« If not Donald Trump, then who? | Main | The Camp of the Saints »

March 01, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Calgary Non-Con

Not content with depriving you of the ability to think critically, nature, nevertheless, endowed you with the ability to type.

C'est domage.

Bill Elder

This PC cabal is what is left of the right wing faction of the Laurentian elite political oligarchy.

- essentially bi-partisan crony power brokers who could be comfortable in a Liberal Government - top down autocratic insider crony policy makers and influence peddlers to whom a change of government means nothing more than a management handover of the corporate patronage clientele which passes easily from blue to red party/governments as easily as a dirty quarter.

The reform merger represented injecting western populism and grass roots policy making into the party - for the old crony PCs that was like sunlight on Vampires.

Harper,/CPC lost because the media collective sold voters a message of change for change sake - not necessarily a wise or better change, but a heavily messaged media coerced change which placed corporate media back in a roll of co-policy makers - something denied them under a CPC regime.

Gabby in QC

I would agree with you about some PCs wanting to get back to the glory days without the Alliance/Reform contingent, deluding themselves into thinking that resurrecting the PCs may better their election prospects against Justin Trudeau's Liberals. But apparently there are only a few Reform MPs left in the CPC, so I fail to understand their argument.

But I also fail to understand yours. I don't see how maligning the Mulroney era is going to help the CPC. Yes, there were some Mulroney policies you may have disagreed with, maybe even all of them, but how does it benefit the current CPC to resurrect those objections? Are your objections not as unhelpful and unwarranted -- I'm even tempted to say "bitter" -- as those of Sinclair Stevens?

P.S.: To be fair, "Judge throws out 1987 Sinclair Stevens conflict decision
CBC News Posted: Dec 17, 2004 6:59 AM ET"

Don Morris

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I too remember the liar Sinclair Stevens and his fantastic tales.
And don't even mention Brian(%^$$#@&!!) Mulroney to me, the SOB that gave his endorsement to Justin Trudeau the moment he became Leader of the LPC!


Dear Gabby:

Yes Mulroney did a few good things: he got rid of the National Energy Policy, privatized a few things, tamed the Post Office, and brought in the Canada-US Free Trade deal.

But I think all of this pales in comparison with the outrages that I catalogued. Particularly since most of the good stuff occurred in his first term while the bad stuff was mostly concentrated in his second term.

I am old enough to have been eligible to vote in every election where Mulroney was the party leader and I am proud to say that I never voted for him, and I don't feel sorry that I didn't. I saw Reagan in the US, Thatcher in the UK, and Mulroney in Canada, and thought: boy, Canada has been screwed.

The day the Kim Campbell PC's were massacred at the polls was my proudest day as a Canadian. And judging by how the general public feels about Mulroney, I don't think I am alone in this.

Gabby in QC

Cincinnatus, I view some of the policies or attempted changes you list as Mulroney’s “anti-conservative betrayals” differently.

The GST or value added tax: a tax consumers can see upfront and that they can avoid if they absolutely refuse to pay it. Conversely, would-be tax cheats have a tougher time in cheating the tax system. Better that kind of tax than one that cannot be avoided, like income, property, and school taxes.

“Huge deficits”: inherited from Pierre Trudeau.
“Under Trudeau the debt grew tenfold, while federal spending ballooned from $13 billion to $109 billion. His 1984 deficit, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, would equal $133 billion in current terms.”
Also “… the overhaul [of the tax system] boldly implemented by Michael Wilson, the former Conservative finance minister, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, paid off in the revenue surge that followed a few years later (for those lucky Liberals) when the economy picked up steam.”

Meech: if ratified when all provinces had initially agreed to do so, Canada might have been spared the Quebec/ROC tensions that ensued. Remember, Pierre Trudeau was a major influence in its defeat. Furthermore, the 5 main amendments to Trudeau’s constitution, not the 1967 one but the 1982 one, recognized provincial powers:
Quebec a distinct society, similar to PM Harper’s motion of the Quebecois constituting a nation within a united Canada.
Prospective constitutional amendments needed the approval of provinces, not imposition by the federal government.
Enhanced provincial jurisdiction over immigration.
Allowed provincial opting out of federal programs.
Appointment of senators & SC judges from a list provided by provinces rather than the PM’s prerogative.

An interesting take on Meech here: http://bit.ly/1nhAXrq
In any case, the past is past and revisiting it is useless if all that does is open up old wounds. Thanks for your reply.


The Progressive Canadian Party may be a rump party, but I do think if the Tories want to defeat Justin Trudeau in 2019 they will have to be a big tent and moderate. I am a former Progressive Conservative and probably more a supporter of Brian Mulroney than Stephen Harper, but I realize with any big tent party you need to accept some who you may not agree with. I think the populists element of the Reform Party is fine, its more some of the more right wing policies which have limited appeal. Unlike the Chretien/Martin government, Justin Trudeau is decidedly left wing and he must be defeated in 2019 so if that means supporting someone more centrists than our own views so be it. At least a Red Tory is far better than the tax and spend Trudeau Liberals. The number one goal in 2019 should be to defeat Justin Trudeau and if that means moving closer to the centre so be it.


...except it doesn't mean moving closer to the centre. It means showing the electorate that you have principles and are willing to stick to them in the face of a hostile media.
I loathed the CPC's. I just loathed the Libs more, and the Dippers more than that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories