1  2  Next

What's interesting is what's passing for "Red Tories" in the new party, neo-liberal, social-libertarians like Belinda Stronach, who are only privatization nuts and do not have a strain of conservatism anywhere in their system! <br /> <br />Check out redtory.com and see whose passing themselves off as Red Tories nowadays, pretty sad. Most people do not take them for real Red Tories, just Liberal rightists, but where do they get off trying to hijack our name????? <br />

   

MY apoligies they changed their name to the "Conservative" Council, and are no longer mascarading as Red Tories, <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'>

   

I was pointing out in my recent article on Black Sheep the case of this gent that broke the Liberal/Conservative deadlock, founded this party focused on Sovereignty,was able to get the new party elected and brought all kinds of good stuff for the People. Would this not be a good model for this new Tory party? BTW, the name of this gent was René Lévesque and the party was of course the PQ. Could Dave Orchard not do this?

   

Didn't know that Levesque was a Red Tory sympathizer, it would be GREAT if the new party went the way of the old party, but I wont hold my breath, chances are I'll pass out and never wake up <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <br /> <br />It may one day, but for now our best chances for fighting the cause are in the Centre-Left parties, atleast I think so. What's really interesting is that not only is it when the Tories run to the Left of the Liberals and on a nationalist agenda that they beat the Liberals, but its also usually only when they can win significant support in Quebec. All of our succesful Consevative Prime Ministers owe their success partly to that, Macdonald, Borden, Deifenbaker and Mulroney all had widespread French-Canadian support. Harper of course has no real appeal in Quebec, could Bernard Lord, eh thats hard to say. Bernard Lord isn't much better than Stephen Harper but Im pretty confident that he wouldn't destroy the country like Harper certainly would.

   

[QUOTE BY= mac/dief] This is a question that has been burning in my mind for a long time, will those few Red Tories who joined the new party ever be able to reform it along the same lines as the former Progressive Conservative party. The new party has a very social-reactionist political agenda and a strong neo-liberal economic agenda, but we shouldn't forget that before John Diefenbaker came along to lead the party in 1956, it had been dominated by the pro-business, uncompassionate rightwing since the late 20s, under Bennett, Mannion, Bracken and than Ontario's own, Colonel Drew. <br /> <br />The Diefster took an uncompassionate, "freer trade" party and turned it back into the nationalist progressive, conservationist, conservative party of Macdonald and Cartier once again, and also paved the way for other Red Tories to dominate the party's leadership up until 1983. So any thoughts, myself I immediately joined the Liberal camp realizing that it was the only way to further my cause, the Red Tory cause. But will there ever be a time, in the distant future maybe when us Progressive Conservatives can proudly belong to a conservative party once more??? <br /> <br />Not that many Red Tories joined the new party, but will that change. I see myself as a member of the Liberal party for quite a while, but do you think that there is any chance of Red Tory activists flocking back to the Conservative Party, possible with a chance of taking it over? <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Good points....I'd argue that R.B. Bennett should be exempted from the list of scrooge-Tories, because although he took a while to improve people's lives, he did his best, and died a broken man. <br /> <br />Imagine a man who created the CBC, U.I. and the Bank of Canada was thought of as someone who didn't do enough. <br /> <br />In 12 years, not 5, what did Chretien do? Cancel a deal for a helicopter we needed and nearly lead the country into disaster in 1995. <br /> <br />My how standards have dropped.

   

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] I was pointing out in my recent article on Black Sheep the case of this gent that broke the Liberal/Conservative deadlock, founded this party focused on Sovereignty,was able to get the new party elected and brought all kinds of good stuff for the People. Would this not be a good model for this new Tory party? BTW, the name of this gent was René Lévesque and the party was of course the PQ. Could Dave Orchard not do this? [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />That's a great question that's been discussed a bit before on that thread I opened regarding one of Orchard's Toronto stops on his tour. <br /> <br />Is Orchard a leader? He seems a bit dull at times, but if you watch his Concordia University talk that preceeded David Suzuki, the guy was possessed, talking about fariming and the environment......I think he'd get more interesting in a campaign, once he gets angry he gets going. <br /> <br />I think the question is can Orchard get enough people to join the Conservative Party to take the leadership, and inform young people about the roots of conservatism. <br /> <br />I assume you were referring to the possibility of starting a new party like the BQ or PQ.....good question, Orchard is pretty coy about what he is doing. <br /> <br />As for the new conservatives, he'd need over 120,000 members and to join in the next leadership convention I guess. <br /> <br />The funny thing is if every university student in both University of Toronto and York University in Toronto joined the new Conservatives--he'd have almost 90,000 - 100,000 of the 120,000 members he's need to win. <br /> <br />Gaulois, what about a university campaign to all join one party and take it over, with Orchard as leader? The internet could make that happen in an instant. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Perturbed: I will stick to the model provided by the PQ as it brings many insights: the PQ ended up killing the Provincial Conservatives in Quebec (referred as l'Union Nationale or Duplessis's party). The neocons PC may very well do the same as l'Union Nationale! <br /> <br />The PQ was able to fire People up over basically pride matters and get them to gain confidence over all the good stuff they had got going for them. There were lots of apathy until then on what to do with the "ruler". <br /> <br />The comparison with the US now being the ruler (-vs- Canada) is striking IMHO! So according to this PQ model, a *new* party focused on gaining sovereignty of Canada would have to be created. Orchard could lead it but he would have to rally a national team of top figures. I am not sure if he can do that. He definitely cannot be a lone ranger in order to be successful. Firing up people out of their complacency is also going to be very challenging as Canadians are affraid of changes (much more than in Quebec???). <br /> <br />Mel Hurtig tried doing what I am suggesting but perhaps was too much ahead of its time. I think the times are now more ripe for this (specially with the state of our neighbour south). Am not sure if starting such a party would best start at the College/University levels as it did with the PQ. The advent of the Internet is a huge difference from the PQ days. Not sure either on how to best harness it for the Canadian Sovereignty cause??? Vive seems to be a good place to discuss if we can only get off the topic of ranting about the US. <br /> <br />Last thought: if this scenario pans out, the federal Liberal party would become the real "neocon" (which they really are behaving like under the decoy of the "centre"). The Libs in Quebec BTW are fairly neocons minded. So the political spectrum would be moving from the "left-right" to the "sovereignty - neocon". Interesting turn of event?

   

Good points. <br /> <br />The fact remains that most Canadians don't see 'sovereignty' as an issue, or at least not one that has been explained to them in terms that make sense to their lives. <br /> <br />Canadian, or any nation's, 'sovereignty' transcends politics. Unfortunately, conversations concerning sovereignty often end up including left-wing/right-wing viewpoints and/or discussion of external influences, e.g., the U.S., that are not germaine to the matter at hand and serve only to diffuse the focus. <br /> <br />Unfortunately, Canadian nationalist activities also attract many whose interest is more in line of using Canadian nationalism as a soapbox for larger efforts to save the world, stop war and injustice, etc., which put the discussion all over the map; diffuses the focus and ends up doing nothing for Canada or humanity in general (hence the sorry spectacle of Canadian 'sovereignty' after forty some odd years of talk.). <br /> <br />Sovereignty comes down to decision making power over one's destiny being in their own hands, which as Mel pointed out years ago isn't likely to be the case if you don't, as in Canada's case, have control over your economy. <br /> <br />In terms of gaulois' comment re: the U.S., this is part of the trap Canadian nationalists have fallen into for years, wherein the focus becomes external and/or muddied up with politics rather than internal and focussed. It's always easier for a person to focus on changes others should make, which generally requires nothing beyond talk on their your part, than it is to focus on the changes the person needs to make, which requires considerably more effort in terms of significant introspective analysis, an honest appraisal of self and taking constructive actions to change. <br /> <br />Canada needs to be looking at Canada in terms of the steps it needs to take to achieve economic sovereignty. After it has achieved this, it will be in a position to better assist other nations. That's it, that's all. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

   

<br />"Good points....I'd argue that R.B. Bennett should be exempted from the list of scrooge-Tories, because although he took a while to improve people's lives, he did his best, and died a broken man. <br /> <br />Imagine a man who created the CBC, U.I. and the Bank of Canada was thought of as someone who didn't do enough. <br /> <br />In 12 years, not 5, what did Chretien do? Cancel a deal for a helicopter we needed and nearly lead the country into disaster in 1995. <br /> <br />My how standards have dropped." <br /> <br />Well Bennett did create the National Wheat Board, the CBC, Air Canada, the Bank of Canada and other crown corporations designed to protect Canadian culture and make Canada a world player, yet on the other hand it took him until his 5th year in office to finally relent and agree to provide services towards the people. <br /> <br />He not only allowed for employement and living standards to drop without acting he also took very cruel measures against the poor. For example he forcibly interned almost 30 thousand Albertan worker's in so called "worker's relief camps", because he was afraid of their "communist influences", and blacklisted tens of thousands of Eastern European immigrants, yet on the other hand he enthusiastically supported the hiring of the than National Socialist Christian Unity Party's headman, Adrienne Arcand as the Conservative Party's head of recruitement in Quebec. <br /> <br />Im not even sure that his death bed conversion towards government welfare was really that sincere, more like a ploy to keep him in office. And to me it takes a very small man to blame his defeat on his own nation, move away, never return and refuse to even be buried there. Also Im pretty sure that it was Arthur Meighen who pushed Bennett to create the CBC. King might not have been perfect, and is definately over rated, but I have to give im credit for being far more compassionate during the Great Depression!

   

Well Culumny you talk to most Canadians about their opinions regarding our relationship with the U.S. and our place in the world and you'll be surprised by many of the attitudes you will find. I think many Canadians are simply uneducated regarding many of the threats posed by, lets say for example NAFTA. <br /> <br />Orchard could try and "invade" the new party, but he would do so with a LOT of opposition, we have to remember which group is leading the party (Refooorm). Also if he did become leader I think alot of Reformer's would leave and create a new Reform Party, we might end up being back where we started. I hope he will be succesful if he tries, but Im not so sure if he can. Although I have no intentions on joining the new party, ONE DAY I do want to join a party which both calls itself conservative and is conservative. I think that Orchard did a great job in uniting conservative nationalists from many different places and different age groups. <br /> <br />But he cannot remain stagnant forever, him and his political forces eventually have to go somewhere, and if they do join the Conservative Party I'll support them and pray that they win, but for now I'll remain a renegade in the Liberal party. Because I know it will take along time to boot all of the Stephen Harpers, Belinda Stronachs, Stockwell Days, Peter Mackays, and Tony Clements out of the party, I've talked to his brother Grant before and he has remained pretty vague on which direction he and David shall go but I hope that for the sake of Canada and Canadians they will make up their minds soon. <br /> <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= mac/dief] <br /> <br /> <br />My how standards have dropped." <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Yeah Chretien hasn't done much to make Canadians believe in our politicians anymore, atleast Mulroney had SOME vision when it came to Charlottetown! What we REALLY need is another John Diefenbaker, Orchard might be no Diefenbaker, but you will not (at present anyway) find anyone else in the mainstream nationalist movement with the same type of deep nationalism and strong understanding of Canadian history, heritage, identity and culture!

   

mac/dief. it's unlikely I'll be speaking with 20/30 million Canadians in the near future, so why don't you tell me exactly what attitudes will surprise me? <br /> <br />Forty years ago Mel was informing folks about the downside of Canada becoming a U.S. branch plant economy. NAFTA is just the newest in a long line of issues one would think might concern many Canadians, particularly those who have lost relatively well-paying jobs because of it. However, the notion of there being a problem re: 'Canadian sovereignty' has just never caught on with most Canadians, as perhaps is most recently exemplified by 'Orchard out - Harper in. <br /> <br />In this respect, old George W. may be the best ally the cause of Canadian sovereignty hs seen in some time. Let's just keep him talking. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

   

Actually Canadian sovereignty is a HUGE issue with Canadians, you can see it practically everywhere. The problem is, you're definately right, lack of education. Many (maybe even the majority) of Canadians are unaware of the horrific threats posed to our sovereignty by NAFTA. But when you ask most Canadians what they want for Canada, they want to see a strong, united, self-dependent, efficient nation, a world leader! <br /> <br />"Orchard out, Harper in" was no surprise as the new party is dominated by former Reform members, most of whom were Socreds to begin with! Orchard brought in close to 90 thousand members into the real Conservative Party, yes 90% of the delegates might have supported the merger, but the fact that the combined PC-Alliance vote went down by a HUGE margin (9%) makes it quite obvious that the vast majority of Tories who voted PC in the last election (12%) did not cast their vote for the new party and therefor did not approve of the merger.

   

[QUOTE BY= mac/dief] Actually Canadian sovereignty is a HUGE issue with Canadians, you can see it practically everywhere. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Not sure if I agree with how HUGE this is. People are certainly more aware of this due to our dependencies on the US that are really starting to hurt us but are not prepared to do anything about it (e.g. change certain consumption habits, vote differently, etc...). I think it is a whole lot more than "education". People have been brainwashed to believe certain things and it will take a generation until these beliefs fade away in front of the reality of the declining US. Until then I think we will have to deal with this wishy-washyness of the electorate (as observed in Quebec dealing with its own Sovereignty issue); Quebec had this language thing that really crystallized the issue; Canada does not have a similar very personal thing to fire people up. Canadian Sovereignty will be a much longer matter than the one in Quebec.

   

I think there are issues of threats to our nation's sovereignty that people are aware of and do care about which can unite us, like the threats posed to our environment, social programs, even our cultural institutions. Lack of education on these subjects is a problem, but I think the biggest problem is a lack of leadership. We do need a leader to fire us up, I'd personally prefer a working-class or at least middle class Canadian with a good connection to Canadian history, a Diefenbaker over a Trudeau, but we'll have to see. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> <br /> <br />I personally think that under a better arrangement both the ROC and Quebec are better off together, but it's going to be hard to make this work. A big problem is the large support in both Quebec and Alberta for "free trade" and contenentalism, were going to have to work on this and find new and better solutions which will suit us all. If we had a progressive conservative party still that would get this job done, as it has brought together both English and French speaking nationalists many of times, but what with the merger and all were going to have to find another vehicle for reform and unity.

   

1  2  Next