Stop The Orchardists! Buy A Pc Membership

[RT_1984]

The Orchardists are organizing to reject the merger proposal buy voting en mass. All conservatives must organize too and stop the left-wing Orchardists from destroying the Conservative merger. Buy a PC membership ASAP and vote online to support the merger.

It is your duty to see this thing goes through! It is also the cheapest

way to be part of the new party.

http://www.pcparty.ca/site/membership/

[westcoast99]

Good idea, spread the word.

[Cameron]

Joe Clark and the rest of the SOBs that don't want this new party can go to hell, on the express bus. I can't stand it when these people think this is a bad idea! FINE let the liberals rule this country for 1000s if years.

The Orchardists are part of the OLD conservatives! They are not part of the future!

[Cameron]

vote online to support the merger.

Where can I do that??? Or do I have to wait...

[Neal.F.]

Here is the text of Joe Clark's lrelease on the merger. I don't suspect that what he says will make much difference.

Time has passed this old dinosaur by.... the crusty old captain would rather

go down with the ship than to join his old shipmates in building a new and bigger vessel, one that can sink the HMS Liberal.

Joe was never a real leader. He was no match for Mulroney. But to his credit , he served the country with great distinction as Foreign minster. Puts Bill Graham to shame.

------------

News Release

For Immediate Release

October 16, 2003

Statement by The Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., C.C., M.P.

I have been asked to comment on the proposal announced today by Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper.

Any Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has an obligation to take initiatives to make the Party more competitive. I commend my Leader, Peter MacKay, for his courage in taking this initiative, and his determination in negotiations with the Canadian Alliance.

Now it is the responsibility of individual members of my Party to take decisions of our own.

The proposed agreement would bring an end to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and create a new entity. That new entity might well prove more competitive in some constituencies, in some regions, in the next election. That could be the short-term gain.

The long-term result would be to make Canadian politics less competitive, by closing down the only national Party whose base is broad enough to provide a genuine alternative to Liberal governments.

This is about more than a name and a history. It is about a hard-won reputation as a Party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian.

Speaking personally, I cannot support a proposal which would close down that Party, and put at risk that reputation.

-30-

[Neal.F.]

ASs for the Orchardistas, I wouldn't lose any sleep over them.

The real potential problem is Liberals who might buy up PC memberships in order to vote it down.

If you know any such Liberals, bear in mind that the Liberal party's policy is that a member cannot concurrently hold a membership in any other Federal party. Such people should be PUBLICLY reported to the party so their memberships can be revoked. It is important that they be publicly exposed so the party will have to enforce the rule.

One case where a membership was terminated on those grounds was when Doug Young, former member for Acadie-Bathurst bought a CA membership during the 2000 leadership campaign in order to support Stock Day.

Nevertheless, historically such infiltration movements have never been successful. If they were Enza would have fared much better in the 2002 CA race, or alternately Liberals might have bought up Stock memberships en masse to make sure he'd win again.

It is extremely difficult to get people excited about joining political parties in the first place, and also difficult to get them out to vote. Back in the '80s I was involved with a large association which boasted over 3000 members, and there was a hotly contested nomination. First was the Annual meeting which attracted no more than 70 people, then a couple of months later the nomination meeting happened, and needless to say more members had been signed up during the campaign, and a total of @ 1300 people voted on the first ballot, and it declined steadily for each subsequent one. .

Also having served as president of a PC Association two years ago, (and my successor shared this with me yesterday) it is a thankless task . Only a handful of people ever respond and some treat you like a telephone salesperson, and rarely repley to e-mails! And these are people who actually plunked down their tenners to join!

[Mr. Chater]

well, i'm working on buying a membership

[Cameron]

Good points Neal F. I think they should freez memeberships untill after the leadership race is over so you don't get the shit-heads in the world trying to uproot this merger.

[Neal.F.]

The decision to merge neds to be ratified by Dec 12th, so I don't see how the "shit heads" can mount an effective campaign against it by then. I suspect teh vote will be held sooner , rather than later just to offset such shenanigans. As i said it's hard to get people off their asses in terms of political activity, so I'm not terribly worried. Oftentimes the agitators are a small group in the grand scheme of things, who think they're bigger than they really are.

[dnsfurlan]

Good points Neal F. I think they should freez memeberships untill after the leadership race is over so you don't get the shit-heads in the world trying to uproot this merger.

It works both ways. Keeping the memberships open probably means more CAers will join the PCs than Liberals and others trying to sabatoge the deal. I aslo think the fatigue over Liberal rule is stronger than the fear of a united Conservative party - another factor in support of the open membership decision.

P.S. I'm assuming a person can be a member of both the CA and the PC Party?

[Neal.F.]

To my knowledge, the Liberals are the only party that forbids its members from belonging to any other federal political party.

I knew a Libertarian who was a member of all the parties. Including the NDP ;-)

He just wanted to go to all the meetings and influence them any way he could.

[Moderate Centrist]

I can't stand it when these people think this is a bad idea! FINE let the liberals rule this country for 1000s if years.

The Orchardists are part of the OLD conservatives! They are not part of the future!

Cameron

You are right about one thing - the Orchardists are old style conservatives not left wingers.

And yes the liberals will rule the country for some time to come. This "new" party is simply the Alliance by another name - it's not going anywhere and will achieve nothing accept to turn away more moderates.

[dnsfurlan]

You are right about one thing - the Orchardists are old style conservatives not left wingers.

Thats not true.

Many members of Orchard's gang are NDPers. They are against free-trade an many other policies that clearly belong to a modern conservative party. Heck, they even endorse wage and price controls. That's right: wage and price controls!!

These people are not conservatives, nor do they really want to have anything to do with a conservative party. They have their own agenda, and were hoping to hijack the PC Party of Canada in pursuit of it. This merger ruins everything for them.

And yes the liberals will rule the country for some time to come. This "new" party is simply the Alliance by another name - it's not going anywhere and will achieve nothing accept to turn away more moderates.

Funny how so many Tories, who certainly don't consider themselves to be "extreme" in any way, are joyous over this merger.

Since when does conservatism exclude moderates? Orchard and some of his gang aren't moderates.

In fact, I think the new party will attract many people who otherwise didn't think they previously had a choice other than the Liberals.

Funny how people are already trying to paint this party as extreme.

Keep trying.

I think this party is going to be endorsed by a lot of people who you can't label as Alliance or "extreme".

[RT_1984]

The important thing is to buy a PC membership ASAP in case the PC Party is forced to shut down membership drives in order for the merger vote to look legitimate. The exact link for voting online will be provided at a date closer to Dec. 12. One can currently hold memberships in both parties. Many CA members are now signing up for the PC Party to ensure this merger gets through. It's important though that we not take the proposed merger for granted. The agreement in principle took tireless dedication to achieve and it will take that same dedication and more to see it implemented. I'm not concerned out Liberals joining the PC Party to stop this thing because the Liberals aren't a grassroots organization (most of the people supposedly signed up in the recent 500,000 were actually signed up by someone else. Only 10% came out to vote in the delegate convention selection). What I am concerned about is old-style hesitant loyalist tories and Orchardists. The Orchardists are organized and motivated with populist zeal. Again, sign up ASAP to ensure the success of the Conservative movement in Canada.

http://www.pcparty.ca/site/membership/

[Moderate Centrist]

"They are against free-trade an many other policies that clearly belong to a modern conservative party. Heck, they even endorse wage and price controls. That's right: wage and price controls!!"

Sorry to say but these are the principles of the old Tory party. Conservatism has traditionally been associated with protectionism. The Torries had always oppossed free trade until Mulrooney came to power.

Wage and Price controls were used by Richard Nixon and were proposed by Joe Clark as well. These two are hardly liberals.

I think it is more correct to say that the conservative party has been hijacked by republican style right wingers of the Libertarian mode.

In any case this "merger" is just more of the same. We've seen it before. It's a rose by any other name.

They don't have a chance of forming the next government and have a heck of a lot of work to do before forming the one after that.

[Mr. Chater]

well, i'm working on buying a membership

but its hard getting my dad to put in his Visa code so i may get a membership, he doesn't know if its worth it or anything.

[Pellaken]

if the orchardites form a new party, and if people like Grafftey and Nystrom were to join that new party, then that could cause for interesting politcs

[westcoast99]

And yes the liberals will rule the country for some time to come. This "new" party is simply the Alliance by another name - it's not going anywhere and will achieve nothing accept to turn away more moderates.

Glad to have you back Moderate. Havn't heard anything from you in a while, and I traditionally agree with what you say.

This party will not be extreme in anyway. Now, what I think we need to top all of this off is a new leader who has the support in both parties to fully unite them.

Perhaps Mike Harris, maybe Bernard Lord. We'll see. Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[westcoast99]

This party will not be extreme in anyway. Now, what I think we need to top all of this off is a new leader who has the support in both parties to fully unite them.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[RT_1984]

To get a membership by phone or mail:

Alternatively, you may contact PC Party Headquarters:

Call: 1-613-238-6111

Email: [email protected]

Mail:

806-141 Laurier Avenue West

Ottawa, Ontario

K1P 5J3

P.S. If you are currently living outside Canada, you can still become a member of the Party. Send an e-mail to Joan Brown at [email protected].

[RT_1984]

Correction. Earlier I said that the PC Merger vote would take place online. Apparently its going to be a mail-in ballot. It's still imperative that everyone buy a PC membership ASAP though in case legal rulings or inside party pressure force the PC Party to close membership entry. I believe it is our duty to see this merger through to the very end with unified support. None of us will ever agree on everythings and there will be wide varying opinions. But we have to set these differences aside in order to see the big picture. One thing that we CAN learn from the Liberals, are their ability over overcome their differences and unite to win in elections. This doesn't mean watering down our principles. But it does mean tolerating the existence of differing opinions. That's all part of democracy. A plurality of interests competing with one another. As Stephen Harper told his party during the "Family definition" debate: Those are moral issues, not partisan issues. People must be able to belong to a party regardless of their views on such issues"

[dnsfurlan]

Sorry to say but these are the principles of the old Tory party. Conservatism has traditionally been associated with protectionism. The Torries had always oppossed free trade until Mulrooney came to power.

Wage and Price controls were used by Richard Nixon and were proposed by Joe Clark as well. These two are hardly liberals.

This is the year 2003, in case you haven't noticed.

They don't have a chance of forming the next government and have a heck of a lot of work to do before forming the one after that.

Thanks for your support, buddy.

but its hard getting my dad to put in his Visa code so i may get a membership, he doesn't know if its worth it or anything.

Chater, I had the same problem myself. They tell you to try phoning them after 9am every day until the problem is resolved. They have too many people signing up - its overloading their system.

What I did is I emailed them my info. Its not the most secure way of doing it, I know. Maybe they have a fax? Or you can mail them the info? Or, just be patient. They're probably working on the problem.

This party will not be extreme in anyway. Now, what I think we need to top all of this off is a new leader who has the support in both parties to fully unite them.

Perhaps Mike Harris, maybe Bernard Lord. We'll see.

Agreed. How can people label this party as extreme when Super-Moderate Bernard Lord has endorsed the deal? Mulroney was also not an "extreme" politician and he has endorsed it too.

Funny how the all-so-intolerant "centrists" yell and scream "extreme" whenever a conservative alternative presents itself to the oh-so-delightful Liberal Party of Canada.

They're gonna try. But this party now has back-up the Alliance never had - respected people from all over the country supporting a choice they haven't had in over a decade.

And the "centrist" mongers are already crying "Rape! Rape!" Looks like they're scared of something, alright.

But we have to set these differences aside in order to see the big picture. One thing that we CAN learn from the Liberals, are their ability over overcome their differences and unite to win in elections. This doesn't mean watering down our principles. But it does mean tolerating the existence of differing opinions. That's all part of democracy. A plurality of interests competing with one another. As Stephen Harper told his party during the "Family definition" debate: Those are moral issues, not partisan issues. People must be able to belong to a party regardless of their views on such issues"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[RT_1984]

The only people who see this deal as an extremist takeover are people who have been influenced by the left-wing media (80% of canadian journalists identify themselves as significantly left of center). Now consider this: If you were one of these journalists you would want destroy this merger and new conservative option at any cost other than losing your job perhaps. That is why the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, CBC etc. are primarily pointing out all the controversial points while only the National Post is pointing out primarily the positives. The Canadian Media in general are enemies of this merger and the Conservative movement in Canada. They should be indentified and pegged for what they are. Left-wingers who have an invested interest in our destruction as a whole. While their supposed goal is indepth and inpartial coverage, their underscoring objective is to divide and conquor the conservative movement. This must be stopped at all costs. Spread the word that this is good for Canada and must be accomplished. The purists in the Canadian Alliance and the partisans like Joe Clark in the PC Party should no longer be allowed to thwart our efforts. They should be welcome to join us, but in the end the Big Blue Machine must roll on with or without them. As for the fringe elements in the West, I don't think their abandonment is sincere or significant. No matter how hard I try, I just can't see Calgary, Prince George or Red Deer voting Liberal. Elections are won by support from mainstream society. That doesn't mean diluting our positions to be unrecognizable from the Liberals, but it does mean being tolerant of the existence of opinions different from our own. As Western Populists are always fond of touting when they seek and end to gag laws: "we live in a democracy." Our tent should be large and friendly. Except to the David Orchard cult of course. But that's a different story. They are of the old-style organic conservatives. Mr. Orchard knows his Canadian history very well. But for the last 20 years, conservatism has undergone durastic changes and has evolved into neo-conservatism which is otherwise known as classical liberalism. This believes in the individual puruit of self-interest through free markets, and a non-interventionist government. Orchard speaks of a conservativism that is long gone. This is very evident when he speaks of the principles of the PC Party: He can't mention anything beyond John A. MacDonald (who's been dead for over a hundred years) and John Diefenbaker who has long since died and many in the west considered a socialist. The truth is that this will be Canada's first real conservative party in the modern sense. Mulroney talked like one but the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords proved that he wasn't (both called for much affirmative action to be ingrained into the constitution). We should all celebrate this new party with a new vision. It will have the populist principles of democratic reform, the moderate social policies and environmental concern of the PC Party and Keith Martin (which will make more Canadians feel at home) and the economic conservatism which will provide us with a strong economy. Most of all we will be providing a viable alternative to the Liberals. I've read a lot of Stephen Harper's material from the past. And I've come to this conclusion. This is not the kind of man who would sell us out, water us down, or jeopardize our electoral success.

[Moderate Centrist]

HI dnsfurlan,

I was merely making the point that Orchard is not a lefty but a traditional conservative.

My position on the merger is very simple - it must prove to me that it is moderate and not simple another version of the Alliance.

I've stated many times why I don't like the Alliance and it's not because I'm a lefty. It's because from statements made by the leaders themselves their first loyalty is to Alberta and not Canada. I will never support any such party.

We don't need anymore regional politics at the Federal level.

I personally don't support the Death Penalty nor more powers for the police. This is a position several Alliance members have taken over the years.

I don't support privatized health care - again - several Alliance members have made statements over the years indicating they would go this route - Harper included.

At this point in time I am extremely skeptical of what this party has to offer and what it will accomplish.

I may change my position as time goes on.

I predict the big loser here will be Mackay.

[dnsfurlan]

I've stated many times why I don't like the Alliance and it's not because I'm a lefty. It's because from statements made by the leaders themselves their first loyalty is to Alberta and not Canada. I will never support any such party.

We don't need anymore regional politics at the Federal level.

Well, I'm from Ontario myself. Have lived here all my life.

I haven't supported the Alliance because I see it as simply a regional party but because 1) it actually stood for something 2) some of that was principled conservatism, not the muddled version provided by Joe Clark and others.

And I'm not a social conservative either, at least if that term implies Evangelical Christian.

I personally don't support the Death Penalty nor more powers for the police. This is a position several Alliance members have taken over the years.

I don't support privatized health care - again - several Alliance members have made statements over the years indicating they would go this route - Harper included.

At this point in time I am extremely skeptical of what this party has to offer and what it will accomplish.

I may change my position as time goes on.

Well, at least you're a lot more open-minded than I thought.

Everyone is not going to get exactly what they want from this new party. Part of the difficulty in the past is that thats what everyone wanted.

I believe there has to be a place for moderates in the new party. And thats what the challenge will be for the prospective leadership candidates. Indeed, that would have been the challenge for Harper in the next election if no merger would have taken place.

Whoever the leader will be, and whatever policy process develops within the new party, it will have to accomodate a heck of a lot of people. I just hope, given some of the tragic history, no one group becomes too demanding, yet no one gets left from the table either. Just how to manage this balance is a mystery to me.

Stephen Harper may have given some clue in a recent interview. He said that the PCers and CAers have much more in common with each other than they think. And, where they don't, the issues are not at the forefront of a public debate anyway.

So, if this is a hint of what's to come, my guess is that a policy platform will develop which stresses these common principles and leaves the other stuff for the back-burner.

I doubt the Death Penalty will be a current focus, for example. Neither will abortion, another example.

The trick is to have something that doesn't alienate one particular group while also standing for something. I'd like to see how this is done too.

But at least something is trying to be done. And that something I think will probably be better than what the Liberals are about, I hope.

Its a huge challenge. That's why a step-by-step approach is wise.

Martin's pending coronation also has a way of unifying people in a hurry. So does the memory of past failures. We'll see what happens.