Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)