Progressive Conservative Party Reincarnated As Progressive Canadian Party

Well this is interesting. I would say good luck to them, as it is awlays nice to see new parties taking shape in the hopes that they may replace older parties who have outlived their relevance and/or use.

It's sad to see that this party offers nothing new in the area of health care though. Their belief that you and I are Canadians because of the Canada Health Care act is laughable and unfortunate. And you can't restore funding to 1993-94 levels with a system that has continued to evolve over the past twelve years. That's like applying a twelve year old band aid to a to a fresh cut. This is a problem that requires more thought and innovation, not looking in to the past for answers.

Most of their statements are down right vague, but some of what they touch on in their policy 'platform' is worth some thought. I found their statements on justice to be a little odd; "streamline the justice system to make it more user friendly?" What does this mean and what would this entail I wonder?

They seem to place themselves inbetween the Conservatives and the Liberals. Now, with all the recent talk lately about how both of these parties are moving closer and closer together I must ask, do we really need a party that would try and 'wedge' itself inbetween the two?

I would say that we already have one, and we certainly don't need another. I think this proves once and for all that the older Progressive Conservative Party had reached a point that resulted in many of its members turning their backs on Conservatism, which only makes many of their moves to the Liberal Party make sense in retrospect. I would say the Canadian Progressive Party is a 'user friendly' version of the Liberal Party. They may not offer anything new, but it's worth a shot of they can acheive something worth while. Which shouldn't be too hard to do in comparison to the Liberals and Conservatives.




---
"I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW

This post originally had a title requesting that we link to their site, which I changed to the current title to make it more searchable and interesting.

However, as originally requested I have added the new PC party to the list of parties in the block at left in the "Election" section, and also to our links directory.

---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf

I think this is great news for our political culture and landscape.

Some observations:

- The Reform/Alliance party has now plunged to third place in Ontario (22%), behind the NDP (24%), while the Liberals are in the lead with 48%.

- Canadians don't trust the CPC, and that goes for Westerners too. Please keep in mind that the party in power in Alberta is the Progressive Conservative party, and not the Reform/Alliance.

- With the real Tories now back on the scene, Canadians will have a real choice (the CPC/Reform/Alliance pack is no real choice).

- As I pointed out elsewhere, most Canadians are moderate and mainstream; as a result, most will either opt for the Liberals or the Progressive Conservative (NOT the Reform/Alliance party).

- In other words, if the new PC party can hold its own, Canada will be returned to a two-party system.

- Having said all this, I also have to take into account what people are saying and thinking right across the country. Based on stats and anecdotal evidence, it is clear that most Canadians gravitate towards the political centre, but always with an eye towards the left. This means that the parties with the best chances of political success are the Liberals and the NDP. The PC party may one day become a strong opposition, but before that happens, I believe, we'll see the NDP advance to that position first.

abacus, will you just let that poll go! You'll continue to quote this poll until a future poll comes out and shows that the Liberals have gone down in support (if that is to be their fate). As I told you elsewhere today, the polls are deceptive, inconclusive, and will continue to fluctuate as is their nature. But you can mark this day down on your calendar:

June 8th,
2005
48%

We're all clapping for you in the background! I wonder what you would have said a month ago when the Liberals slid dramatically in the polls and people began to say that this was the beginning of the end for Paul Martin. You proabably said nothing and wrote the polls off. So there you go.

Anyways! This is just more nonsense from you and your gang. No one can persume to know what Canadians want. Yes, they are progressive but as usual you're failing to take in several factors that will influence the vote in the next election.

Some traditional Liberal voters (I know many of them) will not vote for the Liberals in the next election for a vareity of reasons from corruption to gay marriage to the fact that some people feel it's time for change. And this goes for many progressives as well.

So don't think you know what the country wants. And you can't predict the future outcome of the next general election. As a Liberal you can't talk about trust, your party abused the trust of the nation. Talk about the kettle calling the pot black. We know who you are and we know where you stand on the issues as a Liberal. Don't hide behind your words. You do well to recycle the party line and the same old Liberal garble.

I hate to say this but since you became a Liberal you're posts are nothing put partisan fluff!


---
"I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW

Thanks for the good wishes Angus and I appreciate the policy critique. It is strange, but as a supposed "new party" (we're not) we find that our policies go under the microscope very quickly. Strangely enough, when we try to raise the alarm bells about the policies in the other major parties, we don't get as great a reaction. So this is a learning experience for us. Our policies are those of the old PC Party which were updated at its last policy convention. Believe me, anyone who knows how much work has gone into resurrecting the Progressive Conservative party under it's new "nomme de guerre" would know we are doing this because we have to -- if there were any realistic alternate path we would have looked for it. And speaking of work, there is more to do. I am the first to admit that some of our policies need updating and as a grass roots party (as the PC Party always was) we are moving towards a new policy convention to do just that. What you can read on our site is a very short summary of the 100 or more pages that constitute our last policy document. I can see the limitations of that summary, but to be brutally frank, we thought that a long policy document would never get read except by a very few people. The summary is serving it's purpose because it is being read as we are receiving thoughtful comments and questions from people like you. Watch that space -- we'll be posting more and more. And please, feel free to give any and all comments on our policies and approaches. We're doing something novel in politics -- we're actually listening, even to direct questions and sometimes to criticism. In corporate life, I insist that all of what we say will pass the "snicker test" and it may be new to politics, but to the degree that I can influence the process, I intend to make the same demands of our policy. Too much of what I read in all the parties is simply bland or drivel or what will never be implemented. Try this game at a party. The (blank) party promised to do (blank) but did (blank) instead. I guarantee you that you will get all kinds of responses. Then ask the question, as I do all the time. "Beyond our emotional attachment or simple patriotism, why does Canada matter?" Watch the room go silent. That's a crime in my opinion. We remember all the things we've been promised and never got. But if those in the political arena are making what I call the "case for Canada" -- people haven't heard it. So much for policy in the other "major" parties. On another note I'm not sure that the Conservatives and Liberals really are moving closer together. Certainly, Belinda Stronach, one of the key architects of the Alliance takeover would seem to agree with me. In fact, that was the big myth of "moderation". Somehow, twenty or thirty thousand "progressives" were to stay and moderate a party formed by over two hundred thousand Alliance members whose first task, more than symbolic, was to remove the world "Progressive" from the party name. Those who fought the takeover knew it, but getting that message out is certainly one of our challenges. We need to be certain to distinguish ourselves from both Alliance Conservatives and Liberals, not for the sake of being different, but to show voters where they have a choice. How well we are doing at this task is reflected in the comments that you and others make. Public comment is the mirror by which we must judge our success. So thanks again for the comments! They are always welcome. Jim Love President Progressive Canadian (PC) Party

I thought this thread was on the Progressive Party, we seem to have drifted off. For the benefit of both that party,it's platform, and the poster who claims the problems of healthcare are too complex to be affected by 'band aid' solutions, I somewhat disagree.

Here's a quick band aid which will go a loooooonnnng way: simply bring back the compulsory licensing system which Trudeau brought in and Mulroney dismantled (and Chretien kept dismantled) By far the fastest growing expense in medicare is not doctors, nurses, or even equipment but medications. Big pharmaceutical companies do next to no research in Canada,except Quebec. Likewise generic drug makers do far more research and this would create even more employment in the industry. The ONLY reason we don't have it anymore is because Mulroney got stroked by big pharma and it's lobby group marches all around Ottawa.

I hope this new PC Party is not proud of and building its hopes on the Mulroney years ? If Jim Love claims a 20 year PC background, he must have joined up under Mulroney. Was it because he was so impressed with the actions of that pathetic example of opportunism ? How does he feel about the sellout of Canada to multinational corporations with the FTA and NAFTA, with Mulroney's footsteps followed by Chretien? Where is David Orchard on this ? I worked with David's Citizens Concerned About Free Trade group, talked to him on the phone and have the highest regards for him. What I could never understand what he was doing with the PCs ? Is he now with this new outfit obviously promoting the corporate dictatorship of the universe ? Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Thanks for your contributions here Jim! It's always good to get feedback from people who are actually involved in the process. Hopefully nobody flames you too badly

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

Many in the new PC Party were turned off from politics during the Mulroney years. Numbers came back with David Orchard and others came back to try to make sure the PC Party again became a moderate party. Some of us were clearly told, like David Orchard, that we would not be welcome in the new party.

You may find some who supported Mulroney in the party. However, remember that Mulroney supported the creation of an exclusive right wing party. Most of the Mulroney people are now firmly embedded in the new Conservative Party and some have also gone to the Liberals.

Obviously there are some who will totally dismiss the party for one reason or another. That is to be expected because everyone has their prejudices. What we really need to do is to find people who are willing to work to rebuild the party not dwell on the past. Certainly many, if not most, of the policies we have now, mainly dating from before 2000, are not relevant today. To change them we need to go through a proper democratic process.

I disagreed with the direction Mulroney took the country but I am still welcome in the PC Party. My beliefs would never be welcome in the new Conservative Party.

Wow, Ed. We've never even met and you have me figured out and put into a box. That's amazing. I don't know anything about you except that you appear to have some pretty fixed opinions and you have had a phone call with David.

First, I don't say that I have 20 years experience with the Tories. If you read my post, it doesn't say that.

And as far as your phone call to David, here's another surprise. I came to the party with (tada) David Orchard when he first ran for the leadership.

Having said that, perhaps there is someone else who would like to tar me with the equally flawed conception that all "Orchardites" are under some kind of mind control.

isn't if funny how some are happy once they can place a label on someone and start the attack? I personally think it's one of the things that makes politics dysfunctional.

I worked for David because of his environmental stance. David grew (in my opinion) from a rather shrill voice opposing free trade, to a reasoned critic proposing how we could improve the agreement. That was the essence of his deal with Peter Mackay -- not to trash free trade. David has been quite clear that he believes in free trade, he just doesn't think that the agreements we have give us free trade. I am inclined to agree that there are significant faults in these agreements. Reviewing and improving these agreements was part of the deal that David struck with Peter Mackay at the convention. I helped sell that agreement in the halls in that convention as a number of us worked to keep our delegates there and voting.

Unfortunately, history will show that we were all misled, but that's the past. This is the present.

In all that time, and since, I've spent many hours talking to David and others in what might be termed his "following". I've come to disagree with some of his approaches, but I still regard him as a great Canadian and I regard him as a friend and sincerely hope he feels the same way.


But in the present time, David is not a member of the revived PC party, nor is Brian Mulroney. And I've never been able to put my heart into partisan attacks, so even if I was inclined to, I won't call one a "rabid anti-free trader" or the other "a sell out". Both are people with flaws and with good points.

I will learn from both, take what is good from the both, as from others in the rich history of 150 years of the party. But primarily, I will work with others to set out building not the party we were, but the party we should be.

So I'll ask you this one thing. Look at us and reject us if you might. But do you always attack people you don't know? My feelings aren't hurt. Believe me, I've had people from the old Progressive Conservative party do worse attacks on me for not moving to the Alliance dominated party. I have a pretty thick skin.

But I believe that we need to restore civility to our debates and learn how to debate ideas and not attack people. Nor do I think that to because we compete in the political space that we cannot rise above partisanship and find areas that we agree upon. I disagree with Martin. I disagree with Layton. I hope I will always have the class to engage their ideas and not them personally.

I going to work for that. I'll be watching this space and look forward to hearing ideas from any and all of you about where we all should be headed. Criticism is welcome, I'd just like it if it was based on fact.

All the best


Jim Love
President
Progressive Canadian (PC) Party
jim.love@pcparty.org

It seems to me that this is an exchange between old political rivals who know each other, but do not necessarily agree on all issues. That's OK. But I do not know any of the players personally, and I am not of conservative persuasion, so it is unlikely that I would join or support this new/old party.

Nonetheless, I welcome their (re)appearance on the political landscape; the more people involved the more ideas they bring with them, and that's good for everybody. If, and its a mighty big if, this party turns out to be really progressive and at the same time conservative in the way that Sir John A. might have been, and if they are really Canadian, not just another robotic mouthpiece for big greed, super selfishness and the rancid politics of international fear, it may not take them long to become a significant player in Canada. I shall watch with great interest. Good luck guys. Hope to hear more from you soon.

As a voter from the moderate left, it is very disappointing that the only existing progressive party in our Parliament just cannot seem to grow, or find any way forward, and no new voices are emerging on the left that find much public favour. No wonder conservatives often call us irrelavent. That seems to be where we have positioned ourselves. Maybe we can learn something from this fresh re-expression of conservatism. I hope so, for all our sakes.

I am not a conservative and never will be, though I have been in the past. Mulroney's government exposed the conservative movement for what it really is, greedy, artistocratic, and heartless. Hate thy neighbour and take all the money you can for yourself before someone else beats you to it.

Whether you like it or not, Mulroney became the PC party. Change its name and its still the Mulroney party regardless of the political reality. It doesn't matter if the party is made up of rebellious backbenchers who's voices were not heeded by the party brass, people will not give you the chance to explain any differences because Mulroney's shadow looms darkly over them all. Mulroney may have been the leader but the membership CHOSE him and so he reflects the wishes of the party.

If you really are different than the Mulroney era PCs, I would heartily recommend dropping any mention of connections to the old party entirely. Brand name recognition is not always a good thing.

The GST is what hurt Brian Mulroney and the PC Party, but funny enough people now get that it's necessary (which is why the Liberals went back on their promise and kept it in).

PC Party then suffered even more when two large groups seperated from them, the western conservatives and Quebec.

I don't think the name "PC Party" is seen as a bad thing in Canada, quite the opposite. The reason why they failed in the mid-late 90s is because the economy was strong and therefore people were satisfied with the Liberals. Adding on to this, the conservative vote was being split, which it wasn't before. So Ontario and Quebec primarily voted Liberal, which if they didn't they'd vote PC. The CRAP (Canadian-Reform Alliance Party) had their base in the west and got most of their votes from Alberta as expected.

The funny thing in all this is that, now with scandals surrounding the Liberals there is NO real alternative. The CPC will never form a government in Canada. And the moderate parties are still growing. Had the original PC Party been around, it would have been their best election post-Mulroney. Maybe would have been official opposition, who knows.

Hopefully this new PC Party will grow fast (will only happen with the help of ex-PC Party members rejoining, of course) and Canadians can have a real alternative to the Liberals

Hello Jim,

Glad to see the new site. Looks great. If you look around this site you will see I've been promoting the PC Party here ever since it was first registered. I even thought of running as a candidate in my ridding.

This election I've decided to not participate at all with any party, however, expect an e-mail from me soon. I have some election strategies I would like to share with you.

Kevin

"I have no generation, show me my motivation- Jon Foreman"

---
Acoustic Guitar: This machine will kill facist.- Woody Guthrie