Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada

message: It's splitting hairs as to whether the Progressive Canadian Party is a continuation of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - betrayed by its leadership in October 2003 - or a new party.
The Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party) was formed by members of the Progressive Conservative Party who do not wish to be associated with the Alliance.  
In January 2004, they applied to Elections Canada for registration under the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada name.  This name was no acceptable to the Chief Electoral Officer.  In March 2004, the Progressive Canadian name was accepted.
----
I don't think it's accurate to state that this party existed from 1867-2003.  My take on the subject would be that the "Progressive Convservative Party of Canada" only existed as this specific party from the merger with the Progressives in 1942 until the merger with the Alliance in 2003.  Before that it would have been the previous name, etc. etc.  I'm not a political scientist but it seems that ideologies and ideas change with the wind in Canadian politics.  The "Conservative Party of Canada" in another decade or two (should it survive in this format) will likely look nothing like what it did in its infancy around 2003-2004 after the merger of the PC's and the Alliance, just the same as the Conservative Liberals etc. from the 1850's-60's didn't appear to look anything like the Tories of Bennett in the 30's or of Diefenbaker in the 50's-60's and Mulroney of the 80's-90's.  "Protectionists", "Anti-America", "Pro-Britain" has evolved to become "Pro-Free Trade", "Pro-America", "Forget-Britain" with the only thing common among all of these parties being the word "Conservative" in capital letters...  Cheers, Plasma east 21:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC Party 

message: Some anonymous editor keeps trying to change the ideology from "moderate/centrist conservatism" to "conservatism" without providing any explanation. So why should I have to provide an explanation for reverting? I shouldn't but I will anyway. Let's be clear: the PC Party was, for the largest part of its history, more moderate than other conservative parties, and particlaurly more moderate tan the new Conservative Party of Canada.  Adding "moderate/centrist" is a useful distinction. Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark, Mulroney, Campbell and Charest were all Red Tories, i.e., from the progressive wing of the party, and they led the party from 1960-something almost to the end. Ground Zero 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Michaelm, please calm down. I made an argument for why the ideology should be left as it is, and you have only responded with abuse. I contend that Brian Mulroney was a Red Tory, especially with respect to his stand on capital punishment (he opposed it), fiscal policy (he cut less from government spending than Chretien/Martin), and tax policy (he did not cut taxes anywhere near the degree that Chretien and Martin did). And with regard to you comment, "You should have facts", I will note that you have not provided a single fact to support your argument. But then, why would you start doing so now? You will not win this argument by being abusive. Ground Zero 03:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative?

message: I have reworked the ideology section as it was riddled with errors. Before you challenge me, let me tell you I was involved with the PC Party on many levels (Youth Worker to Campus Assocation President), and met many PCs such as Senator Norman Atkins, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Larry Grossman, Frank Miller, William Davis, and George Hees between 1978 and 1993. I worked and canvassed with candidates in 1979, 1984, and 1988 Dominion elections and with Provincial Ontario candidates in 1985 and 1987. I have an MA in Political Economy and taught second-year students as a TA for two years. I heard George Grant lecture. My family are all life-long tories, but certainly not neocons. 
The "socially-progressive and fiscally conservative" tag for Red Tories is hopelessly simplistic and ignorant of the pre-Confederation and Disraelian traditions within Macdonaldian conservatism.
I have corrected the section, but it is hardly the final edit. When time allows, I will draft a more unified and coherent entry. TrulyTory 06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reworked ideology section 

message: Shouldn't this article be in the same article as the Conservative Party of Canada (historic)?  They were the same party, with just a name change.Habsfannova 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty...just thought it was strange...even if you look in the printed form of the Canadian Encyclopedia, going to "Progressive Conservative Party" says simply, "See: Conservative Party".  I also notice that the colours change in all the diagrams between the switch in name, but the Original Conservatives have the same colour as the "new" Conservatives.  Kind of odd.  I also notice that there's a lot of overlap in descrpitions on the two pages...Habsfannova 17:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, my bad...I misunderstood...just looked at Image:Legendcdnele.PNG and found that the Conservatives post 03 use the same colour as the old Conservatives, while the PCs have a different colour from the two.Habsfannova 00:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: According to your Rump section, there are still Progressive Conservatives who sit in parliament. So the party is not dead. See the extract below. Watercool 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They just use the Tory name...it doesn't mean that the party still exists.  Otherwise, we'd have an article for an "Independent" party.Habsfan|t 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive Conservative Party still exists

message: As the article notes, the PC Party dissolved itself in 2003 at the time of the creation of the new CPC. The CPC is not the legal continuation of the PC Party. The PC Party was, on the other hand, the legal continuaiton of the Liberal-COnservative Party and the (old) Conservative Party.  I don't think that Harper belongs here. He belongs on the CA anda CPC pages only. Ground Zero | t 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Harper

message: Can someone explain to me (in short) the name of this party.
Its a complete contradiction in terms, you can't be progressive and conservative??
has someone told this to the Canadians?
We have a few contradictions down here in Australia but nothing so obvious! I'm a 'l' liberal moron. does that count?
*Just to inform the Wikipedian from Australia, in Canada, the PC Party, was named so because a former member of a party called the Progressive Party of Canada, became leader of the Conservative Party in 1942, and fused some of his ideas with the party and had it renamed the Progressive Conservative Party. As for the recent explanation of the name, former PC leader Joe Clark emphasized the party to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Under PC John Diefenbaker, in the 1950s and early 60s the party began to take progressive stances on controversial issues at the time, such as banning capital punishment, demanding that South Africa be kicked out of the Commonwealth, that racist elements of immigration laws be removed, and that aboriginals be given the right to vote. Still, the party remained very conservative on other issues, such as British imperialism and traditional conservative economic protectionism until replaced by North American continentalism and neoconservatism in the 1980s. [Unsigned comment by User:R-41 -- please sign your comments!]
*"We have a few contradictions down here in Australia but nothing so obvious!" Umm... the most obvious contradiction in Australian politics in that the conservative party in Australia is called the Liberal Party of Australia. Doh! And yes, it is well understood here that this is an oxymoron. Some pundits have called it the Forwards Backwards Party.  Ground Zero | t 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxymoron 

message: The new pc party is the continuation of the old one. Anderchuk 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new pc party is the continuation of the old one because:
*The old party never actually folded, and thus this is its manifestation
*As mentioned many of the old PC party stayed with the new one
*Its initials (PC) are the same and its logo is the same
The electoral officer not letting them use the ProgCdn was as much a political decision as anything; in any event, the electoral officer does not get to decide what is or isn't a party, rather its members do. And these members clearly say they are a member of the PC party. Anderchuk 05:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC Party 

message: Stephen Harper was never elected to Parliament as a PC MP. He spent most of his political career in the Reform Party and Canadian Aliiance fighting against the PC Part. He should not be here. He belongs in the CPC article only. Comments? Ground Zero | t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ground Zero, I totally agree with you on the fact that "Stephen Harper was never elected to Parliament as a PC MP". However the "new" Conservatives are often called Tories, including by the Canadian Press. And the titles of the lists are Tory Prime Ministers of Canada and Tory leaders since Confederation, therefore I believe that Stephen Harper should be included on these lists. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the titles of the list say "Tory", but the article is about the Progressive Conservative Party under the PC name and its previous names. It is not about the new Conservative Party of Canada, which is a different organization. "Tory" is simply a nickname, and is not an official designation (some CA types objected, initially, to the use of Tory for the new party.) Why is there no list in the Canadian Alliance and Reform Party of Canada articles showing Stephen Harper as leader of the successor to those parties? Ground Zero | t 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the number of people who were leaders of the Reform/CA is too short. For reform, there was only one person, and the CA has only had 2. Anyways, I propose that we create a page and move the list there. Your thoughts? Nat Tang  ta | co | em 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to that. I don't think it belongs in the PC article, and can live with it being on separate page. Regards, Ground Zero | t 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Done. Nat Tang  ta | co | em 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks muchly. I've made some edits to the new article. Ground Zero | t 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Tory Prime ministers

message: The Conservative Party of Canada (historical) contains information on the party before it became the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.  This page ought only to contain 1942-2004 (+ senate rump) information.  After all, the Reform Party page and the Canadian Alliance Page are separate.  The conservative party navigation link at the bottom makes no sense unless the proper prune is made mdmenzel 05:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was just reading through the page and thinking the same thing ... 11 years later. Obviously this isn't a hotbed of editing activity :-). If I get some time over the next while, I may attempt a bit of a cleanup. Especially regarding some incorrect information regarding the formation of the Liberal-Conservative party. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article ought to be pruned... there's a lot of duplicate information in another article 

message: In the lead it says the party "with a centre-right stance on economic issues and, after the 1970s, a centrist stance on social issues" that needs to be sourced, this was a party which in the 1980s nearly reintroduced the death penalty and had abortion laws struck down by the supreme court. Threadnecromancer (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Party on social issues

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090302051637/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070610.wcasey-mulroney11/BNStory/Front to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070610.wcasey-mulroney11/BNStory/Front
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is around 50 paragraphs long. Only six footnotes. 208.64.157.5 (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: sources