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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6253
Reputation: 228.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:24 am    Post subject: Scott Gilmore proposes to create a new party Reply with quote

( who is Scott Gilmore ? claims to be a conservative but a writer at Macleans not exactly a conservative publication and married to a liberal cabinet minister , does anyone think this proposal is about anything more than trying to split the vote ? it would obviously be doomed to fail much like the pc party during the 90's , there simply wouldn't be enough seats it could win to be relevant )


Confessions of a self-loathing Tory


Scott Gilmore: I hate my party. It’s time to build a new one that genuinely believes in liberty, equality and facts over ideology.


Scott Gilmore

March 29, 2017

Conservative Party leader candidates, from left, Lisa Raitt, member of parliament (MP), Andrew Saxton, former member of parliament (MP), Chris Alexander, former minister of immigration, Rick Peterson, venture capitalist, Brad Trost, member of parliament (MP), Andrew Scheer, member of parliament (MP), Michael Chong, member of parliament (MP), Erin O'Toole, member of parliament (MP), and Steven Blaney, former minister of public safety, participate in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership debate in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Conservative Party leader candidates, participate in the Tory leadership debate in Vancouver, British Columbia, on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

This happens regularly: I pick up my phone and hear “Mr. Gilmore, thank you for your previous donations to the Conservative Party of Canada…” Before they can continue, I respond: “You picked the wrong day for this” and hang up. Because, inevitably, I will have just watched Brad Trost deny climate change, or heard Maxime Bernier’s plan to send troops to the border, or read anything that plopped out of the mouth of Kevin O’Leary.

The Conservative leadership race has been hard to watch, unless you support the Liberals or any other political party in Canada —in which case it’s been a laugh a minute. But for people like me, I am left wondering how I ended up in a party seemingly dominated by xenophobic, economically illiterate, populist buffoons.

After the improbable drubbing the Conservatives received at the hands of Trudeau, I had hoped the party would pull itself together. Understandably, voters ran from Harper’s vision of a Canada with more jails, fewer refugees and less pot. This country has become far more cosmopolitan, multicultural, tolerant and socially liberal than it was a generation ago. And these social and demographic shifts can’t be undone.

RELATED: How Kellie Leitch touched off a culture war

Which is why I had expected the Conservatives would recognize they needed to catch up with the rest of us. But if the bulk of its leadership candidates reflect the future of the party, Trudeau will be in power until the NDP finally gets its act together (i.e. forever).

The problem is that two different ideologies have been shoehorned into the husk of the Conservative Party of Canada. The old Reform/Progressive Conservative definitions are not entirely accurate— but roughly speaking one group is socially conservative and economically populist, and the other is focused on individual liberty and free markets. If we have learned anything useful from this leadership race it is that these two conservative philosophies cannot be reconciled.

While the majority of naturally conservative voters welcome refugees, believe in climate change, and don’t care if the neighbour smokes weed, the majority of leadership candidates are actively opposed to all those things. And because this latter group dominates the CPC, and has for some time, we ended up here. The Liberals are sitting safely in power, espousing whatever patchwork ideology works best for them this year, while most Conservative leaders inexplicably race each other to the right, abandoning the center entirely. This leaves voters like me cringing as they are forced to make the ridiculous choice between Trudeau or Trost.

I have a proposal to change this.

Maybe it’s time we just give O’Leary and Bernier and Pierre Lemieux and Ezra Levant what they want: a populist, nationalist, socially conservative party that focuses on older, rural, white, male, voters. There is a legitimate place for a party like that in Parliament, and they’re welcome to own it.

And maybe it’s time the rest of us conservatives acknowledged the merger worked in the short term, but eventually it exposed irreconcilable bedrock differences. And “uniting the right” is worth nothing if you must abandon your ideological values in the process. Maybe it’s time we considered starting something new: a right of centre party that genuinely believes in individual liberty, that the state has no right to tell us who we can love, what we can smoke or what we can say—a party that doesn’t want to put more people in jail, but rather believes citizens should be given every opportunity possible to defend themselves before the law.


RELATED: 5 ways Trump has already poisoned Canadian politics

This could be a party that believes in science and recognizes ideology should never trump facts—a party that acknowledges the reality of climate change. And a party that genuinely believes in markets and understands free trade can lift all boats, that economies evolve and while individual workers should be helped, industries should be allowed to die to make room for new ones. This would be a party that understands governments are lousy investors, voters should not be bribed with their own money, and a carbon price (not regulation) is the market solution to climate change.

Canada needs a party that wants to play a substantive role in the world, and is also willing to pay the entrance fee by spending more on our military, our diplomats and aid. This party would recognize that almost all of us descend from immigrants, that immigration built this country, and it should continue. We would acknowledge that all people are born equal, but not into equal circumstances. We would not tolerate that a child born onto reserves is less than half as likely to graduate high school as a white child born in the city, any more than we would tolerate open racism or sexism.

This would be a conservative party that believes in equality for all regardless of race, creed, language, sexual orientation, or gender —a party that doesn’t see feminism as a left-wing plot, that doesn’t worry if we don’t share the same values, and is not frightened of everyone and everything.

Imagine a national party that believes we are obligated to take advantage of our strong economy and unparalleled good fortune by aspiring towards ambitious national projects, and not just tax cuts for the “struggling middle class”. Imagine a party that recognizes government should not always be the solution of first resort for every problem that ails us, but also understands only the government can level the playing field before it gets out of the way.


OPINION: Why I wouldn’t vote for Kevin O’Leary—and neither should you

All signs suggest the Conservative party is about to choose a leader who either doesn’t champion these ideas, or actively opposes them. When that happens, those of us who do should finally consider building ourselves a new home.

I will do this: The week after the new leader is chosen, I will host three dinners for whoever wants to discuss this idea, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The goal will be simple: Let’s talk about whether Canada needs a new conservative party, and if so, how would we build it?

If you are also unhappy with what the Conservative Party has turned into, join me. Maybe no one else shows up. Maybe they do but no one agrees. Maybe we agree, but nothing happens. I admit, the odds of this succeeding are very small, but they are not zero. I believe it’s worth trying. And, besides, I’m buying the first round of drinks.

UPDATE: Due to the sudden and overwhelming response to this column, Scott has set up a page where you can sign up to join one of these dinners here.

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member

http://www.macleans.ca/politic.....hing-tory/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6253
Reputation: 228.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trudeau minister's husband pitches new right-of-centre party

Maclean’s columnist Scott Gilmore launches a website: newconservatives.ca


BJ Siekierski

Wednesday, March 29th, 2017


Scott Gilmore (left) with Postmedia columnist John Ivison.


Maclean’s columnist Scott Gilmore, a self-described “social entrepreneur“, Conservative party member and husband of Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, is considering launching a new a “right of centre party”.

On Wednesday, Gilmore published a piece in the magazine called “Confessions of a self-loathing Tory” lamenting a Conservative leadership race that’s been “hard to watch”.

Though Gilmore has donated to Michael Chong’s campaign — $127 in the fourth quarter of 2016 — he doesn’t see members headed that...

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/03/29.....tre-party/
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with his points for the most part and understand his frustration, but don't agree with a new political party.

I don't really question that has conservative views just because he's a columnist for McLeans and married to a Liberal.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6253
Reputation: 228.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:
I agree with his points for the most part and understand his frustration, but don't agree with a new political party.

I don't really question that has conservative views just because he's a columnist for McLeans and married to a Liberal.



I don't really understand the timing of the proposal , its seems very odd to come out and say your going to form a new party cause your upset at the one your a member in as its in the middle of a leadership race and you don't yet know who is going to be elected leader .

it just doesn't make a lot of sense really , if someone like Leitch or trost actually won and the red tories said they were leaving for a new party it make more sense to me but this doesn't


I'm also deeply suspious of anyone who is married to a liberal cabinet minister even if he himself is not a liberal , the association by itself is odd . she is also one of the minister I like the least and seems fake . the money she spent on photographers when she went to Europe was a joke

it just seems like the kind of proposal aimed at limited the new leaders potential to grow and win over new supporters by trying to divide the party and split votes in swing ridings

the new party would likely have no caucus or mp's for the time being and its chances of winning seats in a first past the post system would be slim . its also unclear what names it could legally use as the conservative party of Canada owns that name and associated trademarks . and is already the progressive Canadian party using a name similar to old pc party .
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
Progressive Tory wrote:
I agree with his points for the most part and understand his frustration, but don't agree with a new political party.

I don't really question that has conservative views just because he's a columnist for McLeans and married to a Liberal.



I don't really understand the timing of the proposal , its seems very odd to come out and say your going to form a new party cause your upset at the one your a member in as its in the middle of a leadership race and you don't yet know who is going to be elected leader .

it just doesn't make a lot of sense really , if someone like Leitch or trost actually won and the red tories said they were leaving for a new party it make more sense to me but this doesn't


I'm also deeply suspious of anyone who is married to a liberal cabinet minister even if he himself is not a liberal , the association by itself is odd . she is also one of the minister I like the least and seems fake . the money she spent on photographers when she went to Europe was a joke

it just seems like the kind of proposal aimed at limited the new leaders potential to grow and win over new supporters by trying to divide the party and split votes in swing ridings

the new party would likely have no caucus or mp's for the time being and its chances of winning seats in a first past the post system would be slim . its also unclear what names it could legally use as the conservative party of Canada owns that name and associated trademarks . and is already the progressive Canadian party using a name similar to old pc party .


I think he's jumping the gun a bit - well I don't agree with his proposal anyway - but he pointed out in his column that it appears someone he fundamentally disagrees with will win the race so he's starting to a plan what's next.

As for his wife, he was married to her before she was a Liberal cabinet minister. Yes, it's a bit strange that a conservative columnist and CPC member is married to a Liberal cabinet minister but there's nothing stopping people who have different political affiliations from getting married. Her performance as a minister has nothing to do with him.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7426
Reputation: 297.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After every leadership race that is divisive we always seem to have these calls;

I get it;
I likely won't get what I want from the CPC Leadership Race.

However I lived through the era where two "principled" Conservative Parties stood in opposition of three Liberal Majority Governments.

While I may only end up getting 60% of what I want from the CPC;
Its far better than the 10% I am getting from the LPC.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
After every leadership race that is divisive we always seem to have these calls;

I get it;
I likely won't get what I want from the CPC Leadership Race.

However I lived through the era where two "principled" Conservative Parties stood in opposition of three Liberal Majority Governments.

While I may only end up getting 60% of what I want from the CPC;
Its far better than the 10% I am getting from the LPC.

Yup!
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6253
Reputation: 228.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
After every leadership race that is divisive we always seem to have these calls;

I get it;
I likely won't get what I want from the CPC Leadership Race.

However I lived through the era where two "principled" Conservative Parties stood in opposition of three Liberal Majority Governments.

While I may only end up getting 60% of what I want from the CPC;
Its far better than the 10% I am getting from the LPC.


but for the amount of candidates and diversity of views , this race hasn't been that divisive so far and its unclear who the new leader is going to be , is easily 5 or 6 of the main candidates if not more who could still win

it seems really off to be talking about leaving and starting a new party at this point , unless the point of the new party was to simply embarrass and make things harder for who ever the new leader is and to try and keep the liberals in power longer
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am gratified by the responses to this artlcle. That is it is nice that everyone here sees that no party will ever be an exact representative of them.

What is the Conservative Party's position on so-called "climate change"? Hmmmm? Or on women's 'equality'? Hmmmm? Or on so-called Human Rights and 'discrimination'? Hmmm? Aboriginal rights? Hmmm? Drug policy? Hmmm?

Do they have one?

The problem is they don't have any intellectual heft. The Liberals don't either, but at least they have good parties and lots of freebies to hand out. (This is not to say that there aren't people in the Conservative party with some background, but rather that the debate within the party is either secret, or bland. It never seems to confront the real things that are tearing up our society.)

As a result, they often seem to be caught flat-footed, wondering what to do to appeal to an uneducated public about something that the boilerplate seems be against them.

Even on here, you can't even get a reaction when the human rights crowd starts demanding we alter the English language to 'respect' transsexuals. It's as if everyone knows that an ideological cop is watching them, and they don't want to take the risk.

Personally, I don't think the old Progressive Conservative rump that merged with the CA has a lot of opposition to the welfare state on offer. What they did offer was a kind of smug assurance to the new member that they had chosen well, they may be out of power forever, but at least they were in the company of the 'better' people. And what does Joe Clark want us to do next? Ready, Joe, ready!

Joe said "me too" to almost every weird proposal coming from Pierre's party. Joe led the way in having a wife who wouldn't use his name! Joe was the revolutionary
Conservative, a spiritual Victorian who led the party of the grossly sentimentalized British connection!

So the PC part of the party has a lot of proving to do before we should accept the likes of Scott Gilmore.

The CA part of the party at least has some grass roots, and provides the bulk of the funding. At the heart of the Reform Party was the idea that the membership, not patrons, should support the party, and that party infrastructure is key to its success. It was -- sadly, no longer -- a conduit of fresh ideas into politics. The party needs more of this, not less.

Just my thoughts.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7426
Reputation: 297.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:


it seems really off to be talking about leaving and starting a new party at this point , unless the point of the new party was to simply embarrass and make things harder for who ever the new leader is and to try and keep the liberals in power longer


Going off and starting a Conservative alternative isn't exactly new;
You have Dorian Baxter's Progressives and Rod Taylor's CHP both as registered parties Federally already.

What is Gilmore offering that is different than the above?
Is his point more about throwing a hissy fit because he unhappy with the direction of the CPC or does he genuinely feel that a new party fills a need?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6253
Reputation: 228.4
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
RCO wrote:


it seems really off to be talking about leaving and starting a new party at this point , unless the point of the new party was to simply embarrass and make things harder for who ever the new leader is and to try and keep the liberals in power longer


Going off and starting a Conservative alternative isn't exactly new;
You have Dorian Baxter's Progressives and Rod Taylor's CHP both as registered parties Federally already.

What is Gilmore offering that is different than the above?
Is his point more about throwing a hissy fit because he unhappy with the direction of the CPC or does he genuinely feel that a new party fills a need?


well true there is many other fringe parties at the moment , but all of them have no hope of ever electing an mp under first past the post . so there more out to raise there issues or get attention locally . the odds of a libertarian or Christian heritage party candidate getting elected any time soon are dismally low

a new party would only make sense under a proportional representation system , as they'd get seats if they got say 10 % of the vote but under current system they could get 10 % or 20 % in a few ridings and be left with no mp's

I don't see there being a genuine need for a new party , especial in the middle of a leadership race for current one
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1178
Reputation: 110.8
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
After every leadership race that is divisive we always seem to have these calls;

I get it;
I likely won't get what I want from the CPC Leadership Race.

However I lived through the era where two "principled" Conservative Parties stood in opposition of three Liberal Majority Governments.

While I may only end up getting 60% of what I want from the CPC;
Its far better than the 10% I am getting from the LPC.


but for the amount of candidates and diversity of views , this race hasn't been that divisive so far and its unclear who the new leader is going to be , is easily 5 or 6 of the main candidates if not more who could still win

it seems really off to be talking about leaving and starting a new party at this point , unless the point of the new party was to simply embarrass and make things harder for who ever the new leader is and to try and keep the liberals in power longer


While there may not have been much public feuding in the race between candidates, I think there is a fair bit of divison in views.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progressive Tory wrote:

While there may not have been much public feuding in the race between candidates, I think there is a fair bit of divison in views.


Wouldn't it be nice if these issues were highlighted in watchable debates, so that the swing Conservative voters would support their candidates on some rational basis?

This is what I despise about the Conservative Party -- it is so elitist in attitude. The Progressive Conservative wing on the party is so sure that it is the 'cream of the crop' that they seem to think that the public will (finally) come to the same conclusion. Yeah, that'll probably mean the parties that give away stuff will stay in power until the nation comes to crisis ... and then they'll leave the cleanup to Conservatives. You want that?

A challenge to all you superior people -- tell me why are we down on the legalization of marijuana because imaginary bad effects it might have on other people, but it's OK to promote homosexuality in the schools?

Where did the idea that informed adults ought to be free to make their own decisions in life? What is the state's interest in whether people smoke a little reefer or not?

You won't know how to answer is my bet. On the one hand, you and the party doesn't want to seem like bigots, so the common sense conservative response is muddled and the party confused, and in the end, they simply bend over the barrel. Convictions without courage. Nice.

Or are the convictions there at all? What are 'conservative principles' in Canada? That's a real question. What holds conservatives together?

That's why this leadership is such a boring mess. If it weren't for O'Leary, it'd be worse.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7426
Reputation: 297.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

The CA part of the party at least has some grass roots, and provides the bulk of the funding.


Grass roots of course;
Bulks of the funding, not so sure.

As the bulk of CPC fundraising last year came from Ontario along with the majority of the parties members I am not entirely sure the old CA is overly responsible for the bulk of the funding.

We will find out in a few weeks;
But I wouldn't be surprised for a moment if there were more card carrying voting CPC members in Quebec than Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba combined as was the case in 2004.

Granted, they were the masters of the ten dollar donation but they were not overly effective out fundraising the Liberals and it showed in their campaigns.

The PCs with a fraction of the caucus were always more effective at soliciting donations East of Manitoba and likely a large part of the reason a party with a caucus of 66 was so eager to merge with a caucus of 12.

Bugs wrote:
At the heart of the Reform Party was the idea that the membership, not patrons, should support the party, and that party infrastructure is key to its success. It was -- sadly, no longer -- a conduit of fresh ideas into politics. The party needs more of this, not less.


You raise an interesting point that often gets raised during these sorts of leadership discussions or policy discussions about how we all look back fondly at the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance;

However I see no difference between Preston Manning & Stockwell Day and Lucien Bouchard & Gilles Duceppe.

All those men helmed parties that had no path to governance.
Its incredibly easy to be Principled when you have no power and no chance at power.
The difference always was the BQ was honest enough with itself to acknowledge that.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4127
Reputation: 238.1
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand your loyalty to your wing on the party, but I think you are wrong. What would have PC funding been without Bay Street. It was mostly a party given by corporate sponsors. But the law changed. And what was left on the ground, as a political financing tool, was the CAs grass roots operation. Who topped up Joe Clark's salary, I wonder? Who would do that legally today?

And all Joe Clark stood for was stopping the CA, and he didn't seem to care if that kept Chretien and his Liberals in power. What grassroots would dig into their pockets to get behind that?

My point is that the PCs -- which were as much a party of the British connection as they were a real conservative party -- had lost their way during Mulroney's time. He destroyed the party with his knife-at-the-throat imposition of Meech Lake. He created the Reform Party as much as Manning did. And it was Manning's wing of the party that was 'conservative' in the North American sense, that is a set of economic policies aimed at encouraging economic growth and wealth creation.

So what are they fighting about now? The media accounts of the dark and secretive tyrant, Stephen Harper's legacy? Well, nobody's looking, but Stephen Harper never tried to limit Parliament's power the way the prancing Justin has done. The 'tyrant' narrative was always the enemy's offensive. Warren Kinsella called it from the start.

But why is the legacy of Stephen Harper something to avoid?

When are Conservatives going to start paying attention to the issues the welfare state, as it flounders along, unsustainable? Who speaks for the next generation, who will be stuck with their parent's retirement and medical costs, into the interminable future? Who will get behind the next assault on traditional sex roles?

Why does our discussion of the leadership race seem like a search committee meeting, searching for a candidate for a job that has no description? It's because this party seems to be being led by the propaganda in the media, rather than the needs of the electorate, as a whole.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
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 cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Scott Gilmore proposes to create a new party

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB