Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mr12387





Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 261
Reputation: 60.6
votes: 2
Location: Laval, Quebec

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a lot of grey area between Blue and Red Tory. It depends on the individual person. Just as there are different types of Tories, there are different types of Blue Tories and Red Tories. One's definition will change with every extra Red Tory they meet. I like to consider myself one, but I stand for senate reform, and am not even opposed to it being abolished. I'm against abortion, but for SSM. And I have little attachment to the status quo. So like I said, there are person by person differences. Perhaps the best I can come up with is a Red Tory is somewhat more left-leaning and/or libertarian (in social issues) than a Blue Tory. But where do you draw the line, really?
Triple_R





Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 111
Reputation: 6.2Reputation: 6.2Reputation: 6.2Reputation: 6.2Reputation: 6.2Reputation: 6.2
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mr12387 wrote:
There's a lot of grey area between Blue and Red Tory. It depends on the individual person. Just as there are different types of Tories, there are different types of Blue Tories and Red Tories. One's definition will change with every extra Red Tory they meet. I like to consider myself one, but I stand for senate reform, and am not even opposed to it being abolished. I'm against abortion, but for SSM. And I have little attachment to the status quo. So like I said, there are person by person differences. Perhaps the best I can come up with is a Red Tory is somewhat more left-leaning and/or libertarian (in social issues) than a Blue Tory. But where do you draw the line, really?


You're the coolest Red Tory I've ever met, then. ;)

Perhaps I've been a little soured on the term "Red Tory" by the blogger of the same handle...
chris p





Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 65
Reputation: 25.9Reputation: 25.9Reputation: 25.9
Location: BC

PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was cool to be a red tory until joe clarck came around...

to me, a red tory is a classical liberalk where as a blue tory is either someone of the new right ( christian right, populist conservative, neo-conservative ect.) or a typical burkean conservaitve. the big diference is the belief that the government is not concerned with moral issues, there should be some government programmes to help those the market can't possibly be bothered with and that any parlimentry reforms need to be approached with caution because of constitutional implications

To sum up the party is better divided into various sub cultures. i'll try to list all of them and people in the party that would belong to them (keeping in mind some might belong to both)

Christian Right= Those in the party, mostly from the rural west, who belive the government should be involved in legislating to protect societies morals. they would be anti-abortion, anti-gaymarrige, usually want more restirictions on immigration, against decriminalizeing majiuana ect.
Ex. Stockwell Day

Populist Conservative= The strong reformer, the populist Conservative is a beliver in a triple E senate and any other reform seen as heading in this direction. a populist conservative is in favor of any reforms that impower the voter, such as recal and referendums.
Ex. Manning oviously

Neo-Conservative= The definition of this one is difficult, due to its use as a "bad word" by the left. I'd consider a neocon to be anyone who feels canada should wage an allout war on our welfare state in order to create the smallest government they can. a neo con is not generaly concerned with protecting traditions as these traditions are not theirs and rather those of a corrupt liberal society that should be torn appart and replaced with a new one that puts more stake in the collective health of a society instead of the individual.
Ex. hard to say who you could put under here seeing as it would be suicide to preach these ideals in liberal canada, i will go out on a limb though

Steven Harper

Burkean Conservative= A "tory", someone who supports the old ways, be they parlimentary tradition or the nature of canadian government. sometimes they are protectionist, but not always.
Ex. David Orchard

Classical Liberal= not a conservative in the typical way, they belive in individual responsibility and thus belive in small government. like neocons, they are not concerned by large scale change however they are less intent on large scale reforms. they belive the state should not legislate in morals
Ex. Maxime Brenier, Ronna Ambrose, Lawrance Cannon

and lastly

Soft Nationalists, Autonomists= anyone who belives in this government becuase it interfears less in provincial affairs. some of these will be in alberta, but most will be in quebec.


Of course people will fit into many of these schools of thought, me personaly i would say i'm a classical liberal pretty much through and through. some would call me a libertarian but that would be a misuse of the term, as libertarians want almost no government, and like populists have a hatred for parlimentary democracy and prefer direct deomcracy.
TealTories





Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 473
Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7Reputation: 34.7
votes: 1
Location: Calgary

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Re: What does "Red Tory" mean to you? Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
I think that Red Toryism is generally misattributed to those that are permissive on social issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion.

I think that the real tradition of red toryism has more to do with patronage as a legitimate political tool (senate appointments), and a sense of political elitism rather than populism.

I also get the sense that Red Toryism is more about the pragmatic than the ideological.


I love they way you put that.
The MSM would clasify me in some ways as a Red Tory, because I could care less about SSM and I am openly very conflicted with abortion (I could never be personally involved in any way with it yet I dont know if it is in our best interest to ban it either).
Yet on the other hand on some issues crime, economics, and democratic reform I could be classified as a "Neo Conservative".

But to add to that you should add opportunism. A friend of mines father is a die hard liberal and ran as a PC candidate for the provincial election Edmonton Millwoods.
He is not a conservative yet the conservatives had an opening and there was a good chance he could win on brand alone.
Look at Stronach was she a conservative or was there opportunity in the CPC. On the flip side Khan and Emmerson were they Liberals for opportunism or are they now conservatives for opportunism.
There are alot of MP's in the HOC that are sheeps in wolves clothing. Personally I think you should run on principle, but what do I know.
Christian Conservative





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Reputation: 50.8
votes: 2
Location: Southwestern ON

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, then I'm something of an enigma... based on your definitions, I'm part Neo-Con, part Classical Liberal, with a smattering of Burkean Conservative. The funny thing is though, most people would automatically throw me into the Christian Right. (and I'd say that I'm 0% Red Tory... assuming that you can't have a negative percentage)

Can such a political chimera as myself survive? :wink:
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't call Harper a neocon.

For the record, Stephen Harper recently described himself as a classical liberal.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
and a sense of political elitism rather than populism.


I'd agree with that and on a personal note, I'd add that true Red Tories, don't live in reality and tend to see things through rose coloured glasses.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For the record, Stephen Harper recently described himself as a classical liberal.


Andrew Coyne just spit up his coffee!
civicparties





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 55
Reputation: 10.6

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

red toryism = incremental conservatism = the new progressive CPC

red toryism = liberalism = social progressives = champagne sociialists = incremental conservatism = the new progressive CPC

In Canada today we have three choices within our mainstream political parties:

Not so Left = the new progressive CPC

Left = the Liberal party of Canada

a little more Left = the NDP.

The members of any of these parties can flow back and forth from one to the other and when they do some even get cabinet posts. Such free flow of people with "partisan political beleifs" indicates in my estimation very little difference between the parties
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The members of any of these parties can flow back and forth from one to the other


I never seen a dipper become a Conservative. :?
civicparties





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 55
Reputation: 10.6

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I normally do not like to reference wikapedia as some of their entries are not quite accurate. But they do have lost of affliiation switches. NDPers have certainly switched to the conservatives parties.

Quote:
New Democratic Party to Tories (Progressive Conservatives/Conservatives/Canadian Alliance)
Brian Ashton - Toronto City Councillor, former NDPer who lost the nomination for the NDP in a Scarborough riding, and later became a liberal.
Dennis Fentie - Premier of Yukon / Former Yukon N.D.P. MLA - He quit the N.D.P. and a few months later became Premier of the Yukon for the right wing Yukon Party. (Source - CBC News, Yukon Election coverage)
Peter Fenwick - Former Newfoundland NDP leader, & 1st NDP elected to Newfoundland Assembly in 1984. He ran for the Canadian Alliance in 2000.
Peter John North - NDP MPP Elgin 1990-1993, became Indp after trying to become a PC party member but instead being rebuffed by Mike Harris's PCs, re-elected in 1995.
Frank Syms - former Manitoba NDP President, strategist, past NDP candidate, became a Conservative in the 1980s, running for the Manitoba PC in 1988
Angela Vautour - 1st elected as a NDP MP in New Brunswick in 1997, switched to the PCs in sept 1999. She lost her riding to a liberal in 2000. Ran again for the New Conservatives in 2004. (Source - Public Records ; Elections Canada) [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ed_parties
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What does "Red Tory" mean to you?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB