MacKay leaving

[waldo]

No, not confused at all.........the former Progressive Conservative party very much so comprised social conservatives and economic/fiscal (non-Keynesian) conservatives.........that is how Mulroney formed his two majority Governments in the 80s.

which has nothing to do with suggestions/discussion on the degree of "progressive" within the CPC that sourced, originally, as a part of "the merging of the right"

.

Again, you're talking out of your arse.........Mackay, nor Harper for that mater, form said "inclusive view", as party policy is formed by the pan-party membership, as such, is a reflection of the Party, not one man.

you're simply choosing to reject any semblance of progressiveness within the CPC... no matter how it was stifled through the presence, control and dictatorial Harper management. That's fine; that's your comfort level.

.

[Derek 2.0]

Harper hasn't exactly passed socially conservative policies. He's done things like killed the abortion case that CHA had against NB, but that was more inaction than anything else.

And he, or this party won't, fore the "social conservative rump" is but a very small part from within the party. Progressive social policies, I feel, are a natural progression , despite social conservatives or "progressives", that foment within themselves in society despite party politics. The social battles of the 80s and 90s (and early 2000s) involving abortion and gay rights were, in my opinion, a forgone natural conclusion........just as, going forward, so to will be drug policy, prostitution and doctor assisted suicide.

With that, there is very little social conservatives can do to impede natural progression among society, inversely, despite their efforts, so called "progressives" also have little impact on the speed as to which such topics gain natural acceptance among society at large.

As such, the best policy any party can adopt with regards to social policy is too stand back and allow the wave to crash when it so chooses.......both Harper and MacKay, like Tories over 100 years ago with Suffrage, understand this.

[Derek 2.0]

which has nothing to do with suggestions/discussion on the degree of "progressive" within the CPC that sourced, originally, as a part of "the merging of the right"

.

.

The merging of the right began when Mackay was still a teenager, and Harper in University......

you're simply choosing to reject any semblance of progressiveness within the CPC... no matter how it was stifled through the presence, control and dictatorial Harper management. That's fine; that's your comfort level.

Not at all, I reject your implication that "progressiveness" was the sole purview of former Progressive Conservatives like Peter MacKay........as both the former Reform/Alliance and PCs comprised both, progressive "red Tories" and "social conservatives".......

Now please, continue telling me the history and complexity of my own party

[waldo]

And he, or this party won't, fore the "social conservative rump" is but a very small part from within the party. Progressive social policies, I feel, are a natural progression , despite social conservatives or "progressives", that foment within themselves in society despite party politics. The social battles of the 80s and 90s (and early 2000s) involving abortion and gay rights were, in my opinion, a forgone natural conclusion........just as, going forward, so to will be drug policy, prostitution and doctor assisted suicide.

With that, there is very little social conservatives can do to impede natural progression among society, inversely, despite their efforts, so called "progressives" also have little impact on the speed as to which such topics gain natural acceptance among society at large.

As such, the best policy any party can adopt with regards to social policy is too stand back and allow the wave to crash when it so chooses.......both Harper and MacKay, like Tories over 100 years ago with Suffrage, understand this.

again, your confusion: social conservatism is not... progressive... as viewed by true progressives. What, as you say, MacKay understood, is that he (and his internal party supporters) dared not champion anything that didn't fit the Harper-dictated party line. As I said, you feel much more at ease when you can believe there was absolutely no semblance of progressiveness, however stifled, within the CPC.

[waldo]

The merging of the right began when Mackay was still a teenager, and Harper in University......

which has nothing to do with the formal alignment, ala merger. You know, the reference point being discussed around.

Not at all, I reject your implication that "progressiveness" was the sole purview of former Progressive Conservatives like Peter MacKay........as both the former Reform/Alliance and PCs comprised both, progressive "red Tories" and "social conservatives".......

I didn't make any such statement or implication... please quit making things up.

.

Now please, continue telling me the history and complexity of my own party

your interpreted confusion is there, particularly when you continue to state/imply that social conservatism is "progressive"... as viewed by true progressives.

[Big Guy]

There is little that any political party can do to "mold" public opinion. When I hear that "...... is steering Canada towards his vision of Canada" I question the evaluation. The Canadian public will go into whatever direction it and the rest of the world desires. Each left wing and right wing party think that they are pulling the general public to their way of thinking - they are mistaken.

Canada is a "centrist" (if there is such a thing) country. The party that represents the center will always be most popular unless some non-philosophical issue becomes the swing issue. I believe that the previous Liberal federal government was defeated not on policy but on a mismanagement of spending scandal. The right exploited this issue and took power.

The majority of Canadian political philosophy is to the left of the current right wing government. During the last election about 60% of Canadians who voted, supported policies to the left of the Harper Conservatives and supported the Liberal, NDP and Green parties.

I am not cheerleader for any one party but try to read objectively what is happening. I believe that if to-day, the Liberal and NDP parties were to amalgamate the "Progressives" would easily win the next election with a majority.

I will leave it to history to evaluate the Harper regime. The test will be just how many of the changes that Harper brought to Canada will be rescinded, overturned or allowed to die.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[cybercoma]

And he, or this party won't, fore the "social conservative rump" is but a very small part from within the party. Progressive social policies, I feel, are a natural progression

Harper hasn't exactly passed progressive policies either. In fact, he's done very little of anything, since he's intent on passing legislation that contravenes the laws that govern legislation in this country.

[Derek 2.0]

Harper hasn't exactly passed progressive policies either. In fact, he's done very little of anything, since he's intent on passing legislation that contravenes the laws that govern legislation in this country.

No, nor will he (or the party) at any great speed, taking a Laissez-Faire approach to social issues. In my opinion, outside of politics, this is rooted within a philosophical understanding in both the classic liberal and newer populism based libertarian mantra that dominates the "political right" within this country.....less control by the State is better, and when the populace wants legalized drugs/prostitution/assisted suicide etc it will have it, just not at the insistence of the Conservative Party of Canada.......

[Derek 2.0]

which has nothing to do with the formal alignment, ala merger. You know, the reference point being discussed around.

The formal merger of the political right began after the Federal Social Credit party abstained from a confidence motion that brought down the Clark Government.........

I didn't make any such statement or implication... please quit making things up.

Then, what is your point?

your interpreted confusion is there, particularly when you continue to state/imply that social conservatism is "progressive"... as viewed by true progressives.

I have zero confusion on the subject, nor did I suggest as much.......I'm losing interest in this conversation with you fast Waldo.

[waldo]

No, nor will he (or the party) at any great speed, taking a Laissez-Faire approach to social issues. In my opinion, outside of politics, this is rooted within a philosophical understanding in both the classic liberal and newer populism based libertarian mantra that dominates the "political right" within this country.....less control by the State is better, and when the populace wants legalized drugs/prostitution/assisted suicide etc it will have it, just not at the insistence of the Conservative Party of Canada.......

and at some point Harper and the CPC will be dispatched... forced or through simple attrition. The CPC governs simply on the basis of a split left/center-left vote. The end result will be an eventual unwinding of much of what Harper/CPC did... and it didn't/doesn't have to be that way. All Harper needed to do was throw an occasional bone to progressives and much of what he's done wouldn't be so/as objectionable to a segment of that majority of Canadians that didn't vote for Harper/CPC... that segment would probably be enough to keep the CPC governing and to formally establish it as the "natural governing party"

The formal merger of the political right began after the Federal Social Credit party abstained from a confidence motion that brought down the Clark Government.........

so what? Again, the focus of discussion was on the official merger between 'parties of the right' and the progressive elements within that merger... you decided to take a point of long past historical distraction

Then, what is your point?

I have zero confusion on the subject, nor did I suggest as much.......I'm losing interest in this conversation with you fast Waldo.

ultimately, that you completely misunderstood social conservatism and spoke of it in terms of a progressive aspect... equally, engaging you on any level is, typically, a circular exercise usually not worth the effort

[Derek 2.0]

and at some point Harper and the CPC will be dispatched... forced or through simple attrition. The CPC governs simply on the basis of a split left/center-left vote. The end result will be an eventual unwinding of much of what Harper/CPC did... and it didn't/doesn't have to be that way. All Harper needed to do was throw an occasional bone to progressives and much of what he's done wouldn't be so/as objectionable to a segment of that majority of Canadians that didn't vote for Harper/CPC... that segment would probably be enough to keep the CPC governing and to formally establish it as the "natural governing party"

To an extent I agree, the divided left will ensure one more Harper majority this Fall, likewise in the aftermath, the political left will have to rethink their divide for 2019, to displace the then Jason Kenny regime

-But-

I disagree with the notion that an eventual merger between the NDP-Liberal will result in a given ~60+ % vote share......clearly there are still elements from with the Liberal party, the Manley/Brison/Garneau/ type Liberals, that won't feel at home within the NDP, unless Mulcair is able to steer the party right to reach the political center.....which without a doubt will cause the far left socialists to jump overboard for the Bloc and Greens.........

Much the same for the Tories, a significant leftward drift will see our own kooks jump overboard for Christian Heritage or the Libertarians........clearly a difficult act for both camps.

so what? Again, the focus of discussion was on the official merger between 'parties of the right' and the progressive elements within that merger... you decided to take a point of long past historical distraction

The merger of the Right has been a gradual process, far longer in the making than Peter MacKay or Prime Minister Harper is the point.

ultimately, that you completely misunderstood social conservatism and spoke of it in terms of a progressive aspect... equally, engaging you on any level is, typically, a circular exercise usually not worth the effort

Where did I equate the two as like? If you want to continue, highlight it, or we're done.

[Keepitsimple]

The term "progressive" is outdated by 50 years. It was relevant in the industrial revolution days and as recently as the 60's - and of course ongoing still in many countries - fighting for workers rights, a decent wage, and fighting against true inequality - so prevalent back in the days of lords and class warfare. Today it's almost meaningless - except as a disingenuous barb to imply that Conservatism is not progressive. All the big battles have been waged - and won - and we are down to the minutiae of individual and collective "progress". Those on the right believe in individual responsibility and an economic framework that drives business - and that a rising tide lifts all boats. Those on the Left believe in government intervention, income re-distribution and a "lowest common denominator" approach. As usual, the ideal (Canada), through Liberal and Conservative governments alike, have striven to end up somewhere in the middle. All Canadian parties are progressive - none wants to intentionally "leave people behind"......but heck, we've already got so many tools for people to succeed and prosper - it's very difficult - almost impossible to enter true poverty in Canada. There are always ways to get food on the table, a roof over one's head - and clothes on one's back. So spare the argument about being "progressive".

[cybercoma]

No, nor will he (or the party) at any great speed, taking a Laissez-Faire approach to social issues. In my opinion, outside of politics, this is rooted within a philosophical understanding in both the classic liberal and newer populism based libertarian mantra that dominates the "political right" within this country.....less control by the State is better, and when the populace wants legalized drugs/prostitution/assisted suicide etc it will have it, just not at the insistence of the Conservative Party of Canada.......

Funny you should bring up drugs and prostitution since they've created regressive laws around those things, but whatever. This is all off topic.