by the opposition in a minority situation or anything.

Incompetent Ministers: I'll give you Bed Oda

Entitlement and Pork Politics: Just like every part elected to any position of power anywhere. . . ever.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Boges

[Guest Manny]

There are similarities.

A string of scandals in a short period of time.

A record Deficit

Incompetent Ministers

Entitlement

Pork Politics

Just the mention of the name Mulroney makes some of my body parts contract and I want to punch the person standing immediately to the left of me. It's a reflex

[Keepitsimple]

I've always shook my head over the term "progressive". It's never really defined. How can a party like the NDP who don't like free trade, extol big government re-distribution schemes, want to tax businesses to death along with productive individuals, and have no idea how to create wealth.....how can such a party be viewed as "Progressive"? Can someone explain the wooly-headed concept of "progressive"?

I have this silly notion that governments are supposed to put a framework of rules in place that allow people to work hard and get ahead - while at the same time looking after the most vulnerable in our midst. There will always be people who work harder than others, those who are smarter than others - and there will others who don't work hard or are simply not too bright....and yes, there are bums and laggards. The concept of legislating some sort of "equality" for everyone is reckless....

[Jack Weber]

There are similarities.

A string of scandals in a short period of time.

A record Deficit

Incompetent Ministers

Entitlement

Pork Politics

You forgot the RCMP camped out at 24 Sussex Drive near the end of the Mulroney era...

Got Robocalls???

Edited April 24, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Machjo]

So, Topaz posed an interesting question in another thread to Conservative supporters. If the Progressive Conservative Party came back and in the next election you had to choose between the two, which party would you choose?

I think it's worth discussing. Mr. Chretien made an excellent point on P&P (believe me, it pains me to give that man credit for anything), the present Conservative Party is not the Reform Party, nor it it the Progressive Conservative Party. Ideologically it's different than both. So, if there was a split in the party and more progressive conservatives formed a new Progressive Conservative Party, with similar platforms and ideology to the old PCs, which party would you vote for? Of course, this assumes you would vote conservative at all.

Isn't the Green Party essentially a moderately greener version of the old Progressive conservative Party anyway, a sort of "blue gren" party?

If you look at its platform, it's essentially economically liberal and socially liberal. Or maybe we could compare it to a kind of blue liberal party of sorts.

[eyeball]

I have this silly notion that governments are supposed to put a framework of rules in place that allow people to work hard and get ahead

Well, the rules governing my region are concentrating access to it's natural resources into the hands of people that don't live here resulting in less opportunity for people who do to work and get ahead.

I don't know who's notion it was to allow this state of affairs to develop but I doubt very much if it was the NDP.

[Argus]

We already have a liberal party, and people aren't voting for it.

What's the difference between them and a "progressive conservative" party? They both hate conservative ideals and ideas. They're both fiscal incompetents. Why would we want a second liberal party? That was the question which doomed the existing PC party. No one saw a need for their continued existence given they were 99% identical to the Liberals in their ideological, fiscal and social views.

[Wild Bill]

I guess not enough people are old enough to remember those days. Many presently on the left keep hoping that the CPC will fully morph back into the old PC party, since they are more comfortable with all parties being on various degrees of the left and further from what they fear is a true conservative position.

They might be right but from the POV of someone who lived through those times it just doesn't seem likely. Reform's seat count and percentage of the popular vote was FAR more than that of the PCs! At the time the parties merged, the PCs were left with just a handful of seats in the Maritimes. It seemed every time an election was held they lost a bit more. They would likely have been totally dead at the time of the merger except for the very poor and outright goofy leadership of Stockwell Day.

Somehow I can't see the majority of those old Reform votes once again embracing the PC party. It just makes no sense at all.

[fellowtraveller]

OP just cannot acknowledge how Harper won his majority, too scary.

The question you are asking but afraid to say is: will the centrist PC party ruling Canuckistan today tear itself to bits with internal dissent?

Dude. move on.

[Topaz]

The reason I asked to question was in one of the committee hearing when Schreiber was on the hot seat, when asked a question by one of the Conservatives on the panel, he said he had given money to the Liberals and the Conservatives, to which the Tory member said, "That's not us, that was the Progressive Conservatives". So I am still wondering what is the difference. Now, I think the difference is Harper uses the name "Conservative" to get the votes in the East but rules like a reformer.

[Wild Bill]

The reason I asked to question was in one of the committee hearing when Schreiber was on the hot seat, when asked a question by one of the Conservatives on the panel, he said he had given money to the Liberals and the Conservatives, to which the Tory member said, "That's not us, that was the Progressive Conservatives". So I am still wondering what is the difference. Now, I think the difference is Harper uses the name "Conservative" to get the votes in the East but rules like a reformer.

Well, the short answer is that legally the Progressive Conservatives, the former Reform/Alliance and the present CPC were and all completely different animals!

A party is not some kind of high school club. It is a legal entity, like a corporation. It has its own money and its own debts. Each is responsible to the law for only its own sins. The CPC is no more responsible for something the old PCs did than is the Liberal party or General Motors!

So if the PCs gave a bribe to Schreiber the present CPC has no responsibility at all. It was not just a completely different group of people but a completely different organization.

Would you blame the Boy Scouts for a sin committed by the Shriners?

[fellowtraveller]

Now, I think the difference is Harper uses the name "Conservative" to get the votes in the East but rules like a reformer

Much scarier than that, Harper rules like a Liberal.

[Topaz]

Well, the short answer is that legally the Progressive Conservatives, the former Reform/Alliance and the present CPC were and all completely different animals!

A party is not some kind of high school club. It is a legal entity, like a corporation. It has its own money and its own debts. Each is responsible to the law for only its own sins. The CPC is no more responsible for something the old PCs did than is the Liberal party or General Motors!

So if the PCs gave a bribe to Schreiber the present CPC has no responsibility at all. It was not just a completely different group of people but a completely different organization.

Would you blame the Boy Scouts for a sin committed by the Shriners?

What I'm saying is, if Harper had kept the name "Alliance" and had not gone to the "Conservative", would he still get the votes in the East? Also, if they aren't the same party, then why use Prime Minster Diefenbaker as Tory hero?

[Wild Bill]

What I'm saying is, if Harper had kept the name "Alliance" and had not gone to the "Conservative", would he still get the votes in the East? Also, if they aren't the same party, then why use Prime Minster Diefenbaker as Tory hero?

From the trend back then, the PCs were only shrinking and Reform/Alliance were steadily growing. I remember how the PCs had no leader for a time, since no one wanted the job. Finally Joe Clark came out of retirement to lead the party, rather than see it die for a lack of leader.

As I saw it, Reform/Alliance was just too impatient to wait a few elections for the PCs to finally die! They were very small in the Maritimes but their support was also very loyal. Sooner or later the Maritimers would give up on the PCs when they saw they would never again be strong in the rest of Canada but the Alliance wanted to get into power right away! They thought that if the two parties merged then they would end up with the combined total of supporters. Of course, that never happened and it was very naive to think that it would! There were many people who just didn't want to see a merger and they drifted away to the Liberals and the NDP.

To get agreement on the merger took a lot of talk and a lot of promises, some broken, like that of Peter McKay and David Orchard. The merged parties didn't keep enough of each other's supporters to win the next election but they did gain somewhat to be a stronger opposition. Then we saw an eventual CPC minority government that eventually became the present majority.

There was much butt kissing by the Alliance towards the PCs to get their support. The PCs were given power within the new party far beyond what their low numbers deserved. Now it appears that so many concessions have been given to the PC portion that the CPC looks very much the same as Mulroney's old Progressive Conservatives!

So yes, Harper would have gotten those eastern votes but not as fast as he wanted. As for using Diefenbaker as a party hero, it's all part of mending the wounds from the parties having split and smoothing over the hard feelings after the merger. The reason why the old PCs get more than the Alliance members is that the Alliance members HAVE to stick with the CPC for lack of any other choice! The PCs could easily defect to the Liberals.

They never were all that different anyway!

[WLDB]

I dont think I'd ever vote for any version of a conservative party but I must say I prefer the old PCs by far to the current federal Conservative Party.

[TheNewTeddy]

Looking at what happened when the PC Party vanished, I'd say there's a good chance that a new PC Party would mean the death of the Liberals.

[Wild Bill]

I dont think I'd ever vote for any version of a conservative party but I must say I prefer the old PCs by far to the current federal Conservative Party.

Exactly! Like many on the left, this nostalgia for the old PC party is just a hope that the CPC will become more "leftish", like the old PCs.

We all have our dreams but the plain fact is that more people voted for the CPC than any other party. These people tend to be strong in their beliefs, just as the supporters for the other parties.

If Harper allowed the CPC to become too much like the other parties he would lose his support base almost overnight. Wishing for that to happen is like wishing for an enemy to commit suicide.

[madmax]

So if the PCs gave a bribe to Schreiber the present CPC has no responsibility at all. It was not just a completely different group of people but a completely different organization.

Would you blame the Boy Scouts for a sin committed by the Shriners?

I would leave it to a forensic account to follow the money. I never trust money with a Conservative.

[Argus]

Much scarier than that, Harper rules like a Liberal.

He's not THAT bad.

But yeah, he certainly does have a strong tendency for expedience.

[Argus]

What I'm saying is, if Harper had kept the name "Alliance" and had not gone to the "Conservative", would he still get the votes in the East? Also, if they aren't the same party, then why use Prime Minster Diefenbaker as Tory hero?

You do understand the "conservative' is an ideological description and not just a name, right? The Conservative Party was what we used to have long ago. Then they merged with the Progressive Party to form the Progressive Conservative Party. Gradually, over the years, the progressives pushed the conservatives out of power and used the word 'conservative' in their title even while disdaining all conservative ideas and ideals. Eventually, the conservatives simply abandoned them and formed a new party. Turned out without the conservatives, there weren't many people willing to vote for a Progressive party. Those with that mentality voted Liberal. That left the PCs flopping along like a fish on dry land that doesn't know it's dead yet. When they merged with the Alliance the new (old) name Conservative was used to signal that the progressives were no longer in charge.

You can see the same sort of thing in Alberta, where gradually, the progressives in the Alberta PC party pushed all the conservatives out of positions of power, and ignored them when it came time to setting agendas and plans. Now the conservatives are starting to abandon the PC party for a new conservative party. Yes, it didn't happen last election. But how often does a new party come out and go from nothing to government in one election? Wildrose did a lot better than Reform did its first election. And as it proves itself and shakes off the newbie mistakes, the Alberta PC party will die just like the federal PC party did. Why? Because it's not the least bit conservative in any way, shape or form, and Alberta has a very strong conservative streak.