Letter From Peter Mackay

[westcoast99]

I recently wrote a letter to Peter MacKay calling on him to merge our party with the Canadian Alliance to forge a national alternative which appeals to all Canadians. I encourage supporters to do likewise

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Mr. Chater]

Well, if that is he, himself. Perter Mackay, then good job. Well done Good to see some response, though i question what you wrote to him!

Hopefully the right will unite. God knows sooner then we think, for the better of the right wing and the people. As we have 6-8 months, which is very little time!

[sir_springer]

Ummm....

Never mind.

[Rob1963]

Funny,

I recently sent a letter to Peter MacKay urging him NOT to merge the PC Party with the Canadian Alliance and got the same letter.

[westcoast99]

Aw well, that's unfortunate Rob.

[Rob1963]

It is unfortunate. He's obviously not listening to Party members.

Maybe if we write asking him to mix his Cheerios with his eggs for Breakfast, we may get the same letter

[dnsfurlan]

I recently sent a letter to Peter MacKay urging him NOT to merge the PC Party with the Canadian Alliance and got the same letter.

Why are you so against merger?

[Rob1963]

I am against a merger because it will be the "kiss of death" for the PC Party (the merged party will not do much better than the CA, maybe even worse). Then we really will have no real alternative to the Liberals!

Talk of merger, even if it dosen't produce anything, is a complete distraction for voters who, when it comes time to cast their vote, are much more interested in where the various parties stand on the issues of immediate concern to them, rather than the future of a party much farther to the right than many of them are.

Canadians have a long history of being progressive and the PC Party has been at the forefront of that evolution. Canadians will not vote for a Party that throws out its principles simply for possible (but not likely) electoral success.

Why should the two Parties merge, other than to defeat the Liberals (admittedly a pretty good reason, but not good enough for me)?

[dnsfurlan]

Canadians have a long history of being progressive and the PC Party has been at the forefront of that evolution

How is this policy stance any different from that of the Liberal Party of Canada? You may think Canada is a haven for socialism, I don't think it is. And I think this is such a huge reason why so many conservatives ran away from the PC party in droves. If you are so enamoured with 'progressive' policies then why not just go over to the Liberals? Well, many of you would in a hearbeat, wouldn't you? Which raises the question of why you even want to have the word "conservative" in your party name.

And your attitude typifies the psychology of a large segment of the PC Party. Red Toryism or Death, or the Liberal Party. It doesn't seem like you have any problem with any of those three alternatives.

Also, have you ever thought that merger might actually save the PC party? To preserve your particular outlook, it might not bold well if you lose official party status the next time around.

Then again, so many of you Red Tories have tolerance only for those who share your "progressive" agenda for the country.

[Craig Read]

He is against because Harper should be the leader and the CA should set the policy agenda.

The Tories are left of centre and hopelessly out of date.

[Rob1963]

No, I do not think Canada is a haven for Socialism, nor is it a haven for conservatism, therefore, neither the NDP, nor the CA will ever form government in Canada. Both Parties have a constituency to speak for, however, and for that reason, they exist. As it stands, only the Liberals or the PC Party will ever form government in Canada for the forseeable future.

And, yes, I consider myself a "Red Tory".

So, why should the two parties merge?

[dnsfurlan]

No, I do not think Canada is a haven for Socialism

Then why do you talk like it is, using words like "progressive" to define what Tories stand for? If there is no place for conservatism in your outlook, then how are you not a liberal/socialist? And you still haven't addressed the issue of how your Red Toryism is any different from Liberalism. What makes you different from a Liberal?

As it stands, only the Liberals or the PC Party will ever form government in Canada for the forseeable future

What planet are you living on? Oh yeah, the one where the PCs have been dreaming for the past ten years. This is the same kind of stuck-in-the-sand, mindless sloganeering that has been coming from the PC party in recent memory.

Lets hope that we can overcome the resistance of these ideologues and actually create a principled alternative to the Liberals, instead of this same-old "me-too progressive, anti-conservative" attitute that the Joe Clark types have been feeding us for so long.

[Rob1963]

He is against because Harper should be the leader and the CA should set the policy agenda.

Exactly why we should not be even wasting time on these talks. Put out your platform and let Canadians decide.

But, of course Harper realises Canadians won't vote for his Party unless they have no other alternative to the Liberals.

[Rob1963]

Socialism and Progressive is not the same thing. And there is a place for conservativism in my outlook.

I call myself a Red Tory simply to distinguish myself from the hard right Blue Tories (the majority of whom are now CA members). I think "Red Tories" generally are more fiscally conservative than Liberals, maybe a bit more socially conservative than Liberals, but much more socially "liberal" than CAer's.

So, Why should these two parties merge?

[westcoast99]

Let's hope it happens in time for the next election.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Rob1963]

But, Gugsy, why do you need the two to merge.

I still haven't heard a good reason why the two should merge.

[dnsfurlan]

but much more socially "liberal" than CAer's.

Where does this demonization of CAers as social conservatives come from? I'm a CAer, and I don't consider myself to be a 'social conservative', just someone who thinks that principled conservatism actually works, and that Tories in the past have not done enough to distinguish themselves from Liberals.

So, Why should these two parties merge?

I think the two parties should think about merger because there is a lot more common ground between the members than you think. If there is a place for conservatism in your outlook, then there is some common ground right there. And, if you are willing to acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance isn't only about "social conservatism" then there is even more common ground there. Even Stephen Harper has said that he thinks many social issues should be decided by individuals and not by a political party. Abortion is an example of this.

Part of the problem is that members of the two parties have been talking at one another instead of with one another. If PCers can acknowledge the merits of principled conservatism, and if CAers can put aside the "my way or the highway" kind of attitude some of its members espouse, then there is a possibility for a united party that can provide an actually principled alternative to the Liberals.

But, quite frankly, the intransigence has come mostly from the Tories. For a party the considers itself to be Big-Tent and tolerant, it sure hasn't been very open to the many gestures made in the past by Reform/CA to come to some sort of accomodation.

I think many Tories suffer from the delusion that they have never done anything wrong. I think its one reason why the party is so politically isolated on the Canadian electoral landscape.

CAers are from from perfect, of course. But the Tories have never wanted to talk about anything except about being the party of John A Macdonald, being progressive, being the only true national alternative, agreeing with Liberals that the CA is the next coming of the Bubonic Plauge...

A genuine dialogue seems to have emergerd between the two parties. What is so remarkable about this is that I think the Tories have abandoned such a possibility ever since the Reform/Alliance became a prominent player in Canadian politics. The fact that they are finally willing to talk might mean that some kind of understanding could be forged.

Its awfully ambitious. But I don't see why it should be immediately dismissed.

One more thing. The liberal party certainly has its share of extremists. Why do you think this gay marriage issue is being forced upon the Canadian people? Similarly, shouldn't a right-of-centre party accomodate some people who you view as being extreme? As far as I can see, a party consisting solely of Red Tories is as isolated as one consisting solely of "social conservatives". National parties need to be Big-Tent in nature. The liberals do it. I think conservatives can do it as well.

[Mr. Chater]

But, Gugsy, why do you need the two to merge.

I still haven't heard a good reason why the two should merge.

Do you see a future with PC and CA? I am a "PCer" (as you would say) and if you look at it at a "relaity" point of view, you would know that neither of these parties could stur up enough power to overthrow the Liberals. By merging, you extend that power, and give Canadians a party to vote for when they don't want to vote Liberal just for that reason. By combining the two, it could go in two different directions...in a very bad one..or a very good one.

You see, once this merger has been brought in, the party may go down with a civil war between "The Conservative Party" because of the differences, and things may not work out as we think they will.

On the other hand, it could be a new Era for politics. Many thing could change, for the better of the right wing. And do wonderfull things people have always wanted...

..but..who knows..

[theWatcher]

Why should the two Parties merge, other than to defeat the Liberals (admittedly a pretty good reason, but not good enough for me)?

What more do you need? Sounds good to me.

As it stands, only the Liberals or the PC Party will ever form government in Canada for the forseeable future.

I agree with the first part of that statement. The PC will never form another government alone, sorry. But then the CA won't either.

Also, have you ever thought that merger might actually save the PC party? To preserve your particular outlook, it might not bold well if you lose official party status the next time around.

I agree with this statement strongly.

I am torn with the idea of a merger. I feel that if things remain the same, all parties will lose seats to the Liberals next election. But the CA have a bigger base in the West and will lose less than the others and still remain the opposition.

A merger would be uneccesary because after the election when Mackay gets dumped, Orchard will probably take over and drive most of the blue tories to the CA anyways.

So a merger now would reduce/eliminate the Orchard factor, probably driving him to a new fringe party.

But I think the PC's will ultimately reject a merger if it is brought to a vote. Too many of them still think they are the natural party to govern. But there power base is in the maritimes, I don't see any room for them to grow in the west or Quebec, they might get a few seats in Ontario....

So I think that the lack of a merger will affect the PC's more, and the fact that they haven't quickly come out and said no means that they have some private numbers that show they are in trouble for the next election.

This can be done as a win/win scenario though. A merged party stands a very good chance of winning the next election. Especially if they can find some way to get some votes in Quebec.

If I was a PC supporter I'd be asking myself if I wanted to be a member of a merged party in power or at the very least in opposition, or be fighting it out for 4th place again.

[Rob1963]

to: dnsfurlan

I'm not trying to "demonize" CAers, just pointing out what I percieve the difference between PCers and CAers.

What do you mean by "principled conservatism"?

What common ground do you see between PCers and CAers (that is not in common with other parties)? I think there may be some common ground, especially on the economic side, but on social issues there is too much to bridge.

I have never used the word "extreme" to label members of the CA, in fact I don't consider them "extremists" as a whole (yes there are some extremists in ALL Parties). What I'm trying to say is that the CA is a far right party (nothing wrong with that, I just don't share the same view of Canada), and Canadians are generally a more moderate society, therefore, any Party hoping to form government has to be where Canadians are - generally in the centre.

to the Watcher:

I need to know what the new Party would stand "for" rather than "against". And as Craig Read thinks, Harper and the CA should set the Policy. Not acceptable to me.

[dnsfurlan]

What I'm trying to say is that the CA is a far right party

Isn't that a form of demonization? The suggestion that the Alliance holds positions that re unacceptable to most Canadians? Because they are unacceptable to you does not mean they are unacceptable to others.

Indeed, this is an argument you hear quite frequently from the Left and from Red Tories. They always claim to speak on behalf of all Canadians. Yet I thought we lived in free societies where people are not glued to one way of thinking on all the issues.

Lets not forget, the Canadian Alliance was not that far from a breakthrough in the last election, and they ran a bad campaign. Three provinces - Ontario, BC, and Alberta - have elected principally conservative governments to office. And even the structure of Confederation is conservative itself, delegating much of government responsibility to provincial jurisdictions. Remember, a smaller Central Government is a fundamentally conservative idea. And perhaps no country in the world is as decentralized as Canada. Sounds pretty conservative to me.

What do you mean by "principled conservatism"?

Freedom and Responsibility. This includes low taxes, limited government, strong defence, and rejects statism and the notion that government is supposed to take care of everybody. It means fostering a dynamic society, instead of one that believes a roll-back of over-bearing government means human suffering ,which is what you hear so often in the debate in this country, which I think has become far too statist in its outlook. People think that if there is something wrong then somehow a big government program is supposed to fix it. Insurance rates are up? Hey, lets just nationalize the whole thing? Unemployment is up? Hey, lets just give people employment checks instead of real economic opportunity.

I think conservatism is about building people up, not about government reliance. And I think history shows that the farther left governments go the more stagnant societies become.

think there may be some common ground, especially on the economic side, but on social issues there is too much to bridge.

Can you provide some examples of this? I always hear this from Red Tories and Liberals but I never get specifics. Just what social policies are you talking about?

[Mr. Chater]

Well Mackay has recently said there isn't much good going on between the two parties So who knows what is going to happen

[Rob1963]

If you feel that being labelled far right is a form of demonization, then so be it.

Ontario appears about to elect a liberal government, there are non-conservative governments in Nfld, Que, Man, and Sask. NB, NS and PEI do not have 'c'onservative governments. So there goes whatever argument you were trying to make there.

As far as differences between the two parties, how about Capital Punishment, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Regional development, Immigration, ...

Now tell me where the two parties have similar positions.

[dnsfurlan]

Ontario appears about to elect a liberal government, there are non-conservative governments in Nfld, Que, Man, and Sask. NB, NS and PEI do not have 'c'onservative governments. So there goes whatever argument you were trying to make there.

The argument I was trying to make there is that Canada is not so adverse to conservatism as you would make it to be. I pointed out that Canadians have voted in principally conservative governments, which refutes the argument that they only vote for so-called 'moderate' options. Just because they also vote another way doesn't exclude the fact that they have and still do vote in conservatives.

Actually, your argument doesn't dismiss mine one bit. You seem to be saying that because there are 'moderate' governments in Canada that Canada is 'moderate'. What I am saying is that because conservative governments do get elected here it simply proves the point that Canadians can and do vote conservative. In other words, Canadians are much more open-minded than the people who continually claim that only 'moderate' parties get elected.

Principalled parties do get elected. Denying they do is denying the reality of the Canadian people. The fact that Canadians don't always vote Conservative is not an argument that they won't and that they haven't. I think Canadians are much more open-minded politically than you and others give them credit for.

As far as differences between the two parties, how about Capital Punishment, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Regional development, Immigration, ...

Now tell me where the two parties have similar positions.

I thought they were pretty close on the issue of Gay Marriage, which is where I think most Canadians seem to be. As for the other stuff, I think many people in the PC Party would be in favor of some of the positions the CA has taken on those issues. But members within parties don't have to agree on everything. Liberals certainly don't agree with each other on everything. Gay marriage is a good example of that. For a party which claims to be big-tent, Tories seem awfully reluctant to include those with whom they have some disagreement within their own ranks.

Furthermore, there is a party which seems to take the stands you are in favor of. Its called the Liberal Party of Canada. It always amazes me how in this country so much of the debate about an opposition seems to be about how similar to the Liberals a party can be.

I think conservatism is right. And I think it can be sold to the Canadian people. I have already proven it has been provincially.

They said the same thing about conservatism in the States. They kept saying that Republicans needed to be moderate in order to get the support of the people. Then along came someone named Ronald Reagan and the validity and strength of conservative policies were proven effective in the pages of history.

Canadian conservatism doesn't have to be like Reagan's. But some of the basic principles I think Canada is in desperate need of.

Just like when Jimmy Carter was making America look weak in the eyes of the rest of the world, I think Jean Chretien has done the same here in Canada.

Its time for something principally different.

[Rob1963]

OK, so SOME conservative governments get elected. And maybe someday the CA may get elected to government.

By and large, provincial governments in Canada have been center-of-the-road. And, when was the last federal government that one could consider small 'c' conservative. I don't think you can find one.

I did not say "Principled" Parties don't get elected, it's the "unprincipled" parties that do not get elected (with the exception of the Chretien government). I am saying that a Party with small 'c' conservative principles such as the CA will not be elected to government in Canada. And any merged CA-PC Party is either not going to have many principles or it will just be another name for the Canadian Alliance Party.

If you think conservatism can be sold to the Canadian people, then do it through the CA. Why do you need the PC Party? I say Harper sees the need for the PC's to help moderate the CA's stand so that the CA will be acceptable to Canadians across the country, not just in the West. I also, say, the PC Party should stay where we are and we will show you that our vision of Canada will emerge as the more popular.

Your last couple of paragraphs are what scares me about the Alliance. I think they want to make Canada the northern USA