Disgruntled Tories consider refounding Reform Party

[BC_chick]

Not that anything would happen for years to come, but the fact that talks are now in order goes to show what I have always believed - that the two present-day CPC bases, namely the rich and the social conservatives, are mutually incompatible. The "right" won't be able to hold on to both AND please the ROC at the same time.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

Connie Wilkins of Kingston, who owns freedominion.ca, one of the most popular conservative websites in Canada, has been invited to the weekend meeting.

At this point, she says, reforming Reform is just a discussion.

snip

Many were angry over what they see as the Prime Minister's capitulation on same-sex marriage. But it's not just socially conservative issues that upset the old Reformers, Ms. Wilkins said. “It's the fiscally liberal things that they have been doing lately that people have really started to get upset about.”

The fury began with the luring of David Emerson from the Liberals to sit as a Conservative cabinet minister, and the naming of Conservative organizer Michael Fortier as unelected senator and Public Works Minister.

Then came a vote to declare Quebeckers a nation, the budget, a settlement with Maher Arar that many found egregious, a reversal on income trusts, and a complete about-face on the environment.

A Conservative policy convention scheduled for November – an opportunity for expression of the dissatisfaction – has been cancelled.

“It's not a huge issue in and of itself,” Ms. Wilkins said. “But because it's piled on to so many other things, it's just one more indication to a lot of people that we've lost our grassroots feelings and that it doesn't really matter what the membership says.”

[scribblet]

This is only a small group of social conservatives, those who want abortions banned totally. I doubt it will gain much traction. They should join the CHP.

[Who's Doing What?]

There needs to be another option on the right.

[BC_chick]

This is only a small group of social conservatives, those who want abortions banned totally. I doubt it will gain much traction.

Change always begins in small circles.

Besides, my point was that Haper can't please his social-conservative base, his fiscally-conservative base, AND the rest of Canada at the same time. His flip-flopping policies on the environment and income-trusts only demonstrate that point.

I'd like to add here that maybe throwing out the social-conservatives while remaining true to fiscal-conservatism will bring more credibility and support for Harper. You never know, maybe after the Mulroney years it wasn't a good time to break up the party, but after a 13 year Liberal legacy, along with a fresh new face in the Harper government, the timing might be better now to make that split. That is, of course, if Harper can let go of his social-conservative ideas. Personally, I think he can. 99.99% of politicians would trade their values for power. That's why they are what they are.

[scribblet]

I'd like to add here that maybe throwing out the social-conservatives while remaining true to fiscal-conservatism will bring more credibility and support for Harper. You never know, maybe after the Mulroney years it wasn't a good time to break up the party, but after a 13 year Liberal legacy, along with a fresh new face in the Harper government, the timing might be better now to make that split. That is, of course, if Harper can let go of his social-conservative ideas. Personally, I think he can. 99.99% of politicians would trade their values for power. That's why they are what they are.

What socially conservative ideas, the SSM issue is dead, he has made it clear abortion is a non issue, what else is he supposed to be doing - I havn't heard anything so far. So far he hasn't demonstrated any inclination to put forward any of those types of issues.

[geoffrey]

Your looking at the problem completely wrong. The only reason I want to see Reform back is that things were far more fiscally conservative with Chretien and Manning fighting back and forth than with Harper in power.

The split within the party is between people like myself and people like Michael Bluth (on this forum). He wants Tory power at all costs, I want less government in my life. That's what Harper was supposed to stand for, I like him because he wasn't a social conservative, at least not in dealing with others (much like myself, I am disgusted by gay marriage and abortion and those that are involved in it, but I don't seek to really get involved, not my issue). He was the ultimate small government guy coming from an organization I strongly supported, the NCC.

Instead we have the biggest government ever, social engineering left and right... it's terrible.

That's the split in the party. Not between the fiscal and social conservatives. Between the power at all costs people and those with princples that aren't willing to change just to see 'their boy' in the PMO.

[BC_chick]

What socially conservative ideas, the SSM issue is dead, he has made it clear abortion is a non issue, what else is he supposed to be doing - I havn't heard anything so far. So far he hasn't demonstrated any inclination to put forward any of those types of issues.

Yet before he was PM, he used to speak at pro-life rallies and built a platform on SSM. Exactly my point, he can't please his base and the ROC, and being a politician is more important to him than being true to his ideas.

If you argue that he persoanlly isn't against SSM and abortion, you'd get yourself caught up in trying to defend a man who openly lied in order to get elected.

If you argue that he is against both issues and is doing what the majority of the nation wants, then you are agreeing with me that he is a politician first and true to his values second.

But you can't have it both ways.

[jdobbin]

This is only a small group of social conservatives, those who want abortions banned totally. I doubt it will gain much traction. They should join the CHP.

This is what they said about Preston Manning and Stephen Harper when they were in the original Reform party.

[BC_chick]

geoffrey, how am I looking at it wrong? We are both saying essentially the same thing but in two different ways. But we both agree that the CPC supporters are a diverse group who are ultimately mutually incompatible. No?

[geoffrey]

geffrey, how am I looking at it wrong? We are both saying essentially the same thing but in two different ways. But we both agree that the CPC supporters are a diverse group who are ultimately mutually incompatible. No?

Yes, it's a diverse group, but I don't think your drawing the line correctly. The "rich and the social conservatives" aren't neccessarily exclusive of each other (if you've ever heard backroom banter in the Calgary corporate world)... and I think both groups are equally unimpressed with Harper.

If the rich were smart, they'd either direct the Liberals or the CPC into that social middleground that Harper seems to have found, and then push the pro-business agenda. It's a winning ballot in Canada. Harper has been very unimpressive on the tax cuts, and the business community has been highly critical of many decisions (foreign investment, income trusts, corporate regulations). He's an economist trying to run a real economy, in the history of Canada we've learned that it's best to leave that to the businessmen (Martin is the best example of a competent Finance minister, Flaherty is a hack). Idealistic views on the economy are silly at best.

I think the split in the party support is really along the lines I said before... diehard ideologues that will support the blue no matter what, and the rest of us that get pissed when we get exactly what we voted against. Not some rich/poor, moderate/socon, freetrade/isolationist concept. It's basically among the power hungry and the principled.

[Michael Bluth]

That's the split in the party. Not between the fiscal and social conservatives. Between the power at all costs people and those with princples that aren't willing to change just to see 'their boy' in the PMO.

So people within the party who don't share your views don't have principles?

I want the Conservatives to stay in power for at least one majority term after this because it's healthy for our democracy if there is no "natural governing party".

Inflexibility lead to 13 consecutive years of Liberal rule.

Manning's principles cost him a very good chance of holding the Liberals to a minority in 1997.

[BC_chick]

geoffrey, many fiscal conservatives are socially liberal (like yourself) and IMO, that's what a true conservative is in the 21st century. The social conservatives are nothing but the fringes of society who get used for votes by conservative governments. That is why I said what I did about the two being mutually incompatible - I don't believe it that fiscal conservatives really care for their ideas.

But even in my original post here's where I elaborated on that idea:

The "right" won't be able to hold on to both AND please the ROC at the same time.

Harper should've learned from Bush that you can't please all the people all the time. 28% is Bush's latest approval rating. Why? Because he rallied around one thing and did the exact opposite. In doing so, he just made everybody upset. The detractors don't like an opportunist flip-flopper and the base doesn't like a liar.

[Michael Bluth]

geoffrey, many fiscal conservatives are socially liberal (like yourself) and IMO, that's what a true conservative is in the 21st century. The social conservatives are nothing but the fringes of society who get used for votes by conservative governments. That is why I said what I did about the two being mutually incompatible - I don't believe it that fiscal conservatives really care for their ideas.

I am a true conservative by your definition.

I wonder about calling social conservatives as being on the fringes of society.

People who are pro-life, for example, make up a pretty big portion of the population.

Are they really on the fringes of society because they don't agree with the views of the majority?

[geoffrey]

geoffrey, many fiscal conservatives are socially liberal (like yourself) and IMO, that's what a true conservative is in the 21st century. The social conservatives are nothing but the fringes of society who get used for votes by conservative governments. That is why I said what I did about the two being mutually incompatible - I don't believe it that fiscal conservatives really care for their ideas.

When you put it in those terms, I'll agree with you completely. I have no patience for people that want to deal with pushing values, on others, I have much more important things to worry about.

Harper should've learned from Bush that you can't please all the people all the time. 28% is Bush's latest approval rating. Why? Because he rallied around one thing and did the exact opposite. In doing so, he just made everybody upset. The detractors don't like an opportunist flip-flopper and the base doesn't like a liar.

Brilliant observation. I never really saw it that way, but can see the parallels now. Harper was the small government guy, ended up being a huge government guy, and pissed people off as either a hypocrit or a liar along the way.

I do, however, think that Harper will do better than Bush would do in the same situation. Harper is winning over segements with his policies, but it's not sustainable longterm. No matter what Harper does on the environment, he will never win the hard green vote. He'll never win feminist women. So why bother trying, it just pisses off the people that he can win. If he were smart, he'd cut a bunch of stuff, open health care up to privatisation and slash our taxes... he'd at least win over a segement he can hold. Instead, he panders on social programs, to Quebec and on ridiculous environmental inititives.

That's not going to do long-term, and I think the recent polls are beginning to reflect the growing impatience with the essientially 5th term of the Liberal party.....

I am a true conservative by your definition.

I wonder about calling social conservatives as being on the fringes of society.

People who are pro-life, for example, make up a pretty big portion of the population.

Are they really on the fringes of society because they don't agree with the views of the majority?

The abortion issue is difficult to draw lines. I'm pro-life, I'd never encourage anyone to get an abortion, and I'm completely against it in principle. The difference between me and the likes of some backbench CPC members is that I don't care what other people do, and they want to get involved... note that this would all change if I could find a rationally defendable position against abortion. Then I'd be asking for a ban.

Everything on both sides of that debate right now is mostly emotional, so I'm going to err on the side of freedom.

It's a contradiction to be small government financially, and big government in interfering in personal decisions (however silly, immoral or misguided those decisions are)... it's actually a really ridiculous point of view.

I always wondered how social conservatives had so much time to be worried about everyone else. Do they really live such flawless lives?

By the way, I think the definition of a fringe element is one that isn't a significant part of the population, regardless of their cause. I'd say hardline social conservatives, even in Alberta, are clearly a fringe element. Most people don't care.

[madmax]

I think the split in the party support is really along the lines I said before... diehard ideologues that will support the blue no matter what, and the rest of us that get pissed when we get exactly what we voted against. Not some rich/poor, moderate/socon, freetrade/isolationist concept. It's basically among the power hungry and the principled.

I really like this quote.

[August1991]

geoffrey, how am I looking at it wrong? We are both saying essentially the same thing but in two different ways. But we both agree that the CPC supporters are a diverse group who are ultimately mutually incompatible. No?

No, the modern Conservative Party is a big tent and it has alot of space for diverse viewpoints. It split under Mulroney along the faultline of Quebec and Harper knows this very well.

Your looking at the problem completely wrong. The only reason I want to see Reform back is that things were far more fiscally conservative with Chretien and Manning fighting back and forth than with Harper in power.

Right. In an election pitting Chretien against Harper, you'd vote for Chretien.

This is only a small group of social conservatives, those who want abortions banned totally. I doubt it will gain much traction. They should join the CHP.

Exactly.

I would add that this is also the G&M trying desperately to sell newspapers to a group of urban boomers who will never vote for Stephen Harper and want to read reassuring news about his imminent demise.

[August1991]

Harper should've learned from Bush that you can't please all the people all the time. 28% is Bush's latest approval rating. Why? Because he rallied around one thing and did the exact opposite. In doing so, he just made everybody upset. The detractors don't like an opportunist flip-flopper and the base doesn't like a liar.

I was just waiting for you to make the Bush Jnr comparison. Why does the Left always have to bring in the US in a discussion about Canadian Conservatives?

Anyway, name me a recent president who has not fallen in popular support around six years into term?

[Michael Bluth]

When you put it in those terms, I'll agree with you completely. I have no patience for people that want to deal with pushing values, on others, I have much more important things to worry about.

Completely agreed.

I think SSM is another good example. Two people want to get married that's fine by me.

The rumoured Defence of Religion act was aimed at preventing people from trying to push their values on others.

If a religious leader, Priest, Rabbi, Reverend, does not want to perform a marriage ceremony because it is against their beliefs that should be their right.

However, rumours of this legislation lead to the old *scary* *scary* *scary* again.

[scribblet]

It may seem that the CPC is not as committed to Reform type changes - well take a look at the HoC, add them all together and there's still a majority who are not committed to fiscal responsibility or meaningful changes. Its a minority gov't in case anyone has forgotton.

The real test will be when the get a majority and if they then follow through with meaningful legislation. Given the constraints of parliament i.e. a minority, Harper has done very well. Even when citing polls we need to know when questions were asked. I bet if people were asked: “Would you rather have more money in your pocket, or in the hands of a bureaucrat or politician?” You'd get a majority positive response.

Even with a majority you won't see any anti abortion legislation coming down the pipe, Harper knows full well that it will divide the country, only a fringe element are bent on pushing that agenda.

Take a look at the website mentioned in the article (FD) check out postings by a lunatic Whatcott - now there's a good example of the lunatic fringe. No way does he or his followers represent even an iota of conservatives.

[BC_chick]

Why does the Left always have to bring in the US in a discussion about Canadian Conservatives?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because the similarities are uncanny.

Anyway, name me a recent president who has not fallen in popular support around six years into term?

1998, Clinton had 70+% approval rating during Lewinskygate.

[Michael Bluth]

Why does the Left always have to bring in the US in a discussion about Canadian Conservatives?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because the similarities are uncanny.

Why are they similarities only uncanny to the left?

Could it be more unfounded *scary* *scary* *scary*?

[capricorn]

There needs to be another option on the right.

Then we would have the socialist NDPs, the leftist Liberals, (we have no centrists because no party seems to know how to get there), the rightists (CPC) and the right/rightists (reborn Reform).

I don't think a CPC splinter group would work. It would remain a fringe party just like the many other hangers-on parties that only attract protest voters.

[BC_chick]

Why are they similarities only uncanny to the left?

Could it be more unfounded *scary* *scary* *scary*?

Too many to mention. But as far as this discussion is concerned, I already stated it - both tried to please fiscal and social conservatives at the same time as trying to please moderates (and even centre-left to some degree). Both ended up not winning too much support while pissing off many people in their base.

[scribblet]

qquote]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because the similarities are uncanny.

Why are they similarities only uncanny to the left?

Could it be more unfounded *scary* *scary* *scary*?

That's about it, there are not that many similarities to the U.S. right - in fact, Canadian conservatives are more akin to the U.S. democrats. Any suggestion that they are closer to the republicans is indeed playing to the anti U.S. faction.

[geoffrey]

I don't believe the Bush and Harper are close and Harper wants to be like Bush crap. I really don't. They are of completely different ideologies. Sure, they share some values, but so do many in the Liberal party.

Republicans don't equal Conservatives just like the Democrats don't equal the Liberals.

The only comparisons I can find between the two are the divide and conquer approach to politics (which isn't all bad IMO). Bush was wise, he didn't move on things for those that would never vote for him. Harper isn't quite so clever in that regard.