Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

The center-right/right edit warring

This is to the IP who keeps on flip-flopping the position of the party

I'm just pointing out, that if the Conservatives seemed to have move a bit closer to center (which does not justified to put center-right and underestimates their real intentions if they were a majority government) is due to the public pressure because of the environment issue and also because they are a minority government. Moving a bit less right is definitely not their intention and thus right-wing is their real position. It's often like that in a minority/coalition government. --JForget 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you know how the Conservatives would govern if they were in a majority position? If you look at their policies and platform, this party is not right-wing like the Republican or British Conservatives are like. SFrank85 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In an event, while some may consider the party centre-right, it is not the clear overwhelming opinion of observers and thus should not be included as the only description in the intro. I took right-leaning from the Canadian conservatism article's definition a few months ago and it seemed to settle an edit war then. I think the term is specific enough to inform readers but general enough to include nearly all mainstream descriptions of the party. --JGGardiner 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the sentence after the bold statement that the law and order policy is in response to wrong perceptions. As a Conservative, I know that I believe in those policy points no matter what statistics Canada has to say, so the person who asserted the reason for the policy as being perception is dead wrong. I want to crush criminals for the pure joy of it, perception has nothing to do with it. You are welcome to remove my sentence, but remove the previous one, or rewrite it. If someone shoots me, I really don't care if crime is down, I want the bum locked up and the key thrown far away. -And the party is centre right, cause I am far right, and you can't imagine how much farther I would go. The arguement is true, libs call themselves centrist, but they really just have no solid priciples, and are willing to leave tough decisions to Conservatives, no guts to make the calls that are needed. I guess if having no real principles makes it easy to flip flop all the time, and that leads to people thinking you are moderating policy fine. I would argue that I have to put far more water in my wine to come to the centre than any liberal, what hard policy do they really have? In the debates Gille Duceppe (BQ leader) said the libs run on the left, and govern on the right, but I would say they say anything to get elected, and slime their way into holding on to power, through lies and deception. So who is to say who is governing from the centre, centre left, or centre right. (and that is how centre is spelled in Canada) -Also, since I was last here it seems a whole lot has been hacked up in this article, with lots of stuff I thought was important left out, is that just me, or has a weed wacker been used on this article? Jeremy99 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Back again, and you made no effort to rewrite the law and order sentence to not reflect bias. Seems you like having it read that way. That it is wrong seems no bother at all. Once again, prove the policy is just about responding to perception. To prove my point, youth offenders killed a person is Winnipeg and the 13 year old was at home that night. The news report talked about peoples anger at that. What do statistics have to do with throwing the little bastard in jail as an adult for 10-15 years. Nothing. I will now just delete your sentence. Include some reference to why conservatives want tougher law and order agenda implemented, and then talk statistics. You removed what I put in without even responding. Well, it begins. Jeremy99 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The labelling of the party as “right-leaning” as opposed to “centre-right” is based purely on amateur speculation toward future policy or the isolated remarks of individual party members. The party should be assigned a label based on actual official policy and legislation that they introduced and/or supported in the House. Speculation on what the Conservatives would do with a majority government based on their much trumpeted “hidden agenda” is not a valid basis for assigning political alignment, since it is not factually verifiable, nor is speculation on the motivation of policy. Equally invalid are the isolated remarks of individual members, since they are not likely representative of the party as a whole. All mainstream federal parties have members who have been out-of-step with official stance. Former Liberal Carolyn Parrish and former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais are obvious examples, since few would label the Liberal Party as an inherently anti-American party, nor the NDP as against same-sex marriage. The recent federal budget, while arguably a product of political compromise, should serve as clear evidence that the Conservatives are a centre-right party. –Anon, 30 March 2007

How can this party be placed as "centre-right to right", when the Republican party are placed as "centre-right"? Conservatives in Canada are not nearly as "right" as most republicans are, health care being the prime (but not the only) example. Just by the fact that the party endorses health care should make them considered "centre to centre-right", shouldn't it...? and shouldn't economic liberalism be added? 99.229.114.180 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring over ideology and policy

I concede that centre-right is a messily-defined term and is likely obsolete. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to present information? Why, CJCurrie, do you insist upon selective omission of generally-accepted fact? The Conservative party IS heavily influenced by political ideologies other than simply conservatism, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism. And the only objectively verifiable information that one can honestly present regarding its positions/ideology/policy is that which is either in the official party platform, or has actually been proposed as legislation in the House. Please try to grow up a little and stop relying on nebulous speculation, heresay, and biased editorial opinion as sources of objectively verifiable facts. 205.193.82.252 - 29 May 2007.

Here is my take on the recent POV-pushing by the anon editor:

1. “the Conservative Party can be defined as big tent, as it includes members with varying positions on different issues.”

I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside.

2. “The Conservative Party generally falls on the centre-right, and favours individual rights, lower taxes, smaller government, decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces, an assertive system of law and order, increased military spending, and the harmonization standards and regulations with trading partners. The party has at times opposed the legalization of cannabis, unrestricted abortion, and same-sex marriage, but has since either stopped advancing these positions, or dropped them from its official policy altogether. The party also seeks to improve relations with Canada's primary trading partner, that had been deteriorating under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.”

All of these are positions of the right, not of the left, so “generally falls on the centre-right” are weasel words.

3. The Conservative Party strongly advocates democratic reform of the federal government. It supports free votes in Parliament, and has had one such vote on whether the House should reopen the issue of same-sex marriage, which was defeated (though it should be noted that both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois enforced party discipline for this vote).

“though it should be noted that” – this is clear evidence that you are trying to persuade the reader, rather than inform. Furthermore, this article is not about the NDP or BQ positions on same-sex marriage or their conduct in the house. It is about the Conservative Party, and this comment is not relevant to that.

With respect to your comment "Please try to grow up", please be advised that personal attacks violate Wikipedia guidelines. Please review WP:NPA. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent your claim that this is a POV push, as I do not support the CPC, not have any interest in it, but rather prefer to see Wikipedia articles offer facts rather than spin.

"I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside." I though we went over this before. Why does something being clear to you matter? Where is your evidence? Speculation does not equal verifiable information. The 11 Quebec caucus members are certainly not former Alliance supporters. Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice, Rob Nicholson, David Emerson, Greg Thompson, Marjory Lebreton, Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan have absolutely no ties to the former CA, most from the PC and a couple of former Liberals. Your attempt to protray the CPC as an Alliance takeover of the PC party belies an agenda, or at the very least a confusion of personal perspective and objective facts.

Also, when you mention that the motion to re-open the same-sex marriage debate, there is an inference that the party's policy was in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was not. While many (arguably the majority) of Conservative members oppose ssm, the point of the motion and party policy was to allow a free vote on a controversial issue, rather than have party discipline imposed by the leadership. It is indeed relevant to mention what other parties have done since it contrasts, isolates and thus clarifies the Conservative intent on the motion.

Also, since when does improving foreign relations fall on the right? Are you inferring that because the United States has a Republican President that improving relations must necessarily be a right-wing policy? If so, that's a very dubious claim. Please clarify.

Also, the claim that they are conservative both fiscally and socially is misleading, as they have a very large and diverse membership and caucus. Harper himself could be labelled as neoliberal, Peter Mackay as libertarian, and Myron Thompson as conservative. Wouldn't you agree that affixing labels is less informing than actually describing what they have done and propose to do?

205.193.82.252 - 30 May 2007.

POV Revert Warring

Does anyone other than CJCurrie, GroundZero, or The Tom adhere to the biased "consensa" they've been pushing, or that "reality has a liberal bias"? This is beyond silly. [uunsigned comment by User:205.193.82.252

• I welcome others' thoughts on this, too. It does seem to me that User:205 has one point of view, and three long-time Wikipedia editors (of which I am one) have a different view. What is the consensus here? Ground Zero | t 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In my time here, I've seen edits that would make it seem like the Canadian political spectrum stetched all the way from centre-left to centre-right.

I suppose that "right wing" is a debatable term which is why I changed it to "right-leaning" at one point. I took that from the Canadian conservatism article. I would prefer right wing myself and it is certainly better than centre-right. It is fine to criticize the old labels I think but without a better alternative they should stay. Centre-right is more debatable and less agreed upon than the other terms.

But I would agree that perhaps "big tent" is an appropriate term. They might not be the biggest tent out there but I'd say they are probably beyond the scope a narrow ideological party. The old progressive elements may not have power but the party does seem to command the support of much of the old PC supporters. I think that the party has a solid lock on the right wing and the far right, the best part of the centre-right and more than a few centrists. --JGGardiner 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a policy of "just the facts, ma'am" is in order here. Put aside your partisan word-smithing and hair-splitting for a while and focus on getting the facts straight. The left/right spectrum debate is simplistic at best; divisive, confrontational, and leads to bloodshed at worst. See this site to hopefully shake this simplist one-dimensional linear model from your collective heads once and for all. Then get back to "just the facts, ma'am". Focus not on what you want the party to be, focus on what can be verified via methods other than original research regarding what it was and what it is. After all, politics, and specifically real politik is messy, three-dimensional, and happens in technicolour. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is rather insulting for you to suggest that I've focused on "what I want the party to be" or was "partisan". I think that you ought to stick to "just the facts" rather than accusing other editors of particular bias. I think you should see WP:AGF as well. As for my nine month old post, I wasn't arguing for the merits of the left-right spectrum per se; a particular editor had inserted wording which narrowed the description. But both the new and old versions used the same concept.

If your position is that party articles shouldn't contain political position notes, that is something much wider than this article and this one dispute in particular. "Political position" is even a line in the political party infobox template. But I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to suggest. The post wasn’t really clear. I found the last particularly confusing actually. I’m not sure what you meant about Realpolitik. If you’d like to elaborate, I’d appreciate it. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if the way in which I positioned and phrased my comments contributed to you mis-interpreting my comments to be a personal attack on your particular contributions. That was not my intent. My comments were aimed at all contributors and potential future contributors to this article. There seems to be an infinite amount of time available to debate whether to use the term "centre-right" or "right-of-centre" or what-have-you to describe the party, and also for some individuals to engage in the very unwikipedian-like revert warring that is described on this page; meanwhile, the article continues to have many grammatical and factual errors and very very few in-line references. I would like to commend past contributors for their research efforts and obvious passion about the subject matter - however, all of this hard work is at risk if it is not properly referenced. It was me that added the tags citing the lack of references. If I didn't already know better from a fairly robust personal knowledge of the subject matter, it would be relatively easy for one to assume (due to the very few references provided) that much of this article was original research. If we all (collectively) spent more time adding verifiable third party references to this article and, while we are at it, continued to improve the sentence and paragraph structures, then I think we could start to move our collective efforts into a more positive direction other than the apparent bickering that has occurred in the past over what various labels to apply to the party, most of which have lost all relevant meaning over the years anyway. I think what many readers and contributors fail to recognize is that party positions are not static they evolve, devolve, and revolve over time based on changes in leadership and the shifting of the political winds at different points in time and that is what I was meaning with my comments - we need to focus our collective energies on accurately describing the various party positions, highlights, and moments of despair (and be clear on what point in time we are referring to with each paragraph, each sentence) while also highlighting the party's rich heritage in a factual, unbiased, meaningful, and encylopedic manner. Save the political debates for the coffee shops and the blogs. That's what I meant. Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your grade school English teachers are spinning in their graves

My biggest beef right now with this article is that the grammar and run-on-sentence structure is abhorrent, let alone the bigger issues that the facts aren't all straight and most references are slim to missing. The third paragraph of the section on "predecessor parties" is a rambling drive by assault on the English language, not to mention that it confuses the reader - we are never quite sure from sentence to run-on-sentence exactly which time period in history is being referred to, or for that matter, which article we are reading. I understand the attempt to put things in context, but we need to stick to the topic at hand, which is the Conservative Party, not a general discussion of all political parties that ever gained traction with support from the west. I am doing a complete re-write of this section right now; I will do my best (it will be a challenge to keep my tongue out of my cheek) to maintain NPOV and focus just on cleaning up the grammar and sentence structure, and when I have some more time I will blow up the "Back to the Future" time-machine-car the original writers of this section were using and add some relevant references. And no, the type of car (DeLorean) is not relevant to the topic of this article, even if Harper or MacKay or some other high profile Conservative actually owns (or owned) or drives (or ever drove) one. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add references

I've noticed a tendency by some contributors to this (and other) articles about political parties to automatically revert wording changes made by other contributors, with little or no discussion. This is not productive. If someone has made a wording change to a paragraph that in its prior form already cited no references, that wording change in and of itself (unless it introduces a grammatically inferior paragraph when compared to the predecessor paragraph, or skews to a less neutral POV) is no better or worse than the wording contained in the predecessor paragraph. Assuming good grammar, spelling, and sentence structure - each version is unreferenced, and therefore equally inferior to one another. I challenge each and every contributor to this article to, for every edit you plan to make (no matter how minor), to also add at least one verifiable reference (either that supports your wording change, or that supports other wording already existing in the article). Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative officials named in bribery allegations

MP Garth Turner has reported the names of the two Conservative officials who allegedly attempted to bribe Chuck Cadman as Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (National Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada).

Should this be included as part of the article? Shame

DSatYVR (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... debatable. Until more information is forthcoming, it is perhaps a topic more suitable for current events (ie. WikiNews) rather than an encyclopedia, even though Mr. Cadman did pass away almost three years ago. If we do include content of this nature in articles such as this one, I'd be inclined to want the section to be headlined something like "Recent Controversies" or "Current Scandals". Virtually every political party has had their share (of scandal and/or controversy), at different points in history. We just don't want to start any additional overly-heated revert warring by introducing overly debatable content that is not well referenced. But if it can be included in a factual, well-referenced and balanced (NPOV) manner, I will support you if you choose to add it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cadman allegations

this sentence: "If the elements of the story are true, the Conservatives' actions may amount to a criminal offence. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. [2] An audio tape suggests then-opposition leader Stephen Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Chuck Cadman but gave it his personal approval.[3]" nees to be removed as it is detailing allegations made but that are yet unproven and that the conservatives have denied. This is for the wikinews site, not for an encyclopedia. Macutty (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideology and Comparative Politics

I think we should make mention under "Ideology" that, despite what is thought by many Canadian leftists, the Conservative Party of Canada is significantly to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party (including Barack Obama), which supports the death penalty, opposes single payer health care, opposes gay marriage, opposes relations with Cuba, supports massive military spending, supporting the combat in Afghanistan, some supported the war in Iraq (Clinton and Biden), etc. Your thoughts? Sopm (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error In Paragraph General Election 2008, sentence "Conservative TV ads started appearing almost 2 weeks before they conservative party announced an election date." needs to be changed to Conservative TV ads started appearing almost 2 weeks before the Conservative party announced an election date.

The Liberals and Conservatives both support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and close military alliances with the USA, although the Liberals, and apparently the Conservatives today, did not want to join the Coalition of the Willing, which the Canadian government considered to be in violation of international law. The Conservatives have no position on same sex marriage and capital punishment, although most members oppose one and support the other. As for health care and Cuba, they are only seen as left-right positions in the US, and the US stands alone in their positions. The new Conservative Party, unlike the old Socred/Reform/Alliance parties avoids wedge issues, which play poorly outside Western Canada. --The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party

Does anybody know if the party still has a deputy leader? I know it was Peter MacKay before the 2006 election; but who is now? Lawrence Cannon maybe? GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate appointments

This is going to be a relatively minor matter in the history of this party, as far as I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blow-by-blow account of events. If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the Harper government, not the Conservative Party, because it was Harper as Prime Minister who nominated the new people for appointment, not Harper as leader of the Conservative Party. Comments? Ground Zero | t 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Harper government sections should be expanded and split off into another article. We currently have nearly half nearly half a dozen articles on British premierships and nearly a dozen articles on American presidencies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty section

There is no reference to the Conservative Party's position on the issue in this section,only to Stephen Harper's. Is there any evidence that the party has taken a position? I am not aware that this issue has been debated in Parliament since 2003, or the the Harper government has introduced any legislation or motion on the issue. This section only presented a Harper quotation, and then the main argument against capital punishment. I think this should be removed. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm inclined to agree. The Conservative Party has not taken any position on capital punishment; the most that can be said is that some have raised concerns about a hidden agenda on this and similar issues. CJCurrie (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Principles and policies section issues

I think this section would be more appropriately renamed - "Criticisms of the Conservative Party", as that seems to be the main point of this section. I understand how a number of people disagree with their policies, but that is not the purpose of this article (or at least should be put in their own section called 'criticisms'). This section puts an undue emphasis on certain controversial social issues, and dissenting opinions of the party, rather than what the party actually stands for. Most importantly, after reading through this section as it currently stands, it doesn't clearly state what their principles and policies really are. I think there is a lot of room for improvement here, such as simplifying the section into a couple sentences on their basic beliefs and a point form list of their current policies and goals. I think it should be rewritten in a similar style to competing parties such as the liberals or the NDP. Does anyone else think this is reasonable?Edmoil (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Monarchism

Most of us would agree that the Conservative Party (at least in its current incarnation) is monarchist. However, I have not found any mention of this in the article. I would even go as far as to say that it is one of the core ideologies of the party. What do you think?--MTLskyline (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it an official policy, and can you cite a reliable source? Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is listed as one of the party's founding principles (fifth and eighth point). Would their own website be a reliable source? --MTLskyline (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Their website is definitely a reliable source for information on their policies, so yes, I think it should be mentioned (in a neutral fashion, obviously). — CharlieEchoTango — 05:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PrestonManning.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PrestonManning.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

The article implies that the recent issue regarding gay divorce has anything to do at all with the conservative stance on same-sex marriage. This is incorrect as the recent issue didn't actually have anything to do with same-sex marriage, but with "tourism marriage" in general. If a particular type of marriage is illegal in a couple's country of residence, then even if they are allowed to marry in Canada that marriage will not be upheld by the Canadian courts. This is not particular to same-sex marriage. For example the U.S. does not allow first-cousin marriage, while Canada does. If a heterosexual first-cousins couple who lived in the U.S. was married in Canada, then that marriage wold be considered void in Canada as the marriage was not legal in the couple's country of residence. (See here for source]) I therefore think that mentioning the issue under a section dealing with the conservative's view on same-sex marriage creates the misimpression that the issue was an ideologically driven one.NereusAJ (T | C) 06:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of an issue with how it's currently worded in the article. The Conservative Party didn't have anything to do with the story, but it was indeed in the news thanks to a complete fabrication by The Globe and Mail, and therefore Harper's response is definitely relevant to the article in my opinion. The paragraph is accurate and is an opportunity to reflect Harper's position that he will not reopen the debate, which is important from an encyclopedic point of view (reflecting the Party's position). Though I acknowledge this could be done without mentioning the fabricated story. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant to suggest. The paragraph states that a Justice Department official was of the opinion that the marriage was void. This does create the impression that this decision was motivated ideologically, while it was actually motivated by the legal principle of comity. I think it would be better to simply say something like "After accusations that the conservative party was reversing its policy on same-sex marriage, Harper responded so and so." Furthermore, when the article states that Harper corrected the record it sounds as if Harper contradicted the Justice Department official's claim that the marriage is void. This is wrong. Harper actually stated that he was unfamiliar with the case. He corrected the records only in as far as he refuted claims that the conservative party was reversing its policy. It also implies that the Justice Department official was wrong, which isn't the case. Legally, the official's argument was sound. NereusAJ (T | C) 08:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Fraud in the lead

I've removed the 'alleged electoral fraud' from the lead. Please gain consensus if it is to be re-posted. There is sufficient coverage in the section below on this subject. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)