CanPol Thread: the United Right etc.

[notyoueither]

Actually, I do have to hope that the new party can maintain the desire for rebalancing Confederation while gaining electoral prospects in the East.

We will most likely have to wait for the population shift to the West to play out, but fairness in Confederation should never fall off the table. I just hope that we can remember what it feels like when it comes time to make sure the Maritimes are happy campers in this great experiment.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Define progressive social values. Which ones would you be willing to live withiout in order to have a party with integrity?

I think the question is more: How much "integrity" (and I quote that heavily) are the UniCons willing to give up in order to gain support?

I mean, sure, they could go the anti-gay-marriage, abortion-restriction, gun-restriction-lifting route... And lose the election. Sure, there are a lot of people who would enjoy that policy, but the sad fact is, most of them live west of Churchill.

I think you could, feasibly, run on a platform involving removal of the gun registration, but once you get into gay-marriage/abortion/immigration territory, you are burying yourself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's talk turkey then.

Define progressive social values. Which ones would you be willing to live withiout in order to have a party with integrity?

What is there to be opposed or discarded that would not alienate a huge section of the country, including the core support of the Tories?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cinch
I think the question is more: How much "integrity" (and I quote that heavily) are the UniCons willing to give up in order to gain support?

I mean, sure, they could go the anti-gay-marriage, abortion-restriction, gun-restriction-lifting route... And lose the election. Sure, there are a lot of people who would enjoy that policy, but the sad fact is, most of them live west of Churchill.

I think you could, feasibly, run on a platform involving removal of the gun registration, but once you get into gay-marriage/abortion/immigration territory, you are burying yourself.

I think the real question is who will win the battle for the soul of the new party. If hardline opponents of abortion, or strongly religious anti gay-marriage factions win that battle, then the party will remain true to them and write off its chances of forming a government in the forseeable future.

But you know what? I'm a Tory and have been for over 20 years. I am not in conflict with our current social programs, and neither are many people who share my views and affiliation. I would not lose a shred of integrity were the new party to follow current social policies, slightly more conservative fiscal policies, and stop trying to annoy the government of the US into treating us like Cuba while signing every international agreement endorsed by the Greens in Germany to feel good about being 'with it'.

The difference between the Tories and Liberals should be ones of degree, and focus. Sometimes the Liberals should be in, and sometimes the Tories. There should be a balance. Extremes in either direction will either break the parties holding to them, or break the country. The reason why Canada so often prefers the middle of the road is that all, or most Canadians can usually live with that course.

[Ben Kenobi]

I just hope that we can remember what it feels like when it comes time to make sure the Maritimes are happy campers in this great experiment.

True, but how well have the Maritimes done under the Liberals? Can't see them throwing many a bone thataway due to the lack of votes compared with Ontario.

Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

I think the real question is who will win the battle for the soul of the new party. If hardline opponents of abortion, or strongly religious anti gay-marriage factions win that battle, then the party will remain true to them and write off its chances of forming a government in the forseeable future.

Define both terms please. What counts as hardliners on abortion or an anti-gay marriage faction?

Currently there are a very large proportion of people who will make the social stance of this new party their top voting issue, since gay marriage has come about.

To me, someone more in the middle on gay marriage is not willing to roll back the legalisation in 1969, but is willing to define marriage as one man and one woman. They would not claw back benefits to common-law couples.

Same with abortion. We currently have no restrictions on abortion, whatsoever. You can have them done anytime up to nine months of pregnancy. Someone more moderate, (not me,) would change the law to restrict after 3 months, or only in the case of rape or incest.

So would these position satisfy you as a more middle course for the Conservative party, distinguishing them from the Liberals? Or would you want to lift the social policies off the Liberal platform?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but how well have the Maritimes done under the Liberals? Can't see them throwing many a bone thataway due to the lack of votes compared with Ontario.

Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

My point is not how well the Maritimes may have done under any particular government, but how poorly the West has has been treated under many. Even after Mulroney, Prairie farmers are not felt competent enough to sell their wheat to either the Wheat Board, or other concerns. Farmers in Ontario are free to do as they please.

Need we mention the NEP? No, I didn't think so. Should we mention the buggering of the BC forestry industry while Canada does nothing collectively to change it? That's in another thread.

My point is that there will come a time when population will simply require a rebalancing of how this country is run. The major reason for Reform's existence was that many Westerners were unhappy with the results even under a government half dominated by Alberta and BC. We had equal and fair access to the corridors of power, but it wasn't good enough, in many of our eyes.

Part of the solution will be that the West will realise that not everything can be done to suit us. Another part will be that the foundations of the country will shift so that the West can no longer be treated as a hinterland for the economic benefit of the colonizers.

When that shift happens, and it will given population trends and resources, I hope that Westerners will remember what it was like to be the small fish when it comes time to deal with the Maritimes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
NYE:

Define both terms please. What counts as hardliners on abortion or an anti-gay marriage faction?

Currently there are a very large proportion of people who will make the social stance of this new party their top voting issue, since gay marriage has come about.

To me, someone more in the middle on gay marriage is not willing to roll back the legalisation in 1969, but is willing to define marriage as one man and one woman. They would not claw back benefits to common-law couples.

Same with abortion. We currently have no restrictions on abortion, whatsoever. You can have them done anytime up to nine months of pregnancy. Someone more moderate, (not me,) would change the law to restrict after 3 months, or only in the case of rape or incest.

So would these position satisfy you as a more middle course for the Conservative party, distinguishing them from the Liberals? Or would you want to lift the social policies off the Liberal platform?

Unfortunately for your middle of the road solution to gay marriage... there are clergy willing and able to perform the ceremonies. Why should the whole issue be run by one sect's definition of the term, or on many but not all sects? Why can't your church run things under your roof, and let others do the same under theirs?

re abortion. It is the cluster-**** of politicians everywhere. I am not in favour of abortions at 9 months. I would vote for a curtailment of that, but where? That is the Pandora's Box of the issue in modern politics.

[KrazyHorse]

You're a cool guy nye but you gottas aunferstand that i don't loike it when you makje veilecd hints about alberta seceedijg from canada just like i don't loicve it when quebec does the nasame with not veiled hints. I think whe'er a mateure enouh country that we can sole ourf differences without resorting to temprer tantrums. rewalistically any part of canadea that gets separated will get swallowed upo by the gv****ing amercians so it's best to stivck together because we all know how america traeats it's minortyuity opinions. i.e. not even as well as we do.

i say this even though you're an evil fucnking conservative-voting bastard.

[KrazyHorse]

it took me like five minbtyutes to remember how to type the smilire face. lol

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're a cool guy nye but you gottas aunferstand that i don't loike it when you makje veilecd hints about alberta seceedijg from canada just like i don't loicve it when quebec does the nasame with not veiled hints. I think whe'er a mateure enouh country that we can sole ourf differences without resorting to temprer tantrums. rewalistically any part of canadea that gets separated will get swallowed upo by the gv****ing amercians so it's best to stivck together because we all know how america traeats it's minortyuity opinions. i.e. not even as well as we do.

i say this even though you're an evil fucnking conservative-voting bastard.

That's better than beer in the face.

Actually, I share your dislike for the idea that Canada could break up, largely. However, I would be being blind if I ignored the existence of people out here who want exactly that. They are very small in number now. I hope they stay that way, but they will grow given the right conditions.

However, I also know that the way Canada is currently constituted is to the extreme disadvantage of the Prairie Provinces and BC. It passes for now due to the arguments of representation for regions not being compelling enough. Once the population shifts, the arguments will be compelling. I think it is better to be aware of that, and prepare for it. The West will come knocking one day, and 'no' would be a catastrophic answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, it's a done deal.

Apparently 83% of Tories voted for the merger.

Just heard it on television.

I'd post the news, but I can't find it reported just yet.

Unfortunately for your middle of the road solution to gay marriage... there are clergy willing and able to perform the ceremonies. Why should the whole issue be run by one sect's definition of the term, or on many but not all sects? Why can't your church run things under your roof, and let others do the same under theirs?

Are the governments beholden to the beliefs of a small group of Christians over the rest? No. The government gets to decide what counts as marriage, so long as they provide civil marriage. Unless you want to get the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to the churches, then your argument has no merit.

re abortion. It is the cluster-**** of politicians everywhere. I am not in favour of abortions at 9 months. I would vote for a curtailment of that, but where? That is the Pandora's Box of the issue in modern politics.

To many liberals, this makes you an 'anti-choice extremist.'

[cinch]

Merged conservatives 'Paul Martin's worst nightmare,' MacKay says
Last Updated Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:48:05
OTTAWA - Progressive Conservative delegates voted Saturday to unite the right by merging their party with the Canadian Alliance to form a new party to challenge the governing Liberals.


"With this overwhelming vote, we have just become Paul Martin's worst nightmare," said Tory Leader Peter MacKay.
Of the 2,486 Tories who voted, 90 per cent said "yes" to creating a new combined party to be called the Conservative Party of Canada.

Alliance members voted almost 96 per cent in favour of the merger on Friday.

MacKay told delegates the merger was needed to end a decade of vote-splitting among conservatives that helped the Liberals win the last three elections.

Conervatives are frustrated "because there's no one to vote for who can beat (the Liberals)," said former Conservative finance minister Mike Wilson.

But another former cabinet minister, Flora MacDonald, argued against the merger. She said the views expressed by some Alliance members on issues such as women's rights, immigration and billingualism are not compatible with those of the Tory party.

"You will not be able to wish away these contradictions, or gloss over them," MacDonald said. "You are trying to create a party with no policy and no higher purpose than opportunism."

After the results were announced, MacKay said the new party will be a "progressive, powerful, national alternative" to the Liberals.

"Finally, after 10 years, the Liberal Party of Canada will be facing a united, strong conservative family in the next federal general election."

He then turned on new Liberal Leader Paul Martin, telling the crowd that while the former finance minister portrayed himself as a tax fighter, he was also "a tax evader."

If all Tory and Alliance MPs back the merger, it will bring the united party's seat count in the House of Commons to 78, compared to 170 for the Liberals.

But some of the 15 Tory MPs have suggested they will sit as independents rather than join the new entity.

************************************

Willl this suffice?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/06/tories_vote031206

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To many liberals, this makes you an 'anti-choice extremist.'

No, actually, it doesn't. NYE said that he isn't in favour of last-minute abortions. 99.99% of people would agree; abortion, especially that late, is not a beautiful thing.

However, that doesn't mean that we should open up the "pandora's box" (to quote NYE), and let the gov't decide which abortions are justified and which aren't. Leave that up to the doctor and their patient.

Heck, it's Canada, we've got the gov't meddling in our lives enough already, don't you think?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

Support or opposition to Abortion does not define a conservative.

Maritimers recognise the need for government to help out the poor, provide universal medicare and services that are not provide by the private sector.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

BC has bi-polar politics. 45% are left, 45% are right. The BCers who vote for the Reform/Alliance/CRAPP/United tend to be anti-immigration, social conservatives, screw the poor and let the eastern bastard freeze in the dark types.