Talk:Red Tory

message: This article does a good job at describing what Red Tory is, but never explains it to an extent that someone not knowing of it would understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.30.245 (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: And another thing: the article says that some Red Tories joined the NDP. Do we have actual examples of people who did this? (David Macdonald doesn't count - he was sleeping with Alexa McDonough at the time, and besides, that was long before the merger.) As a Red Tory, I would have trouble seeing myself as a member of the NDP. Sure, I've voted strategically for the NDP from time to time, but they are still socialists, so I really can't see making that jump. If there are no real examples, I'll delete this reference, because I think it is misleading. Kevintoronto 20:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So this is just speculation: somewhere, some Red Tories may have joined the NDP and the Greens, but we don't actually know this. Even if it is shown that one or two did, the statement in question is probably misleading in that it suggests that this is an important enough phenomenon to be worth mentioning. I'm sure that sometime somewhere a Liberal party member resigned to join the Communist Party, but that isn't worth mentioning either. Kevintoronto 19:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Though I don't know an example, I remember reading an opinion piece in a paper right after the merger that said the natural home for Red Tories was the NDP post merger.  I can't imagine I would be able to find it but I will look. - Jord 13:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Tories joined the NDP? 

message: I think the page is relativly confusing, as "Red Tory" is used in really two completly different things.  Should the page be split into a "Classical" and "Modern" section?Habsfannova 18:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition shift 

message: I removed the reference to the Liberal Pary as a generator of the appellation "red" in Red Tory. This has no basis in anything I have ever heard, read, seen, or lived. Red for reform yes. Red for St. Georges Cross yes. Red for Red Coats yes. These were part of the Tory Tradition in Canada. Red Tories always held the Liberals in little regard, as they were the party of Free-Trade with the USA, and integration of Canada into the American Economic Empire. As well, quite a few Tories went over to the NDP in the 1960's, after Diefenbaker was ousted; particularly in the West, where NDP Socialism is less Socialist than it is Tory. The Manitoba and Saskatchewan NDP are further to the right of the BC and Ontario NDP, and have been since the 1960s and 1970's.  (Posted by TrulyTory, 3 December 2005)
:The Canadian Encyclopedia says that the "red" comes from the socialistic tendenceies: link.  Can you provide sources for the "Redcoats", etc.?Habsfannova 04:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, yes, Canada's national colours are red.  We get it.  It doesn't show a thing about being a "red tory" though.  My personal understanding is that "Red Tories" got their name as an insult from other Tories, who were pro-business, them calling them socialists.  You just can't go "The Canadian Encyclopedia is wrong".  Find a verifiable source that says exactly what you say, or I'll delete it.Habsfannova 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but please find a verifiable source for your claims.  Just because someone or something has British roots does not determine its name.  The Canadian Encyclopedia is a good source.  If you have a book source that says what you want, just say the book and the page, and I'll look it up at my library.Habsfannova 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the "red" in Red Tory comes from? 

message: Tried to more plainly explain the Origins section, since many readers may not know what the One Nation conservatism is, and the thinkers behind it. "Appellation" is a poor word choice too- its currency is low in common understanding and I edited it out. --Mikerussell 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Nation Conservatism means... 

message: *Truly Tory or paragraph 1 is much, much better, quite clearly superior and should be article from which any monor changes can be made. In fact, I would argue it is a great shame to not include the very important philosophical roots behind the term. Paragraph 2 just dumbs the article down to a television sound bit theme. I would argue that anybody familiar with the history of Canadian Political Thought- yes there is such a thing, believe it or not, would favour Paragraph 1. 
*I think the definition drift is fair and accurate to include, but it has to be stated in the correct context- that being that the 'media' and non-Red Tories have ascribed the definition, or misappropriated it to mean a kind of left-wing right winger. Many people that identify with the term, or have been self-identifying themselves as Red Torys in the traditional sense still have a valid and coherent political view. I think that is partly why TT gets frustrated in maintaining here. Maybe he and I are the only Red Torys left, but I doubt it
*I disagree with Hauser, there is still a very real and credible difference between American and Canadian conservatism. Arguments, at least before Bush took power and everybody became so fixated on the diasterous Iraq invasion and Bush's link to Christian fundementalists, could be made that Republican ideology was very similiar to Canadian Liberal party policy. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr., for example, were very uninterested in social conservatism. To my knowledge it was Reagan who first linked 'social' conservatism to a anti-governmnet, libertarian type right-wingism. There is a whole wealth of scholarship on this very issue- again the history of Canadian Poltical Thought testifies to this. Authors like William Christian, Colin Campbell, Barry Cooper, and others who have been interested in George Grant take a very hard historical look at why Liberalism in Canada is pro-business, pro free trade, pro-consumerism, pro-secularism, in that they wish to seprate Church and State as in the US. 
*I think you guys need to remember that you are suppost to, even you don't really believe it, Wikipedia:Assume good faith in every editor's edit. I think in some sense each point could be incorporated in the article, this bickering to me at least, it doesn't seem like completely incompatible with each other. If the article wasn't locked, I might try an edit or two to give some balance to each idea. As far as strict citing of sources, I am much more inclined to support Hauser and Habsfan in their opinions. There cannot be a source for everything in every article. TT should know even in academic schlorship there are all sorts of conventions (because they are conventions they are often just unexamined) that regulate discourse. Plagerism is not a cut and dry thing even in academia. Some license in Wikipedia must be made for 'common knowledge' or 'prevailing opinion', which is not the same thing as saying POV edits should be tolerated. How long has this page been locked anyway?--Mikerussell 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belated Comments on the dispute above 

message: I would like to request a pause in the edit war discussion long enough for an administrator to add an interwiki link to the french article (:fr:Red Tory). Thanks. 67.70.131.186 05:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I don't think protection should be necessary now...anyone else?
We should also probably add Gaullism to the "See also" section.Habsfan|t 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that would be true.  Habsfan|t 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who locked it in the first place? It looks bad to keep it locked for more than just a day or two at max, so tempers cool. If it has been locked for longer- wow- that's a pity. please get someone to unlock it.--Mikerussell 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Someone should put the TT, version 1 Paragraph back in as soon as possible, I cringe when I read the opening paragraph as is.--Mikerussell 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock it and fix the first paragraph 

message: Someone put that all 3 Senators oppossed the merger as a block- at least that is how it read. If this is so, then there should be a source for this, I altered the text, I think all 3 had their own reasons not to join, and thus ameded the wording. McCoy probably is scared to loose her app't if she is from Alberta, since Klein nominated their "elected" senator, and she accepted the app't from Paul Martin fully aware the province wanted to not have her accept it- so she is probably a liberal party confederate more than any ideological Red Tory. Atkins was a big wig in the Ontario PC Party which is still a very vibrant and viable party in the most populous province and I don't recall him voicing any overt rejection of the merger, nor would I identify him as a Red Tory. Murray is probably the only one who is both a Red Tory and ideologically opposed to  the merger with Alliance. 
I also took second paragraph to second section. It reads better, and it does fit with a "general philosphy" topic. I also think the shorter first paragraph is a good hook for further reading, as opposeed to trying to tell too much upfront. I also shortened the headings which again make it look cleaner and more readable, I think they do not depreciation any understanding --Mikerussell 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 PC Senators 

message: :Image:Red Tory.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Red Tory.jpeg

message: Can someone please expand the philosophy section?  More detail could be used on exactly what Red Tories' political beliefs are. 99.247.228.104 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Tory Philosophy 

message: "Red Tories" also exist in England, but in England the term carries a different meaning.
The term is very occasionally used on the sidelines in the UK but at a glance the main source of the use appears to be Phillip Blond's work. And he seems to be using it in conjunction with none other than the term "progressive conservative". Most people here don't really have a clue what "Red Tory" means beyond a direct import of the Canadian phrase and I doubt there are any who would self-define by the label. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This may have been true in 2009 but the term has become quite widely used in UK political circles in the intervening period. The meaning is completely different from the Canadian one, indicating a Conservative who is relatively supportive of government social activity and the welfare state. The article has been modified somewhat to reflect this, but the result isn't very satisfactory. We really need two articles, Red Tory (Canada) and Red Tory (UK). --Ef80 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Supportive of government social activity and the welfare state sounds exactly like a red tory in Canada. I'm not sure whether the term is notable for its use in the UK though - I can't find much in terms of references of original use there. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exist in England" 

message: Here is a link you might find interesting, but I'm not going to add it to the article myself as I am the author of the site and don't want to cause a conflict of interest. But you can add it if you feel it's potentially notable enough. GopherStateMovement (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, though in its current state probably not notable enough to be added to the article. Thanks for putting it here though - maybe someday it will grow and can be included here :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: The article says " It is contrasted with "Blue Tory" or "High Tory"."  I'm not certain that is the case with the latter, I was taught in Political Science that Red Toryism was essentially a 20th century Canadian evolution of High Toryism. What does everyone else think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Toryism in Canada stemmed from the union of centrist reform and tory parties in the mid 1850s to form governing coalitions in the Province of Canada. Some Conservative MPs continued to identify themselves as "Liberal-Conservatives" for that reason, until well into the early 1900s. Red Toryism as a term didn't come around until later, but I don't think that the sort of liberal conservatism it describes came from the Tory tradition - if anything, it came more from the pre-confederation reform tradition, and their desire to keep the radical left out of power in the hung parliaments of the 1850s and 1860s. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with High Toryism

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Red Tory Party (UK) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 6#Red Tory Party (UK) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  AFreshStart (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Red Tory Party (UK)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Now it is plausible that Red Tories embrace views and policies that are somewhat socialistic or social democrat oriented, but it is my understanding that Red relates to Britain and the flag 24.85.234.209 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is my understanding that Red relates to Britain, not socialism (Canadian context) 

message: I have personally only heard this term as a pejorative for members of the UK’s Labour Party who act like Tories (so, Keir Starmer’s lot), in policy, in praising Thatcher, in being praised by the likes of Steve Bannon and other Trumpists, and in getting donations not from many ordinary people but instead from a few mega-wealthy donors. I think this definition should be added, but personally I’m too unwell to do it myself. 95.145.53.178 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A newer definition in the UK (Labour under Starmer)