Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

I tried to add a section about the Gurmant Grewal scandal under "Controversy", then realized that the heading referred to controversy about the PC/Alliance merger. Perhaps this article needs a new section, to detail events involving the already-merged party. Escheffel 3 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Should the historical info from PC party article be moved here, seeing as it was just the "Conservative Party" until 1942? Adam Bishop 17:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

www.conservative.ca has been snapped up by cyber-squatters!! Pellaken 11:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Kirjtc2 15:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

it was "stolen" for about 12 hours, and "offline" for another 36. It's back though. Pellaken 00:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Haha, this page was modified at 17:24 EST on 2004-03-20-Sat to reflect the new party leader (Stephen Harper), moments after it was announced.

QZ 22:36, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention any of the party's stands or positions. Shouldn't it? Quadell 14:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

The party may have nailed down more of its policy now than it had in 2004, but any reference to the official party platform should include the date when that platform applies.
Also, there should be some indication on the differences between official party platform and how a majority of Conservative MPs might vote. Unfortunately, this could be POV and is likely subjective and speculative. It could be referenced as a perception, because such a perception does exist, in the media and possibly some portion of the electorate, whether justified or not. With time, this would become more clear and the article could be adjusted accordingly. 05:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. The world does not regard American English as standard. (See American and British English differences#English in various countries) There is no international standard outside of the country in which you live.
  2. Even if the world did regard American English as standard, Wikipedia absolutely does not. (See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling) The policy of this encyclopedia is very clearly in favour of using local, specifically national, spelling standards in articles with national specificity.
  3. American English derives from (or as you puts it, malforms and twists) British English, not the other way around. (See: American English#Differences in British English and American English)
  4. There is a difference between localized colloquial remarks and the standardized academic writing/spelling conventions of a country. I can only assume the encyclopedias in Louisiana don't have y'all in them regardless of how one might speak at a coffeeshop.
  5. The article is written in English - Canadian English.
Um, the policy is fairly clear on this. It is a Canadian article likely to read with the most interest by Canadian citizens. Canadian English seems a very reasonable standard for this article (as American English would for an article on an American federal political party). -- Matty j 19:36, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I find the anon's comments very offensive, and very jigonistic (and of course america-centric). Thank you matty j, for stating the obvious. Earl Andrew 21:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahoy there,

I apologize to any who took offense at my characterization of Canada and it's vernacular. I myself am a Canadian and intended it to be more humorous than apparently it was taken, and this is my fault. Sarcasm is hard to communicate in plain text, I'm sure you know, and there is no sense in using it to discuss a serious if minor point. I just serves to distract and make everyone mad.
As for the discussion on the spelling, I concede my mistake and apologize for this as well. Apparently, I was in the wrong all over the place. My understanding of Wikipedian spelling I assumed was not a topic I needed to read up on, again, falling flat on my big Canuck face. I honestly would do nothing to mess up the beautiful community we have here intentionally or for "jingoistic" purposes. Thanks.
--TheGrza 07:08, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

We should merge the Alliance/Reform/PC/Old Conservative Party artcles into one. Considering that they are still the continuation of one Party started by Sir. John A. Macdonald. At the very least we should consider merging PC Old Conservative and Modern Conservative party as one article.

[edit] Conservative factionalism

An anonymous editor suggested that the recent Reform/PC split and re-unification in the conservative movement followed the same pattern set by the Progressive Party of Canada and the Social Credit Party of Canada when they split from the Conservative Party of Canada (historical) and then rejoined.

Neither of these parties split from the CPC, and the Progressive Party did not rejoin.

The Progressive Party was formed out of the United Farmers movements. Some Progressives became Liberal-Progressives, and then Liberals, while others ended up in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. John Bracken, a Progressive premier of Manitoba, agreed to become leader of the CPC on the condition that it become the PC Party. This was not a merger of the parties, however.

Social Credit did not represent a break from the PC either, as far as I know, but rather it was a combination of a prairie protest movement and true believers in social credit, which is not inherently a conservative philosophy. In fact, the early Social Credit was in some ways closer to the CCF. When the Alberta Social Credit Party was prohibited from implementing its policies, it became over time a conservative/social conservative movement. While many western Socreds drifted into the PC Party, including the party's last English Canadian leader, Robert N. Thompson, others did not, and later formed the Canada Party. The Quebec wing more or less fizzled out, but did not join the PC Party. Kevintoronto 21:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Provincial parties

The Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan is basically defunct and most of the supporters are with the Saskatchewan Party, who also primarily supports the Conservative Party of Canada. Also, while officially separate, l'Action Democratique du Quebec has endorsed the federal Conservatives. Quote: Dumont encouraged Quebecers to vote Conservative in the last federal election and said last Tuesday he wouldn't be surprised to see Harper's team form the government after the next one. [1]

This party can trace it's origins to 1854 and the Parti Bleu of Québec. I think the founding year should be this. User:Kingsean1

Yesw, it probably can trace its origins back to 1854, and the article discusses its origins. The Conservative Party of Canada, as it is registered by Elections Canada, was, however, legally founded on December 7, 2003. Ground Zero | t 21:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

I think we should put a lock on this article, I have been noticing far too much vandalism on the part of some anonymous users. It sounds like a few bleeding hearts cannot accept that the Liberal Lost; To go on and bleed. I’m a Liberal in Calgary, I have lived with Conservatives all my life, I don’t wine about it. So please put and end to this "Harper is SCARY" crap. As well I’d say Classical Liberalism is an ideology which the Conservatives do fit, but it is hard to say. I’m putting that back up there. gundamtidus 7:13 (MST), 2 February 2006

I think you meant to say "go on and bleed". Actually I don't think that this article is edited nearly as much as most of the political party articles which I watch. I think that's just the nature of these types of articles. Make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and they will. Change it back if you don't like it. I don't think a page should be closed under these circumstances. --JGGardiner 02:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have found a lot of changes to the Policy Section which don't fit Conservative Party Policy. Oh Sure some Conservatives may like that idea but the Conservative Party does not. One such example was the North American Security Perimeter, which I tried to find the platform but there was not information it. There were a few other which have been removed.
I have found a lot of changes to the Policy Section which don't fit Conservative Party Policy. Oh Sure some Conservatives may like that idea but the Conservative Party does not. One such example was the North American Security Perimeter, which I tried to find the platform but there was not information it. There were a few other which have been removed.

gundamtidus 2:32 (UTC), 2 February 2006

That's great. Isn't Wikipedia beautiful? You caught an error. I agree with you on that one. I think as long as we remember to assume good faith and try and work collaboratively, we can keep making the articles better. --JGGardiner 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Charest

Charest is, however, a registered member of the federal Conservative Party.

Does anyone have a source for this? CJCurrie 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Noone has a source for this, but he was at the Conservative Convension this past March voting on party policies. SFrank85

[edit] Stop vandalising this article

A few clowns are constantly changing "right-of-centre" to "right-wing" and deleting the link to "classical liberalism." Follow these links, the articles describe the CPC to a tee. Stop trying to insert your own partisan bias.

  • I agree 100% SFrank85 18:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again...

It seems obvious to me that there are a whole lot of people who don't have the faintest clue what "Classical liberalism" or "Centre-right" politics is. I can't explain why they keep removing it from the article any other way than complete ignorance. No matter. I will keep changing it back, every day if I have to, until they actually follow the links to read the articles and see that those links definitely belong on the CPC article, and this whole idiotic back-and-forth game stops.

Some people...

Hi Digging.holes. I quite certainly have a faintest clue about both "classical liberalism" and the "centre-right", thank you very much. Several things need saying before we even get to the issue at hand, though. First, please sign your posts. Second, please assume good faith, that being a rather important tenet of editing here at Wikipedia. No shortage of your fellow editors here at Wikipedia have chosen to differ with your interpretation, and we're neither clowns nor partisan hacks nor vandals. We're simply trying to make a great encyclopedia here that presents informations in a neutral point of view. Third, threatening to repeatedly revert content until those who disagree concede the point, thus ending "this whole idiotic back-and-forth game" is rather bad form. Fourth, you obviously care enough about your political beliefs to put them front and centre on your user page "I am an evangelical christian. I support Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada." While that isn't in an of itself a reason for your right to contribute to articles such as this to be questioned, I think most people here would agree with my when I say you probably aren't the best person to throw around accusations of bias to those who disagree with your viewpoint.
As for the substance of your changes, first, I think "right-of-centre" is a fair term that avoids the possible perjorative connotations associated with "far-right" or even plain vanilla "right-wing" (although I think people who get worked up about the latter are being waaay too thin-skinned). "Centre-right" indicates that the party draws significant support and includes significant membership from the political centre. That is a more dubious claim to make—care to list polls that show more than a third of the Canadian electorate consistently backing the Tories? Care to list one member of the caucus that would be near-universally described as a "centrist"? The handy-dandy google test indicates that there are comparatively few online references to the CPC as being "centre-right" (the majority of which are hits about the PC Party) while a great many are okay with listing it as right wing or right-of-centre (including a lot of journalistic sources). I would argue that Wikipedia's present article on centre-right, incidentally, is a brutally-written article and hardly something to cite as evidence. To define "center-right" as "all right-of-centre parties that aren't extremist" is a bit ridiculous.
Classical liberalism doesn't belong in the ideology box simply because (a) its a term generally restricted to economics, (b) the Tories economic plans would be far more closely identified with neoliberalism, and even still, such viewpoints are not universal. In any case, neoliberal economics are a virtual given as part of the general definition of conservative politics in the modern era. Do you propose adding "classical liberalism" to the Republican Party article, or the British Conservatives, or so on? The Tom 07:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the Conservatives were not against free trade, therefore they would fall under Classical liberalism, then neoliberalism. However, it could follow both ways, as some in the party do not agree free trade, the party as a whole does support it in it's constitution. SFrank85 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, the problem we are having here have to do with definitions of words. You are quite right in assuming that the CPC is more often referred to as right-of-centre or right-wing than by centre-right. However, this doesn't help us in this case because 1) assuming journalistic objectivity is dubious at best and therefore journalists are not exactly a good reference and 2)while I much prefer the term right-of-centre, you'll notice that a wikipedia link to right-of-centre simply redirects to right-wing, an article which proceeds in its first couple lines to immediately mention fascism and extreme-right-wing politics, wich really doesn't help and is certainly not true in the case of the CPC. The article for centre-right more closely describes the CPC policies, even if the term is perhaps less accurate.

Also, I fail to understand why you object to placing Classical Liberalism in the ideology box, since economic policy is central to any party's ideology. The CPC is much more concerned with fiscal policy than anything else (though their social policy is more likely to make headlines) and Conservatism just doesn't cover that. If you would prefer a link to Neo-Liberalism, I think that would also be more acceptable than not mentioning economic ideology at all.

Digging.holes 18:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have returned the disputed phrasing to "right-of-centre", but without linking the term. This should be acceptable to most contributors. CJCurrie 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, I've decided to create a separate stub for "right-of-centre" and link the article there. Any objections? CJCurrie 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am delighted, CJCurrie. In fact, during the day it occurred to me that this would indeed by the best solution. Unfortunately, apparently Michaelm can't help him/herself. Digging.holes 02:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, would anyone object to me adding neo-liberalism under conservatism for ideology, since apparently Classical Liberalism is unacceptable to some? (I really don't care which, neo-liberalism and classical liberalism are virtually indistinguishable from one another, but I feel it important that something be there.)

Digging.holes 02:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I object. Digging.holes don't push your luck the consevative party is not a Neoliberal party. Its more like a Neoconservative party. Michaelm

Michaelm, I am very inclined to think you don't know what neo-liberalism is, but The Tom tells me that I'm not supposed to do that, apparently. Therefore, I can't possibly fathom what your objection is. Are you aware that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are in no way mutually exclusive? Indeed, both are nowadays usually associated with right-of-centre and right-wing political parties. Neo-liberalism (or classical liberalism, the two terms are often used interchangeably) are not the same thing as modern liberalism. What exactly is your objection?

Digging.holes 04:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Neo-liberalism" and "classical liberalism" are not used interchangeably by those who know what they mean. Just look at the meaning of the prefix "neo" and then re-evaluate. "Neo" means "new" which equates roughly to "modern". Garth of the Forest 08:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honourable?

The Honourable Stephen Harper is the current leader of the party. Pretty sure WP style says we don't include titles like "Her Majesty" or "Peace be upon him" when referring to people in articles, so either source a Wiki-page that says otherwise, or it gets removed :P

Every article on Wikipedia about any person holding titles like "The Honourable" or "The Right Honourable" says otherwise.

Digging.holes 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is considered inappropriate by the guidelines to include honorific titles in the leading sentence (with the exception of "Sir"). However, it is appropriate to include the title elsewhere in the article, where appropriate and pertinent. FiveParadox 02:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody please explain what their policies are!

I even went to the CPC website and I couldn't figure out what they believe in.

From what I saw they looked exactly like the Liberal party.

Could somebody please explain how they differ?

Why was this deleted from the article in the first place? --Capsela 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • [2]. Stephen Harper has also had a policy per day announcement each day during the election.SFrank85 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
wtf was that? I already went to that website like i said before. It doesn't tell me what their policies are!!!!11111 HELLO MCFLY???? I don't want some PR bullshit, i just want what they believe in and how they differ from the libs. That website looks like it was made by some highschool av club. JHC!!! LORD SAVE ME!--Capsela 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is, what the hell are you smoking Capsela? Key issues that will help you see the difference between the liberals and the conservatives are the whole Gomery thing and the gun registry. Go read the wikipedia articles about them. Conservatives are big on keeping the books in order. Liberals sing for whoever they believe will allow them to continue their reign. Do you pay much attention to things or do you just rant fantastically? --Sheldonc 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey hey not everyone is a political junkie. Election time is a bad time to figure out what politicians stand for. Conservatives support handing over federal power to the provinces, and letting provinces represent themselves internationally. They are obviously more conservative, not too crazy about newfangled things like gay rights and multiculturalism. Economically, their policy is not much different than the Liberals, Stephen Harper said Paul Martins budget looked like something he would write. You should also take a look at the NDP, they are the only ones which support proportional representation (so your vote won't be wasted if you do not vote for the winner in your riding.) (yay!).--sansvoix 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Every party on the fringes seems to toy around with the prop-rep idea. Leadership of the Reform Party back in the day loved the idea. While possibly a nice alternative, the NDP care the most about this plan because they have the most to gain from it - they're as biased as one could be. Prop-rep would most likely bring the Greens and even the Marijuana party into the house. We're talking German-style government where every nutty single issue party ends up with a huge say in a nation's operation. Think long and hard before jumping into electoral reform --Sheldonc 09:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SFrank85 01:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone had the balls to add the policies into the article. bravo!--Capsela 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too soon to say Harper will be PM?

I want to preface my comments/question by saying that I am not Canadian, nor do I live in Canada, so please excuse my ignorance. I don't understand why the CBC and this article say that Harper has been elected Prime Minister. My understanding of Westminster systems would suggest that the PM is the leader of not only the largest party in the lower house of praliament, but the leader of the largest party able to gain the confidence of the House. It (obviously) looks as though Harper doesn't have a majority. In other multi-party systems, even in Westminster ones (I'm thinking of Scotland and New Zealand specifically) a situation like this would mean that the leaders would have to begin negotiations with others to try to gain enough support to win a confidence motion. I may have missed something, but isn't it too early to say that Martin could gain the support of the Bloc (and if necessary NDP) to win a confidence motion? Or is it already known that the other Parties won't oppose a Harper Government? Are there precedents in Canada which dictate that the largest party must form Government regardless of the support that any other parties might be able to garner (which seems contracdictory to the Westminster principle of a Government requiring the confidence of the House)? -- Adz|talk 05:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In general, you are correct, and yes, an alliance of Liberals and NDP is hypothetically plausible, and things like that have happened before: W.L.M.King's government in 1925. And in general, the Prime Minister of the outgoing government has the right to stay on, if he/she thinks that he/she can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. However, Martin has indicated that if he doesn't get the plurality of seats he will not try to stay in power, which means that, barring unforseen circumstances, Harper will be the next PM. However, he is not one yet (as of me writing this), hence it says "Prime Minister-designate" instead of "Prime Minister".
The government will probably stay in power by making sure that every legislation it wants to pass is supported by enough opposition MPs, and will typically negotiate with the opposition parties on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the opposition parties will probably not pull the plug on the government for at least a year or so, since this would force the voters to go to the polls for the 3rd time in 4 years. As voters don't like voting often, whoever pulls the plug will likely get punished in the polls. Ikh (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Its a bit difficult to follow it from a distance. I was expecting that negotiations might drag out for weeks. Didn't expect such a decisive result so soon. -- Adz|talk 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well in most Countries using proportional representation use coalitions which are negotiated over months at a time. But in First Past the Post Countries the general assumption is that the party with the most amounts of seats forms the government. And through Constant Negotiations with all Parties it maintains the confidence of the House of Commons. Now in Canada there are two more reasons that is not done. First they parties want a Majority and Coalitions can kill that opportunity, especially if they are very effective ones. Second, if you look world wide, the Conservatives Natural Coalition Partner is the Liberals, Germany is prime example of that Christian Democratic Union of Germany and Free Democratic Party are natural coalition partners. However due to Canada’s Unique Political Spectrum, the Liberal Party is the Conservatives biggest coalition partner but also there biggest rival so forming a coalition with them is highly unlikely, but keep in mind for most of the pervious parliament the Liberal survived mostly of Conservative Support. Liberals ofcourse being in the centre can form a coaltion with any party. I bet this parliament will work like that as well. (gundamtidus 1, February, 2005 13:42 (MST))

[edit] any policies????

what are the policies/platforms of this party?? anyone??

Justforasecond 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes! For chrissakes help out some concerned foreigners here. What the hell is about to happen to my beloved Canada?? - Randwicked Alex B 07:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Added some info on the policies/platform of CPC. Input/editing woud be greatly appreciated. BTW, same could be probably done for the Liberal Party of Canada, I just don't really feel like doing it now. Ikh (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed the following: "including creating a North American security perimeter zone and even a North American Customs Union." I found not evidence for it in the Conservative Party Platform. It sounds like some people on the far-left are trying to scare Canadians of a Conservative Government. (gundamtidus, 1 February 2006, 1:47 (MST))

[edit] Factual Errors

"Adding to the situation in Alberta, support in the Conservative Party is divided between the hard-right Alberta Alliance Party and the centre-right Progressive Conservatives."

I found that quite hard to believe, while the Allaince does do well in Rural Areas, it's support isn't as respectful in Calgary and Edmonton. So that should not be there.

"There is an increasing demand to change the names of the provincial wings from "Progressive Conservative" to "Conservative"."

While this maybe so I would like to see some sources, it hasn't been reported in the media.

gundamtidus, 2 February 2006 2:36 (UST)

"Waters' appointment made him the first elected Senator in Canada." Does anyone else see the irony in this phrase? Now, what to do about it .... hmmm ... Garth of the Forest 08:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] news at wikines.org

I started a newly published article at wikinews. Perhaps some of you here may have some important facts that could be added. Also, perhaps it may be of interest to put the template of current news on this article? --72.57.8.215 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Conservative_Canadian_government_sworn_in --72.57.8.215 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles and Policies

"modelled after the Meech Lake Accord"? Did I miss something? --JGGardiner 06:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The background section of this article is rambling, repeats itself, says the same thing again and again, and beats around the bush. It badly needs to be tightened up. The information about party outlook needs to be cited and made WP:NPOV by including opposing points of view. For example, the statement that "the party has shed much of Reform's social conservative image" is contentious, and likely not true depending on who you ask and sample. I don't have time to do a full cleanup of this tonight, but the article is not looking encyclopedic right now. Also, the historical information on the predecessor parties is kind of spread throughout and should be coalesced. -- cmh 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacKay commentary

I don't see this as any attempt to "promote" the CPC, since mentioning constant fractures in the conservative movement is not considered positive. Rather, MacKay is speaking like a historian or political scientist, drawing analogies between the current CPC and past Tory parties. Lastly, as MacKay was a key player in the merger, its not surprise that he took a favourable view of the merger. GoldDragon 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • This is the first time I've ever heard Peter MacKay described in professorial terms. In any event, my view is that MacKay/Mulroney's comments constitute a form of promotion for the Conservative Party: specifically, their assessment is a subjective interpretation of history designed to place the new CPC in a respective light. This view is by no means uncontested, and was the subject of fierce discussion within the Conservative Party itself. I do not believe the section belongs in the introduction, although I'm prepared to wait for others to weigh in on the matter before reverting again. CJCurrie 01:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Then again, I don't think that this is sufficient ammunition for MacKay to win over doubters of the merger. He would have emphasized more shorter-term problems, such as declining PC membership, debt, vote-splitting, etc. Thus, moving MacKay's passage to the end of the merger events would make it very out of place.
"big tent" (which alludes to Mulroney's "Grand Coalition") and "fractures have been a natural part of the Canadian conservative movement's history" could be compared to the Liberal's nickname as "Canada's natural governing party". I don't think the Liberals would ever campaign on such a slogan, its rather a (positive) nickname that political commentators have used to describe it. GoldDragon 02:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the MacKay comments in question would be better placed in Conservative parties in Canada, which seems to deal more with the historical overview of the fracturing and reuniting of the federal conservative movement. DH | 2¢ | 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it could be moved to the History section of this article, since it seems more appropriate in that section of the article than in the intro. SFrank85 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That would certainly be an improvement. CJCurrie 04:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with that, as History of the CPC would mainly concern the reasons for the merger, notably the 1993, 1997, and 2000 elections. Second, it happens so that the predecessors is close to the introduction but is not part of the intro itself. GoldDragon 01:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Then I suppose we should have a vote to settle this. SFrank85 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

(i) Until very recently, this article described the Conservative Party as "right-of-centre". The change to "centre-right" was made by User:Obvious in this edit, without any prior consultation.

Whether or not the Conservatives are "centre-right" is a point of dispute. "Right-of-centre" is an accurate and neutral term.

I don't think so, and neither does User:Obvious. GoldDragon 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Obvious has made a grand total of 66 edits on Wikispace. You'll forgive me if I don't think we should stand by his arbitrary changes. CJCurrie 05:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you assume good faith for once? GoldDragon 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the Conservative Party is "centre-right". However, I agree that the "right-of-centre" label encompasses both that and viewpoints that understand them to be "further out". As a result, let's stick with r-o-c, because it will allow readers to make up their own minds by reading through the article and understanding the party's views on various issues. AshleyMorton 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This will also affect the Liberal Party of Canada. So its either "centre-left/right", or "left/right of centre". GoldDragon 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on past experience, I suspect we can look forward to days of mindless reverts from GoldDragon on this point. I see he's even taken down the NPOV notice, which is not good form. CJCurrie 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't want CJCurrie using wikipedia as a platform to insert subtle jabs against Tories and anyone else he despises, but he apparently insists upon doing so... A perfectly good example is how CJCurrie used the phrase "Others have criticized this assessment." a few edits ago. Obviously an attack edit. GoldDragon 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please change this, as I'm not able to do so at present? CJCurrie 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No I don't think so.GoldDragon 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(ii) As I've noted before, Mulroney and Mackay are not disinterested observers concerning the CPC's relationship to other Conservative parties in Canada. They have one view; Joe Clark and Scott Brison have quite another. It would be inappropriate for us to highlight only one position in the introductory section. CJCurrie 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't taken into account the size of the merger dissent in the article. So its hugely inappropriate of you to tip the balance of the article further towards dissent. 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not doing that. I'm removing a self-serving section from the article's introduction. CJCurrie 05:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Second, the Mulroney/Mackay view was never used to win over doubters of the merger. Mackay emphasized more shorter-term problems, such as declining PC membership, debt, vote-splitting, etc. Thus, moving MacKay's passage to the end of the merger events would make it very out of place. GoldDragon 05:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It was justification after the fact, and it belongs in the merger section. CJCurrie 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Its like "the Liberals are Canada's natural governing party". GoldDragon 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Was the MacKay/Mulroney commentary directly refuted? GoldDragon 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The matter is still being discussed. You can't remove the NPOV notice before anyone else has contributed. CJCurrie 03:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see in what way the CPC has been a centrist party. Its policy has been wholy right of centre. I would go further and say that it has been "right-wing", but I can live with "right of centre" to avoid causing further problems here. Can someone provide examples of centrism in CPC policy in order to justify calling it "centre-right"? ("Right-leaning" just seems like a weasal words to me.) Here are some examples of right-wing policies:

  • replacing a program to provide child care subsidies to low- and middle-income families with one that provides payments to all parents regardless of whether they pay for child care or not -- whether or not one agrees with this, it is a typically conservative and right-wing policy to provide equal support to working parents and stay-at-home parents;
  • re-opening debate on same-sex marriage after Parliament voted to change the Marriage Act to bring it in line with the Charter of Rights and freedoms after nine provincial and territorial court rulings;
  • aggressive tax cuts; and
  • cutting program spending while running a monumental budget surplus.

I am not looking to debate these policies -- some of them have some merit -- only to point out that these are the policies of a right-wing party, not of a centrist one. Ground Zero | t 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for other things that are not on the right side of thinking,
  • The Conservative Party will not open the debate on abortion, which would go against right-wing thinking
  • taxing on income trusts
  • Quebecois as a nation

I think everyone is too worried about the right wing, right of centre, centre-right debate. These are CONSERVATIVE things that they are doing. The whole left-right political system hardly exists anymore because there are no clear parties that are purely right or purely left anymore. In order to clearly identify as party as right wing, I believe all their policies have to be right wing ideas, which in the case of the Conservative Party of Canada is not as clear cut as that. SFrank85 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could just call it a "conservative political party", if everyone would be agreeable to this wording.

Could I request that editors review my comments on the Mackay/Mulroney paragraph? CJCurrie 01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As SFrank85 said, the whole left-right or liberal-conservative political system doesn't exist in a conventional sense. For instance, look as the McGuinty Liberal gov't of Ontario, which some observers saying that it is more (fiscally) conservative than Bill Davis' Conservative government a couple decades before. And with the Chretien gov't, it might have been symbolicly "left-wing" with regard to gay rights and opposing the US, but it had more fiscally conservative policies than the past Mulroney gov't. Given that, the left/right description for the federal Liberal party has to be treated similarly as well - its no longer the moderate party it once was.

Indeed, pragmatism rather than ideology would better explain the "unusual" policies that the Conservatives and Liberals have had as of late. Paul Martin promised a gentler and more far reaching Liberal gov't than Chretien, but after being reduced to a minority gov't, his first budget went back to being fiscally conservative. As every minority gov't wants to survive, they will bend. This is what we are seeing with the Martin and Harper minorities. GoldDragon 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I believe this matter is solved. Could I request that editors review my comments on the Mackay/Mulroney paragraph? CJCurrie 04:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that describing it as a "conservative party" is the best approach. I disagree that failing to bring up abortion is a sign of centrism. Harper hasn't brought up abortion because he knows that he won't be able to get consensus. There are lots of people in his caucus who would ban abortion if they could get a majority in the House, but they can't so they're leaving it alone. Flaherty taxed income trusts because it made economic sense to do so: you can't give a whopping great tax cut to established, stable companies that were using the income trust structure, while continuing to tax innovative, growth-oriented companies at the higher rates that apply to corporations. There was a valid economic argument there, and Flaherty and Harper are paying a high political price for their only sensible tax policy move to date. Quebec as a nation -- that is not clearly a left-wing/right-wing issue. Trudeau federalists have a big problem with that as well, while provincial autonomists on the right are okay with it. Ground Zero | t 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous editors of this page, particularly those concerned with the use of "center-right", "right of center" and/or "right-wing" might benefit by spending some time at this site[3]. I'd really like to see less (or at least more accurate) use of those types of phrases when referring to modern political parties. Also, there is a very clear distinction to be made between classical liberalism and neoliberalism; please brush up if it isn't already obvious to you. Most of the confusion around some of these words (i.e. liberal, right-wing, left-wing) seems to arise due to the difference in usage in the United States and parts of Canada when compared to the rest of the world, not to mention their misuse by those pushing a particular POV. Garth of the Forest 08:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation?

First of all, I am offended that someone blankly and indifferently reverted the page on the specific topic regarding the Liberals probable election call in early in the year 2007. This topic is a HUGE hot-button issue with many political panels right now, and it is highly probable that the Liberals will attempt to re-take influence in Canada once they have their own issues straightned-out and rectify their current ideological factionilization. Their is no doubt, nay, in fact they WILL call another election sometime in the very near future, so to call all of this speculation is inherently speculative in of itself. Just to clarify, these were the points made:

  • With Stéphan Dion as the new leader of the Liberal party, elections can take place with a vote of no confidence, just like the Conservatives did it to the minority Liberal govn't.
  • The Conservative Party of Canada IS a minority party, and they have indeed been suffering at the polls because of the apparently minor de-federaliztion of Quebec, and very poor American-style environmental plan (Although Steven Harper makes a moot point that it is truly Canadian, when in fact that couldn't be further from the truth) as well as his views on overseas policy.
  • There is still stigma behind the past Liberal party in regards to the sponsership scandal and others regarding Dion himself and said scandal. This could affect the election results significantly in the future against another Liberal majority.
  • There is speculation as per when exactly another re-election might take place.

So as you can see, these topics clearly state that another re-election will take place but the big question is when and that the Liberal party is still pretty far along from perfect, and they have to work on things a bit. There was absolutly no bias in the information, and it does have some definate roots in fact. Even though the Liberals might lose in another re-election, the does not mean that they will not ever call an election.


Well, it has already been noted that the Conservatives are in a minority situation, which makes it a given that another election could occur at any time before the 5 year mandate. Thus, most of the speculation is redundant, as this has been the case for every minority gov't unless they reach out to an opposition party to sign an accord. GoldDragon 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, not sure what you're talking about, but even in a minority government situation, it's still the responsibility of the government (ie. the Tories) to ask the Gov-Gen to dissolve Parliament and call elections when a vote of non-confidence is lost. So it's not the Liberals that will call an election, but the Conservatives. An election would take place with a vote of non-confidence, even if the Liberals didn't have a leader. Don't see what you're getting at with your first point. As for your second point, it seems too much like you're attempting to promote your own views on Conservative policy for inclusion in the article.Crisco 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the clarity and/or correctness of this projection, it doesn't have a place in the article. Clearly the Conservative government *could* be facing an election as soon as January, but *could* also be in power for years without another election (both, I acknowledge, are unlikely). However, it's pretty important to judge the inclusion of such material against at least TWO criteria:

1. Is it accurate, verifiable, etc.? The statements represent original research - even if I agree with the line of argument, it's not referenced or "generally accepted".
2. Does it belong in this article? That's where I would suggest that these statements lose out in a much less controversial fashion. Simply, they are not focussed primarily on the Conservatives (who are, of course, the topic of the article), meaning that perhaps they should be in Politics of Canada, not the Conservative Party article. AshleyMorton 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I oppose the inclusion of this paragraph in the "party history" section:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and many other high-profile former PCs, including the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney see the CPC as a natural evolution of the conservative political movement in Canada. MacKay has suggested that the CPC is a reflection of the reunification of conservative ideologies under a "big tent." MacKay has often said that fractures have been a natural part of the Canadian conservative movement's history since the 1890s and that the merger was a reconstitution of a movement that has existed since the Union of Upper and Lower Canada.

Reason: Mulroney and MacKay are non-neutral sources, and Scott Brison and Joe Clark have quite a different view. The historical continuity between the PCs and CPC is disputed, and we should not be advocating for either side. CJCurrie 09:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The PC Party, but joint of merging with the Canadian Alliance gives the current party historical links with the Liberal Conservative party of Sir John A. Macdonald. The vast majority of historians and political scientists would agree with that statement. SFrank85 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there are historical links between the parties, but I question the idea that the CPC represents a "natural evolution" and a "reconstitution" of Canada's conservative movement. If we're going to mention the Mulroney-MacKay POV, were should mention the Clark-Brison POV as well. CJCurrie 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Okay, I think that the article is doing a bad job of expressing this clearly, but it can't be denied that the two are not equally relevant POVs - I have a close friend who was a PCer, and who decided that his party had "winked out of existence" at the time of the merger. However, he would never *actually* claim that the CPC wasn't the official successor to the PC Party. He just wished that they hadn't merged, and cancelled his membership, as a result. In my mind, there is only one correct way to speak about the "official" successorship - the CPC took on the constitutional linkage with both of it's direct ancestors. However, I understand that it is a different thing to talk about something as nebulous as a "movement", because if a party takes a complete 180-degree direction change, then it might manoeuvre itself *out* of being the successor to a movement.AshleyMorton 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Clark-Brison POV is not relevant as they did not address the historical links; their main attacks were on "takeover" and social policy, the latter which was only recently an issue. Plus, the vast majority of historians and pol scientists would agree with the Mackay-Mulroney statement, similar to how the Liberals are referred to as "Canada's natural governing party", the latter statement being POV in its own right but at the same time being accepted among historians. GoldDragon 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Then, I guess you can say the same thing is true for the The NDP which was created in 1961 by a merger of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. SFrank85 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For clarity

I think there may be some confusion concerning my position.

I do not object to this paragraph:

Although only three years old, the Conservative Party is political heir to a series of conservative parties that have existed in Canada, beginning with Liberal-Conservative Party founded in 1854 by Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier which became the Conservative Party in the 1880s. Like them (and the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom) it carries the nickname "Tory", and its members are known as "Tories". It is also legal heir to the older parties by virtue of assuming the assets and liabilities of the former Progressive Conservative Party.

I object to this paragraph, which is a thinly-disguised promotional piece:

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and many other high-profile former PCs, including the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney see the CPC as a natural evolution of the conservative political movement in Canada. MacKay has suggested that the CPC is a reflection of the reunification of conservative ideologies under a "big tent." MacKay has often said that fractures have been a natural part of the Canadian conservative movement's history since the 1890s and that the merger was a reconstitution of a movement that has existed since the Union of Upper and Lower Canada.

Do others agree with my objection?

CJCurrie 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No. These arguements were never used to promote the merger. GoldDragon 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

... which has nothing to do with my argument. CJCurrie 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It was never a promotional piece. GoldDragon 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It reads like one. CJCurrie 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we need someone who is neutral towards party politics to clear this up, because this will never end until then. SFrank85 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


My two cents: It seems to me that what is there now is ok. Notice that the paragraph in question does not say "the CPC is a natural evolution...", it says that "XYZ claim that the CPC is a natural evolution". So there is no problem of POV here: this is a factual statement and is either true or false. (Of course, this paragraph is stronger if we have sources.) Moreover, although I'm usually not a big fan of "some observers say..." type of diction, it seems to me that Mulroney is certainly significant enough that his opinion is noteworthy. Differing opinions, if they are held by significant players, can be added as well, as "OTOH, Joe Clark says that ...". If Joe Clark has a different take on this, I think it's fair to include his thoughts as well. Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that sources can be found which back up all of these claims. (And, to convince you guys that I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm an American...:D) -- Deville (Talk) 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I tried to bring in the other POV a while ago. GoldDragon objected. CJCurrie 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the history section should only include the narrative of what's happened. The MacKay part isn't neccesary to tell what happened, it's a claim that what happened was legitimate (or at least inevitable). I'm happy to note that in the article but since there is already a section on the merger controversy, I think that we should move MacKay's comments there. --JGGardiner 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that since that section discusses both reconstitution and ideology, that MacKay's comments elaborate on that topic, so that is where his comments are most appropriate. GoldDragon 23:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackay's observations are hardly neutral. It would probably stretch credulity even to call them objective. CJCurrie 23:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


This from Deville speaks for itself, so there is no need to move it as it is. It seems to me that what is there now is ok. Notice that the paragraph in question does not say "the CPC is a natural evolution...", it says that "XYZ claim that the CPC is a natural evolution". So there is no problem of POV here: this is a factual statement and is either true or false.
You left out the part where he said, Differing opinions, if they are held by significant players, can be added as well, as "OTOH, Joe Clark says that ...". If Joe Clark has a different take on this, I think it's fair to include his thoughts as well. Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption that sources can be found which back up all of these claims.
And since you didn't make any reference JGGardiner's comments, I will: I think that the history section should only include the narrative of what's happened. The MacKay part isn't neccesary to tell what happened, it's a claim that what happened was legitimate (or at least inevitable). CJCurrie 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Second, did Joe Clark directly refute MacKay's view? You can't just bring in a generic counter POV by saying "others have disagree with this view". That is why I removed it without hesitation. And when you couldn't find it at the time, you decided to try to move or delete the entire passage. GoldDragon 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Clark may not have responded to MacKay directly, but he expressed a clear, opposing POV about the CPC's place in the history of Canadian conservatism. I didn't feel like looking for a source when my preferred option was to delete the section entirely. If you want me to find Clark and Brison quotes, I can. CJCurrie 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've reviewed the arguments, and find merit in both points of view. In the end, however, presenting only one POV is not a good idea. Either we stick with what is factual, i.e., remove the MacKay paragraph as CJCurrie suggests, or we incorporate the other POV, which is what Gold Dragon is proposing. The problem with Gold Dragon's proposal is (as GD notes) that there is no verifiable evidence that Clark contradicted MacKay's assertion directly. I don't agree with Gold Dragon's conclusion that this situation makes it okay to present only one POV. Either delete both, or temper the MacKay POV with a generic statement. MacKay's statement is POV, so it cannot stand alone, in my view. Ground Zero | t 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I strongly disagree with both courses of action, as it is very common in many wiki articles to present one POV, as there may not necessarily be an opposing POV. For instance, if an activist criticizes the police, and the police decides not to publicly refute that, does it make it POV-ish to only present the activist's side in a wiki article? Example from David Miller: "The city had previously approved several large increases for the police during Mel Lastman's tenure as mayor, and was sometimes criticized for not exercising proper oversight over police requests" Here, there was no POV arguing for the large increases. So this would count as POV if we applied such a standard.

That being said, it is clearly indicated that this is the opinion of MacKay and other CPC members, rather than being a generic statement agreed upon by all historians. GoldDragon 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Furthermore, in the introduction of Liberal Party of Canada, the party is described as being in the centre of the political spectrum. Some would question whether the label is still relevant, as they have been considered fiscally conservative since the 1990s; and while some argue that their progressive social policy "balances" the fiscal out and makes the party centrist, others say that fiscal and social are mostly seperate policies. So though their ideology is debatable, keep in mind that the party "advertises" itself in a "self-serving light" as centrists, AND there are also these that argue that the party is still centrist. (The ideology is questioned later in the article.)

Thus, the introduction of Liberal Party is keep free of disputes...imagine what it would read like if we said "The Liberal Party of Canada (French: Parti libéral du Canada), colloquially known as the Grits (originally "Clear Grits"), is a Canadian federal political party positioned around the centre of the political spectrum, combining a progressive social policy with moderate economics." and then we tacked on "though there has been disagreement on their ideology since the 1990s."GoldDragon 15:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting non-sequiteur, but I'd prefer to discuss the biased paragraph in this article. CJCurrie 01:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with CJ that the paragraph as it stands does seem to be little more than a thinly veiled promotion of the two people mentioned. It's nothing more than their opinion, and unless the opposite opinion is included (ie. joe clark), I think it's pretty clear that we're looking at a PoV problem here. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pointing out that the Conservative Party article has to be treated the same as the Liberal Party article.GoldDragon 05:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The center-right/right edit warring

This is to the IP who keeps on flip-flopping the position of the party

I'm just pointing out, that if the Conservatives seemed to have move a bit closer to center (which does not justified to put center-right and underestimates their real intentions if they were a majority government) is due to the public pressure because of the environment issue and also because they are a minority government. Moving a bit less right is definitely not their intention and thus right-wing is their real position. It's often like that in a minority/coalition government. --JForget 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you know how the Conservatives would govern if they were in a majority position? If you look at their policies and platform, this party is not right-wing like the Republican or British Conservatives are like. SFrank85 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In an event, while some may consider the party centre-right, it is not the clear overwhelming opinion of observers and thus should not be included as the only description in the intro. I took right-leaning from the Canadian conservatism article's definition a few months ago and it seemed to settle an edit war then. I think the term is specific enough to inform readers but general enough to include nearly all mainstream descriptions of the party. --JGGardiner 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the sentence after the bold statement that the law and order policy is in response to wrong perceptions. As a Conservative, I know that I believe in those policy points no matter what statistics Canada has to say, so the person who asserted the reason for the policy as being perception is dead wrong. I want to crush criminals for the pure joy of it, perception has nothing to do with it. You are welcome to remove my sentence, but remove the previous one, or rewrite it. If someone shoots me, I really don't care if crime is down, I want the bum locked up and the key thrown far away. -And the party is centre right, cause I am far right, and you can't imagine how much farther I would go. The arguement is true, libs call themselves centrist, but they really just have no solid priciples, and are willing to leave tough decisions to Conservatives, no guts to make the calls that are needed. I guess if having no real principles makes it easy to flip flop all the time, and that leads to people thinking you are moderating policy fine. I would argue that I have to put far more water in my wine to come to the centre than any liberal, what hard policy do they really have? In the debates Gille Duceppe (BQ leader) said the libs run on the left, and govern on the right, but I would say they say anything to get elected, and slime their way into holding on to power, through lies and deception. So who is to say who is governing from the centre, centre left, or centre right. (and that is how centre is spelled in Canada) -Also, since I was last here it seems a whole lot has been hacked up in this article, with lots of stuff I thought was important left out, is that just me, or has a weed wacker been used on this article? Jeremy99 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Back again, and you made no effort to rewrite the law and order sentence to not reflect bias. Seems you like having it read that way. That it is wrong seems no bother at all. Once again, prove the policy is just about responding to perception. To prove my point, youth offenders killed a person is Winnipeg and the 13 year old was at home that night. The news report talked about peoples anger at that. What do statistics have to do with throwing the little bastard in jail as an adult for 10-15 years. Nothing. I will now just delete your sentence. Include some reference to why conservatives want tougher law and order agenda implemented, and then talk statistics. You removed what I put in without even responding. Well, it begins. Jeremy99 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The labelling of the party as “right-leaning” as opposed to “centre-right” is based purely on amateur speculation toward future policy or the isolated remarks of individual party members. The party should be assigned a label based on actual official policy and legislation that they introduced and/or supported in the House. Speculation on what the Conservatives would do with a majority government based on their much trumpeted “hidden agenda” is not a valid basis for assigning political alignment, since it is not factually verifiable, nor is speculation on the motivation of policy. Equally invalid are the isolated remarks of individual members, since they are not likely representative of the party as a whole. All mainstream federal parties have members who have been out-of-step with official stance. Former Liberal Carolyn Parrish and former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais are obvious examples, since few would label the Liberal Party as an inherently anti-American party, nor the NDP as against same-sex marriage. The recent federal budget, while arguably a product of political compromise, should serve as clear evidence that the Conservatives are a centre-right party. –Anon, 30 March 2007

[edit] Revert warring over ideology and policy

I concede that centre-right is a messily-defined term and is likely obsolete. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to present information? Why, CJCurrie, do you insist upon selective omission of generally-accepted fact? The Conservative party IS heavily influenced by political ideologies other than simply conservatism, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism. And the only objectively verifiable information that one can honestly present regarding its positions/ideology/policy is that which is either in the official party platform, or has actually been proposed as legislation in the House. Please try to grow up a little and stop relying on nebulous speculation, heresay, and biased editorial opinion as sources of objectively verifiable facts. 205.193.82.252 - 29 May 2007.

Here is my take on the recent POV-pushing by the anon editor:

1. “the Conservative Party can be defined as big tent, as it includes members with varying positions on different issues.”

I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside.

2. “The Conservative Party generally falls on the centre-right, and favours individual rights, lower taxes, smaller government, decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces, an assertive system of law and order, increased military spending, and the harmonization standards and regulations with trading partners. The party has at times opposed the legalization of cannabis, unrestricted abortion, and same-sex marriage, but has since either stopped advancing these positions, or dropped them from its official policy altogether. The party also seeks to improve relations with Canada's primary trading partner, that had been deteriorating under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.”

All of these are positions of the right, not of the left, so “generally falls on the centre-right” are weasel words.

3. The Conservative Party strongly advocates democratic reform of the federal government. It supports free votes in Parliament, and has had one such vote on whether the House should reopen the issue of same-sex marriage, which was defeated (though it should be noted that both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois enforced party discipline for this vote).

“though it should be noted that” – this is clear evidence that you are trying to persuade the reader, rather than inform. Furthermore, this article is not about the NDP or BQ positions on same-sex marriage or their conduct in the house. It is about the Conservative Party, and this comment is not relevant to that.

With respect to your comment "Please try to grow up", please be advised that personal attacks violate Wikipedia guidelines. Please review WP:NPA. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent your claim that this is a POV push, as I do not support the CPC, not have any interest in it, but rather prefer to see Wikipedia articles offer facts rather than spin.

"I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside." I though we went over this before. Why does something being clear to you matter? Where is your evidence? Speculation does not equal verifiable information. The 11 Quebec caucus members are certainly not former Alliance supporters. Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice, Rob Nicholson, David Emerson, Greg Thompson, Marjory Lebreton, Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan have absolutely no ties to the former CA, most from the PC and a couple of former Liberals. Your attempt to protray the CPC as an Alliance takeover of the PC party belies an agenda, or at the very least a confusion of personal perspective and objective facts.

Also, when you mention that the motion to re-open the same-sex marriage debate, there is an inference that the party's policy was in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was not. While many (arguably the majority) of Conservative members oppose ssm, the point of the motion and party policy was to allow a free vote on a controversial issue, rather than have party discipline imposed by the leadership. It is indeed relevant to mention what other parties have done since it contrasts, isolates and thus clarifies the Conservative intent on the motion.

Also, since when does improving foreign relations fall on the right? Are you inferring that because the United States has a Republican President that improving relations must necessarily be a right-wing policy? If so, that's a very dubious claim. Please clarify.

Also, the claim that they are conservative both fiscally and socially is misleading, as they have a very large and diverse membership and caucus. Harper himself could be labelled as neoliberal, Peter Mackay as libertarian, and Myron Thompson as conservative. Wouldn't you agree that affixing labels is less informing than actually describing what they have done and propose to do?

205.193.82.252 - 30 May 2007.

[edit] POV Revert Warring

Does anyone other than CJCurrie, GroundZero, or The Tom adhere to the biased "consensa" they've been pushing, or that "reality has a liberal bias"? This is beyond silly. [uunsigned comment by User:205.193.82.252

  • I welcome others' thoughts on this, too. It does seem to me that User:205 has one point of view, and three long-time Wikipedia editors (of which I am one) have a different view. What is the consensus here? Ground Zero | t 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In my time here, I've seen edits that would make it seem like the Canadian political spectrum stetched all the way from centre-left to centre-right.
I suppose that "right wing" is a debatable term which is why I changed it to "right-leaning" at one point. I took that from the Canadian conservatism article. I would prefer right wing myself and it is certainly better than centre-right. It is fine to criticize the old labels I think but without a better alternative they should stay. Centre-right is more debatable and less agreed upon than the other terms.
But I would agree that perhaps "big tent" is an appropriate term. They might not be the biggest tent out there but I'd say they are probably beyond the scope a narrow ideological party. The old progressive elements may not have power but the party does seem to command the support of much of the old PC supporters. I think that the party has a solid lock on the right wing and the far right, the best part of the centre-right and more than a few centrists. --JGGardiner 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a policy of "just the facts, ma'am" is in order here. Put aside your partisan word-smithing and hair-splitting for a while and focus on getting the facts straight. The left/right spectrum debate is simplistic at best; divisive, confrontational, and leads to bloodshed at worst. See this site to hopefully shake this simplist one-dimensional linear model from your collective heads once and for all. Then get back to "just the facts, ma'am". Focus not on what you want the party to be, focus on what can be verified via methods other than original research regarding what it was and what it is. After all, politics, and specifically real politik is messy, three-dimensional, and happens in technicolour. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is rather insulting for you to suggest that I've focused on "what I want the party to be" or was "partisan". I think that you ought to stick to "just the facts" rather than accusing other editors of particular bias. I think you should see WP:AGF as well. As for my nine month old post, I wasn't arguing for the merits of the left-right spectrum per se; a particular editor had inserted wording which narrowed the description. But both the new and old versions used the same concept.
If your position is that party articles shouldn't contain political position notes, that is something much wider than this article and this one dispute in particular. "Political position" is even a line in the political party infobox template. But I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to suggest. The post wasn’t really clear. I found the last particularly confusing actually. I’m not sure what you meant about Realpolitik. If you’d like to elaborate, I’d appreciate it. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I do apologize if the way in which I positioned and phrased my comments contributed to you mis-interpreting my comments to be a personal attack on your particular contributions. That was not my intent. My comments were aimed at all contributors and potential future contributors to this article. There seems to be an infinite amount of time available to debate whether to use the term "centre-right" or "right-of-centre" or what-have-you to describe the party, and also for some individuals to engage in the very unwikipedian-like revert warring that is described on this page; meanwhile, the article continues to have many grammatical and factual errors and very very few in-line references. I would like to commend past contributors for their research efforts and obvious passion about the subject matter - however, all of this hard work is at risk if it is not properly referenced. It was me that added the tags citing the lack of references. If I didn't already know better from a fairly robust personal knowledge of the subject matter, it would be relatively easy for one to assume (due to the very few references provided) that much of this article was original research. If we all (collectively) spent more time adding verifiable third party references to this article and, while we are at it, continued to improve the sentence and paragraph structures, then I think we could start to move our collective efforts into a more positive direction other than the apparent bickering that has occurred in the past over what various labels to apply to the party, most of which have lost all relevant meaning over the years anyway. I think what many readers and contributors fail to recognize is that party positions are not static they evolve, devolve, and revolve over time based on changes in leadership and the shifting of the political winds at different points in time and that is what I was meaning with my comments - we need to focus our collective energies on accurately describing the various party positions, highlights, and moments of despair (and be clear on what point in time we are referring to with each paragraph, each sentence) while also highlighting the party's rich heritage in a factual, unbiased, meaningful, and encylopedic manner. Save the political debates for the coffee shops and the blogs. That's what I meant. Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your grade school English teachers are spinning in their graves

My biggest beef right now with this article is that the grammar and run-on-sentence structure is abhorrent, let alone the bigger issues that the facts aren't all straight and most references are slim to missing. The third paragraph of the section on "predecessor parties" is a rambling drive by assault on the English language, not to mention that it confuses the reader - we are never quite sure from sentence to run-on-sentence exactly which time period in history is being referred to, or for that matter, which article we are reading. I understand the attempt to put things in context, but we need to stick to the topic at hand, which is the Conservative Party, not a general discussion of all political parties that ever gained traction with support from the west. I am doing a complete re-write of this section right now; I will do my best (it will be a challenge to keep my tongue out of my cheek) to maintain NPOV and focus just on cleaning up the grammar and sentence structure, and when I have some more time I will blow up the "Back to the Future" time-machine-car the original writers of this section were using and add some relevant references. And no, the type of car (DeLorean) is not relevant to the topic of this article, even if Harper or MacKay or some other high profile Conservative actually owns (or owned) or drives (or ever drove) one. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add references

I've noticed a tendency by some contributors to this (and other) articles about political parties to automatically revert wording changes made by other contributors, with little or no discussion. This is not productive. If someone has made a wording change to a paragraph that in its prior form already cited no references, that wording change in and of itself (unless it introduces a grammatically inferior paragraph when compared to the predecessor paragraph, or skews to a less neutral POV) is no better or worse than the wording contained in the predecessor paragraph. Assuming good grammar, spelling, and sentence structure - each version is unreferenced, and therefore equally inferior to one another. I challenge each and every contributor to this article to, for every edit you plan to make (no matter how minor), to also add at least one verifiable reference (either that supports your wording change, or that supports other wording already existing in the article). Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative officials named in bribery allegations

MP Garth Turner has reported the names of the two Conservative officials who allegedly attempted to bribe Chuck Cadman as Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (National Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada).

Should this be included as part of the article? Shame

DSatYVR (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... debatable. Until more information is forthcoming, it is perhaps a topic more suitable for current events (ie. WikiNews) rather than an encyclopedia, even though Mr. Cadman did pass away almost three years ago. If we do include content of this nature in articles such as this one, I'd be inclined to want the section to be headlined something like "Recent Controversies" or "Current Scandals". Virtually every political party has had their share (of scandal and/or controversy), at different points in history. We just don't want to start any additional overly-heated revert warring by introducing overly debatable content that is not well referenced. But if it can be included in a factual, well-referenced and balanced (NPOV) manner, I will support you if you choose to add it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cadman allegations

this sentence: "If the elements of the story are true, the Conservatives' actions may amount to a criminal offence. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. [2] An audio tape suggests then-opposition leader Stephen Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Chuck Cadman but gave it his personal approval.[3]" nees to be removed as it is detailing allegations made but that are yet unproven and that the conservatives have denied. This is for the wikinews site, not for an encyclopedia. Macutty (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)