What makes a "Good Conservative"

Serryah

House Member
Dec 3, 2008
4,914
349
83
New Brunswick

Interesting take and absolutely agree.

"As long as conservatives are cautious but move forward, there's nothing inherently wrong with that."
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,599
2,255
113
Olympus Mons
How do you figure Chretien did that? Looked more like self-immolatlon to me.
Ah, I'm so glad you asked, Mulroney did a number on the federal PCs with his GST, Free Trade and Meech Lake crap, among other things to the point they lost federal party status. It was Chretien however who changed the party funding laws after that in an effort to ensure the federal PCs could never reconstitute as a stand-alone party again. Because let's face it, the PC's were the Liberal's only real competition.

Chretien knew that the PC's had a sizeable contributor base from which to create a "war chest" for election runs. And the only way to prevent that access was to change the party funding laws to disproportionately affect the PC's funding. It was a cold, calculated move just a step or two up from outright banning them as a party.
As a result, they had to hitch their wagon to a catch-all conservative party with its fair share of f*cking whack-jobs. And unlike too many of the lefties in this country, many conservative voters are uncomfortable with extremist whack jobs. In fact, the single largest electoral group in Canada is virtually unrepresented at the federal level; those who are socially left but culturally right. And that's your old school PCs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave and Mowich

Serryah

House Member
Dec 3, 2008
4,914
349
83
New Brunswick
Ah, I'm so glad you asked, Mulroney did a number on the federal PCs with his GST, Free Trade and Meech Lake crap, among other things to the point they lost federal party status. It was Chretien however who changed the party funding laws after that in an effort to ensure the federal PCs could never reconstitute as a stand-alone party again. Because let's face it, the PC's were the Liberal's only real competition.

Chretien knew that the PC's had a sizeable contributor base from which to create a "war chest" for election runs. And the only way to prevent that access was to change the party funding laws to disproportionately affect the PC's funding. It was a cold, calculated move just a step or two up from outright banning them as a party.
As a result, they had to hitch their wagon to a catch-all conservative party with its fair share of f*cking whack-jobs.

Up to this point I actually agree with you on pretty much everything.

And unlike too many of the lefties in this country, many conservative voters are uncomfortable with extremist whack jobs.

And then you say this... which shows you don't know Jack and Shit about 'lefties'.

In fact, the single largest electoral group in Canada is virtually unrepresented at the federal level; those who are socially left but culturally right. And that's your old school PCs.

And this I gotta agree with too, although 'socially' and 'culturally in this case is confusing, IMO.

If old school PC's were every to be a 'thing' again, I might actually vote for them. I think they'd be a better choice than Liberal right now. But they don't and we're stuck with the current crop of BS.
 

Serryah

House Member
Dec 3, 2008
4,914
349
83
New Brunswick
A conservative person doen't spend money they don't have or can't pay back..............I guess we have no conservative in government in Canada........or most anywhere in fact.

I've known a few Cons who spend like fish out of water, so...

To be honest, the 'spending of money' is an individual thing, not a political party thing. At least at that individual level.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
9,667
207
63
Regina, SK
Ah, I'm so glad you asked, Mulroney did a number on the federal PCs with his GST, Free Trade and Meech Lake crap, among other things to the point they lost federal party status. It was Chretien however who changed the party funding laws after that in an effort to ensure the federal PCs could never reconstitute as a stand-alone party again. Because let's face it, the PC's were the Liberal's only real competition.

Chretien knew that the PC's had a sizeable contributor base from which to create a "war chest" for election runs. And the only way to prevent that access was to change the party funding laws to disproportionately affect the PC's funding. It was a cold, calculated move just a step or two up from outright banning them as a party.
As a result, they had to hitch their wagon to a catch-all conservative party with its fair share of f*cking whack-jobs. And unlike too many of the lefties in this country, many conservative voters are uncomfortable with extremist whack jobs. In fact, the single largest electoral group in Canada is virtually unrepresented at the federal level; those who are socially left but culturally right. And that's your old school PCs.
I don't think the facts sustain that interpretation. The last PC Prime Minister was Kim Campbell, who inherited the position, and in her first federal election as leader in 1993 the PC's were reduced to 2 seats in Parliament, largely as a result of Mulroney's policies as you noted, and the party never recovered from that. The Reform Party had formed in 1987 partly in response to Mulroney's treatment of the West and siphoned off a great deal of PC support. It was reconstituted as the Canadian Alliance in 2000, which continued to siphon off PC support, and that party merged with what remained of the PC party in 2003, in what looked to me like an egregious act of collusion and betrayal by leader Peter Mackay, but that's another story. No PC leader was ever able to rebuild the coalition of interests Mulroney had assembled, and that's none of Chretien's doing.

In other words, the damage that led to the business of hitching "their wagon to a catch-all conservative party with its fair share of f*cking whack-jobs" mostly happened over the decade 1993-2003, it preceded Chretien's party finance reforms. Those came along at the end of that decade, in 2003, mostly as an attempt to save the Liberals from what came to be called the Sponsorship Scandal (too little too late, as it turned out), it was not targetting the PC party except peripherally. The stopping of corporate contributions and the $5000 limit on individual contributions (which Harper later reduced to $1000) that entailed would certainly have hurt the Liberals just as much as it would the PCs. Chretien's Liberals were able to stay so firmly in power as long as they did largely because the political right was so fractured, and it wasn't long after the right finally got itself organized again after 2003, and the Liberals shot themselves in the foot, that conservatives again came to power.

I'd also agree there's a large constituency that's unrepresented in Canada at the federal level, though I don't know what you mean by "socially left and culturally right," that distinction is usually expressed as socially left and fiscally right, a group in which I would count myself on most issues. But I think that's mostly a consequence of our first past the post electoral system. When you can form a majority government with not much more than a third of the vote, you inevitably get governments that don't represent the views of most voters.
 

Serryah

House Member
Dec 3, 2008
4,914
349
83
New Brunswick
I don't think the facts sustain that interpretation. The last PC Prime Minister was Kim Campbell, who inherited the position, and in her first federal election as leader in 1993 the PC's were reduced to 2 seats in Parliament, largely as a result of Mulroney's policies as you noted, and the party never recovered from that. The Reform Party had formed in 1987 partly in response to Mulroney's treatment of the West and siphoned off a great deal of PC support. It was reconstituted as the Canadian Alliance in 2000, which continued to siphon off PC support, and that party merged with what remained of the PC party in 2003, in what looked to me like an egregious act of collusion and betrayal by leader Peter Mackay, but that's another story. No PC leader was ever able to rebuild the coalition of interests Mulroney had assembled, and that's none of Chretien's doing.

In other words, the damage that led to the business of hitching "their wagon to a catch-all conservative party with its fair share of f*cking whack-jobs" mostly happened over the decade 1993-2003, it preceded Chretien's party finance reforms. Those came along at the end of that decade, in 2003, mostly as an attempt to save the Liberals from what came to be called the Sponsorship Scandal (too little too late, as it turned out), it was not targetting the PC party except peripherally. The stopping of corporate contributions and the $5000 limit on individual contributions (which Harper later reduced to $1000) that entailed would certainly have hurt the Liberals just as much as it would the PCs. Chretien's Liberals were able to stay so firmly in power as long as they did largely because the political right was so fractured, and it wasn't long after the right finally got itself organized again after 2003, and the Liberals shot themselves in the foot, that conservatives again came to power.

I'd also agree there's a large constituency that's unrepresented in Canada at the federal level, though I don't know what you mean by "socially left and culturally right," that distinction is usually expressed as socially left and fiscally right, a group in which I would count myself on most issues. But I think that's mostly a consequence of our first past the post electoral system. When you can form a majority government with not much more than a third of the vote, you inevitably get governments that don't represent the views of most voters.

Okay this was spot on, IMO, so thank you.