Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Headline text
Bold textThe party never merged with the Progressives in 1942. John Bracken made it a provision of his taking over the leadership of the Conservative Party in that year that it officially adopt the additional name in deference to his period in office as Progressive Premier of Manitoba.
Article needs a reference and links to provincial Progressive Conservative parties.
Okay, I went in and altered the changes stating that this party had been 'resurrected' as the Progressive Canadian Party. Not true - that's a new party, and this one's still gone. I've certainly referred to it, and we'll see from here how events shape things further. Radagast 13:24, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] PC Party
It's splitting hairs as to whether the Progressive Canadian Party is a continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - betrayed by its leadership in October 2003 - or a new party.
The Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party) was formed by members of the Progressive Conservative Party who do not wish to be associated with the Alliance.
In January 2004, they applied to Elections Canada for registration under the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada name. This name was no acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer. In March 2004, the Progressive Canadian name was accepted.
I don't think it's accurate to state that this party existed from 1867-2003. My take on the subject would be that the "Progressive Convservative Party of Canada" only existed as this specific party from the merger with the Progressives in 1942 until the merger with the Alliance in 2003. Before that it would have been the previous name, etc. etc. I'm not a political scientist but it seems that ideologies and ideas change with the wind in Canadian politics. The "Conservative Party of Canada" in another decade or two (should it survive in this format) will likely look nothing like what it did in its infancy around 2003-2004 after the merger of the PC's and the Alliance, just the same as the Conservative Liberals etc. from the 1850's-60's didn't appear to look anything like the Tories of Bennett in the 30's or of Diefenbaker in the 50's-60's and Mulroney of the 80's-90's. "Protectionists", "Anti-America", "Pro-Britain" has evolved to become "Pro-Free Trade", "Pro-America", "Forget-Britain" with the only thing common among all of these parties being the word "Conservative" in capital letters... Cheers, Plasma east 21:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Plasma east: "this specific party from the merger with the Progressives in 1942". Actually, no, it did not merge with the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party continued to exist at the federal level after 1942. Most federal Progressives joined the Liberal Party or the CCF when the party did eventuallt fold, if they had not already. See Progressive Party of Canada. The Conservative Party changed its name when Bracken became leader, i.e., it was, as marketers would say, 'new name -- same great product'. This was just the last of several name changes for this party - Liberal-Conservative, Unionist, National Government, Conservative. It was a quite different situation in 2004 when two organizations formally and legally merged. I hope this clarifies things. Kevintoronto 11:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Interesting... so my question would be what defines the existence of a particular party or its brand for a specific time period - the brand/name being used, its corporate/legal existence, or the changes in ideas/platform over time? I understand how the article bases the 1867-2003 historical existence of the PC Party but to the average voter it wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense as they all appear to be different parties (just guessing).
-
-
- I understand your point, but changes in a party's ideas/platform will not necessary be discrete events. It would be difficult and contentious to try to categorize the parties in that way. At what precise time did the PC Party transition from the nationalism of Diefenbaker to the continentalism of Mulroney? I would argue that it was a process through the Stanfield, Clark and Mulroney eras that culminated in the Free Trade Agreement. (Remember Mulroney trashing John Crosbie's continentalist agenda in the 1983 leadership convention?) I think that changes in the corporate/legal existence represent logical breaks in continuity that justify creating a new article. Another example would be the CCF/NDP. The CCF did not just change its name, it actually (I believe) disbanded and created a new party, which was initially called "the New Party". The New Party added 'Democratic' to its name a year later. Regards, Kevintoronto 10:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'll buy it, just not sure if others would as corporate/legal usually = name change in the minds of most people. Air Canada being the exception I guess! Forgot to sign the above post. Cheers, Plasma east 22:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Conservative?
Some anonymous editor keeps trying to change the ideology from "moderate/centrist conservatism" to "conservatism" without providing any explanation. So why should I have to provide an explanation for reverting? I shouldn't but I will anyway. Let's be clear: the PC Party was, for the largest part of its history, more moderate than other conservative parties, and particlaurly more moderate tan the new Conservative Party of Canada. Adding "moderate/centrist" is a useful distinction. Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark, Mulroney, Campbell and Charest were all Red Tories, i.e., from the progressive wing of the party, and they led the party from 1960-something almost to the end. Ground Zero 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What in the hell are you talking about Brain Mulroney was a Blue Tory Adding "moderate/centrist" is misleading leave Political ideology as "conservatism" this is an Encyclopedia not a blog. You sould have facts.
- Michaelm, please calm down. I made an argument for why the ideology should be left as it is, and you have only responded with abuse. I contend that Brian Mulroney was a Red Tory, especially with respect to his stand on capital punishment (he opposed it), fiscal policy (he cut less from government spending than Chretien/Martin), and tax policy (he did not cut taxes anywhere near the degree that Chretien and Martin did). And with regard to you comment, "You should have facts", I will note that you have not provided a single fact to support your argument. But then, why would you start doing so now? You will not win this argument by being abusive. Ground Zero 03:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is the differ between center-right and right-of-center? Everyone's got a life. So it's not to your liking once jsut go with it!
[edit] reworked ideology section
I have reworked the ideology section as it was riddled with errors. Before you challenge me, let me tell you I was involved with the PC Party on many levels (Youth Worker to Campus Assocation President), and met many PCs such as Senator Norman Atkins, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Larry Grossman, Frank Miller, William Davis, and George Hees between 1978 and 1993. I worked and canvassed with candidates in 1979, 1984, and 1988 Dominion elections and with Provincial Ontario candidates in 1985 and 1987. I have an MA in Political Economy and taught second-year students as a TA for two years. I heard George Grant lecture. My family are all life-long tories, but certainly not neocons.
The "socially-progressive and fiscally conservative" tag for Red Tories is hopelessly simplistic and ignorant of the pre-Confederation and Disraelian traditions within Macdonaldian conservatism.
I have corrected the section, but it is hardly the final edit. When time allows, I will draft a more unified and coherent entry. TrulyTory 06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
Shouldn't this article be in the same article as the Conservative Party of Canada (historic)? They were the same party, with just a name change.Habsfannova 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- That would take two fairly long articles and combine them into one article that exceeds the suggested maximum length for articles. I don't think that would be an improvement. You are correct in saying that they were the same party, but the change in name provides a fairly logically place to break the history in to two articles. Ground Zero | t 12:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alrighty...just thought it was strange...even if you look in the printed form of the Canadian Encyclopedia, going to "Progressive Conservative Party" says simply, "See: Conservative Party". I also notice that the colours change in all the diagrams between the switch in name, but the Original Conservatives have the same colour as the "new" Conservatives. Kind of odd. I also notice that there's a lot of overlap in descrpitions on the two pages...Habsfannova 17:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what diagrams you're referring to. There shouldn't be a colour change. In all of the elections results tables that I have created, and there are quite a lot, I hvae used the "Progressive Conservatives" colour for the party from 1967 to 2004, and "Conservative" after that. Ground Zero | t 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad...I misunderstood...just looked at Image:Legendcdnele.PNG and found that the Conservatives post 03 use the same colour as the old Conservatives, while the PCs have a different colour from the two.Habsfannova 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Main pmk05.jpg has been listed for deletion
| An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Main pmk05.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
[edit] Progressive Conservative Party still exists
According to your Rump section, there are still Progressive Conservatives who sit in parliament. So the party is not dead. See the extract below. Watercool 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Rump PC caucus Following the merger, a rump Progressive Conservative caucus remained in Parliament, consisting of individuals who declined to join the new Conservative Party. In the House of Commons, Joe Clark, André Bachand and John Herron sat as PC members.
In the 2004 election, Bachand and Clark did not to run for re-election, and Herron ran as a Liberal, losing to Rob Moore in his riding of Fundy—Royal. Scott Brison, who had joined the Liberal caucus immediately upon departing the Conservative Party, was reelected as a Liberal in the 2004 election.
In the Senate, William Doody, Lowell Murray and Norman Atkins also declined to join the new party, and continue to sit as Progressive Conservative senators. On March 24, 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed nine new senators, two of whom, Nancy Ruth and Elaine McCoy, were designated as Progressive Conservatives. Thus there may be Progressive Conservative senators until 2021 when McCoy, the youngest of the five, attains the mandatory retirement age of 75, or later if subsequent senators designate themselves Progressive Conservatives. Nancy Ruth has since left to sit with the Conservative Party. Adding the death of Senator Doody on December 27, 2005, this reduced the number of PC Senators to three.
- They just use the Tory name...it doesn't mean that the party still exists. Otherwise, we'd have an article for an "Independent" party.Habsfan
|t 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Harper
As the article notes, the PC Party dissolved itself in 2003 at the time of the creation of the new CPC. The CPC is not the legal continuation of the PC Party. The PC Party was, on the other hand, the legal continuaiton of the Liberal-COnservative Party and the (old) Conservative Party. I don't think that Harper belongs here. He belongs on the CA anda CPC pages only. Ground Zero | t 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] oxymoron
Can someone explain to me (in short) the name of this party.
Its a complete contradiction in terms, you can't be progressive and conservative??
has someone told this to the Canadians?
We have a few contradictions down here in Australia but nothing so obvious! I'm a 'l' liberal moron. does that count?
