| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Little Big Man
Gender: Unknown
|
 Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 9:51 am Post subject: John Tory to be cross of Bill Davis and Mike Harris? |
 |
|
"Third Way" stance on nukes (Cameco will be happy) and socialist stance on "pushing" conservation (hint to John Tory: the price system of free markets makes it unnecessary to push conservation...you don't waste electricity when you are paying for 100% of your own use, at market rates...no subsidized energy-saving devices, no rationing, etc.). Turning most non-nuke power generation over to private sector is already Ontario policy.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/07/16/544535.html
Tory has the right name
He's criss-crossing the London region to try to convince Conservatives he has the right stuff to lead the provincial PCs.
CHIP MARTIN, Free Press Politics Reporter 2004-07-16 02:00:46
He has by far the best name of the three contenders seeking to lead Ontario's Progressive Conservatives. And John Tory is anxious to show he also has the best stuff to lead the party back into power.
The Progressive Conservatives pick their new leader Sept. 18 in Toronto.
In meet-and-greet sessions with party activists in London, Sarnia, Mt. Brydges, Woodstock and Simcoe this week, Tory is reaching out in a bid to rebuild a party saddled with a deficit of $9 million and the role of opposition at Queen's Park.
In London yesterday, Tory, 50, said as leader he'd make a concerted effort to win back traditional Conservatives, urban voters and those in the north, and to attract greater support from new Canadians and women.
In an interview with The Free Press, Tory called himself a "moderate conservative," although some in his party have labelled him a "red Tory" for his progressive stance on social issues. He is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage, for instance.
Tory has never held elected office, unlike his two rivals, Jim Flaherty and Frank Klees, both cabinet ministers in the Conservative government that was routed in October by Dalton McGuinty's Liberals.
Tory says the former Conservative regime ultimately lost favour with Ontarians because it failed to consult those touched by its decisions.
"Our government came in with a necessary zeal to clean up some of the mess that had been left by the combination of the recession and the NDP," he said. "As we spent more time in government, we started to believe we could continue to make decisions that often seemed to be done in a way that provoked confrontations.
"We made decisions that seemed increasingly removed from the people they impacted."
Tory is trying to connect with the grassroots of the party as he criss-crosses the province.
He said he's been in about 100 of the province's 103 ridings, and he'll be back in the London region again, where his major supporters include Conservative campaigner Dave Tennant and lawyer Mort Glanville, a former president of the federal PCs.
Tory said his leadership would be a cross between the inclusive approach of former premier Bill Davis, for whom he worked as principal secretary, and that of Mike Harris, who expressed a clarity of purpose and lived up to his promises.
On electricity, Tory said, if premier, he would depoliticize Ontario Power Generation and its successor companies, find the most competent managers possible and let them run it free of political interference.
In addition, he'd turn more power stations over to private operators, expand the use of nuclear power and push consumers to conserve power.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
 Dark HorseJoined: 05 Jul 2004 Total posts: 265 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's surreal. Almost every turn of phrase you see in a Frank Klees speech shows up in a John Tory press release less than a week later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reformer4Life
Location: Toronto, Ontario Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
1) Klees
2) Flaherty
3)
_________________
US debt clock:
"The heck with the courts, eh? You know, one of these days we in this country are going to stand up and say, 'the politicians make the laws and the courts do not.'"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Guy Smiley Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Total posts: 2 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Little big man, why don't you run for leader? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Little Big Man
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guy Smiley wrote: | | Little big man, why don't you run for leader? |
A: One needs a team.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer Joined: 31 Oct 2003 Total posts: 1196 Location: TARA/OWEN SOUND Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would support John Tory for leader? Remember Ernie Eves? Hello. As a taxpayer I can't afford letting the Tories run the government I mean they can't even run their own party fiancially(9Million$ debt) Reality check when the media and those community leaders start giving out their wisdom on who should or shouldn't be leader and what policies they should or shouldn't push, its time to do the opposite. We need a Reform party in ontario! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 16/ 04 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer wrote: | | I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would support John Tory for leader? Remember Ernie Eves? Hello. As a taxpayer I can't afford letting the Tories run the government I mean they can't even run their own party fiancially(9Million$ debt) Reality check when the media and those community leaders start giving out their wisdom on who should or shouldn't be leader and what policies they should or shouldn't push, its time to do the opposite. We need a Reform party in ontario! |
Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer,
I think this is just hilarious! This John Tory is not conservative, fiscally or socially, he isn't even Conservative as the majority of Tories, if were honestly speaking, would admit the only thing John is Traditional Tory about is his name. You know your PC party isn't conservative anymore when its top leadership candidate is less conservative than the Liberal Premier.
My prediction is the Green, Family Coalition and Freedom Parties will merge their respective 3rd, 4th and 5th top-down provincial parties in Ontario, their right-wing environmental, social and fiscal conservative agendas into one united party called the Unity Party of Ontario by the next election in 2007 in order to take advantage of this McGuinty-Tory show-down or else they will never get their collective acts together and individually fail for life. If not, look for Reform to come back and become the fourth party in the Legislature with their grassroot bottom-up policy agenda or perhaps lap the lowly NDP in a run for third. Either way, a top-down Unity or bottom-up Reform party will make the 2007 election exciting over the Dalt-John snoozefest the Liberals, Tories, same old stories are trying to make into to be. Also a Unity party, including Green, Family Coalition and Freedom parties, just might be the hard right turn Jim Flaherty has been asking for to counter the NDP as he has supposedly stated to his pals at Queen's Park in the past that he likes what the fringe parties like Family and Freedom offer but they are just single-issue movements, focusing on social and fiscal only, and can't offer a extreme right-wing alternative to the Ontario (Red) Tories he wants (or has always wanted) to lead. Realistically though, I am sure that was just some mental masturbation and he knows, as a successful politician, there's no place like home and parties like Family and Freedom aren't it.
But this Unity idea may just be the Conservative trial balloon the Flaherty camp types are releasing to just see how realistic the chance is to unite the right provincially the way they did federally and have Jim as the Harper hero. Personally, I would put my money on the people's choice - the Reform Party of Ontario - instead of some elite Right alliance. Just a thought of a Cook vs. DeJong-Gori-McKeever ticket in 2007!
Yours in Reform,
Paul
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dark Horse Joined: 05 Jul 2004 Total posts: 265 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 17/ 04 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The party the Greens should be merging with is the Tories, not the Family Coalition. It's pretty ridiculous to imagine libertarians of any sort - Green, Blue, etc. - to be joining hands with a party that believes that the state should be wasting its time imposing its morality on people... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul McKeever
Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Total posts: 481 Location: Oshawa, Ontario Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 07/ 17/ 04 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Young Reformer wrote: | | My prediction is the Green, Family Coalition and Freedom Parties will merge their respective 3rd, 4th and 5th top-down provincial parties in Ontario, their right-wing environmental, social and fiscal conservative agendas into one united party called the Unity Party of Ontario by the next election in 2007 in order to take advantage of this McGuinty-Tory show-down... |
That merger will not happen. Freedom Party is growing considerably - in notoriety, members, candidates, money etc.. Our 2007 election bid is already in preparation. And, even were that not the case, the differences between Freedom Party and the Greens are irreconcilable.
As just one example, the Greens oppose choice in education, favouring a 100% government-owned and operated schooling system (zero private). The Greens propose (in their policies, not in their vaguely and deceptively worded election platform) to inculcate what are in fact socialist values in children. "Education should be rooted in Green philosophy" which the Green party describes as "co-operation" instead of "competition" (i.e., as central planning instead of market interaction) says the Green Party's policies.
The Greens also have an integrity problem. For example, during the election of 2003, they referred to their stance on education as "choice in schools". While economically clearly interventionist, they bill themselves as "fiscally conservative" to avoid being written off as the radically left-wing party they are. How do they achieve this feat of political cross dressing? By focussing the public's attention on a few bits of their policies that look conservative, and downplaying the context. For example, Green Leader Frank de Jong and I were on Toronto's CityTV a day or so before the vote. De Jong made the completely incredible claim that his party is more right wing than the Conservatives. His reasoning: his party, like Freedom Party, was promising to eliminate the disastrous 4.3 cent price cap on electricity. What he didn't tell everyone, at the same time, was about the high degree of costly regulation that he would impose on the electricity industry and its consumers, from teeth to tail. Another example, both federally and provincially the Greens go about claiming to be "fiscally conservative" on the ground that they would decrease income taxes. What they do not tell people is that they would impose handfuls of new taxes and subsidies to discourage automobile use, etc..
If you want to understand the irreconcilable differences between Freedom Party and the Greens in a short stroke: Freedom Party policies would free the economy to increase supply enough to meet demand, whereas the Greens would force both supply and demand to be reduced. Also, unlike the Greens, Freedom Party does not hide its agenda. The reason: we are confident that it is right and will be well-received by people who know the difference between a deficit and a debt, a tax cut and a subsidy...and people who just wish the government wouldn't intrude so heavily in such things as the raising of a child.
Or as I described it in our 2003 election literature:
I firmly believe that the greatness of a society is determined not by its government’s tendency to divide a single loaf of bread evenly, but by the efforts of its members to produce enough loaves for everyone. Individual choice, personal responsibility, dignity, prosperity and justice. That is Freedom Party’s vision for Ontario over the next four or five years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 17/ 04 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul McKeever wrote: | | Young Reformer wrote: | | My prediction is the Green, Family Coalition and Freedom Parties will merge their respective 3rd, 4th and 5th top-down provincial parties in Ontario, their right-wing environmental, social and fiscal conservative agendas into one united party called the Unity Party of Ontario by the next election in 2007 in order to take advantage of this McGuinty-Tory show-down... |
That merger will not happen. Freedom Party is growing considerably - in notoriety, members, candidates, money etc.. Our 2007 election bid is already in preparation. And, even were that not the case, the differences between Freedom Party and the Greens are irreconcilable.
As just one example, the Greens oppose choice in education, favouring a 100% government-owned and operated schooling system (zero private). The Greens propose (in their policies, not in their vaguely and deceptively worded election platform) to inculcate what are in fact socialist values in children. "Education should be rooted in Green philosophy" which the Green party describes as "co-operation" instead of "competition" (i.e., as central planning instead of market interaction) says the Green Party's policies.
The Greens also have an integrity problem. For example, during the election of 2003, they referred to their stance on education as "choice in schools". While economically clearly interventionist, they bill themselves as "fiscally conservative" to avoid being written off as the radically left-wing party they are. How do they achieve this feat of political cross dressing? By focussing the public's attention on a few bits of their policies that look conservative, and downplaying the context. For example, Green Leader Frank de Jong and I were on Toronto's CityTV a day or so before the vote. De Jong made the completely incredible claim that his party is more right wing than the Conservatives. His reasoning: his party, like Freedom Party, was promising to eliminate the disastrous 4.3 cent price cap on electricity. What he didn't tell everyone, at the same time, was about the high degree of costly regulation that he would impose on the electricity industry and its consumers, from teeth to tail. Another example, both federally and provincially the Greens go about claiming to be "fiscally conservative" on the ground that they would decrease income taxes. What they do not tell people is that they would impose handfuls of new taxes and subsidies to discourage automobile use, etc..
If you want to understand the irreconcilable differences between Freedom Party and the Greens in a short stroke: Freedom Party policies would free the economy to increase supply enough to meet demand, whereas the Greens would force both supply and demand to be reduced. Also, unlike the Greens, Freedom Party does not hide its agenda. The reason: we are confident that it is right and will be well-received by people who know the difference between a deficit and a debt, a tax cut and a subsidy...and people who just wish the government wouldn't intrude so heavily in such things as the raising of a child.
Or as I described it in our 2003 election literature:
I firmly believe that the greatness of a society is determined not by its government’s tendency to divide a single loaf of bread evenly, but by the efforts of its members to produce enough loaves for everyone. Individual choice, personal responsibility, dignity, prosperity and justice. That is Freedom Party’s vision for Ontario over the next four or five years. |
Paul McKeever,
Well, whether the Unity party happens or not, a Right-Wing merger will have to happen if the Blue Tories (Green, Family Coalition, Freedom, ect., ect.) want to stop the Red Tories (Ontario PC Party). Now, whether it is Frank de Jong, Giuseppe Gori or Paul McKeever leading or likely Jim Flaherty, who would likely cross the floor with his team before the next election and recall this Unity party the Ontario Conservative Party, doing so doesn't matter. What matter is that with the combined environmental, social and fiscal Conservative agenda of this United turned Conservative party, a true-blue Flaherty would go into 2007 way ahead of red tory John Tory and with the knowledge that if Mike Harris can beat Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal then so can he.
Blue-Conservative Flaherty, the Environmental-Conservative Green, Social-Conservative Family Coalition and Fiscal-Conservative Freedom have no other choice as this next Ontario PC leadership race is Jim's last kick at the can. With Tory leading the leadership polls from between 65% and 85%, Flaherty needs to find a true-blue party and the red tory-strong Ontario PCs aren't it. He has stated publicly and privately that he wishes to continue the Common Sense Revolution as his primary mission in provincial politics and would give up being a member of the Ontario PC to do this. But only if the chance was politically realistic. That means all three of these parties shutting the collective mouths and agreeing to the terms of the Common Sense Revolution and running on that platform individually, united as one.
If these Small 3, who during the last 2003 election combined for a 3.8% vote and Green at 2.8%, Family Coalition at 0.8%, Freedom 0.2%, can't get it together then forget Flaherty, a united Blue Tory party or furthering the Common Sense Revolution in the province politically. Sepertately, each one of these parties will lose the unity Jim can give you, one platform they can all agree with the Common Sense Revolution and realize a Freedom voter won't vote Family Coalition because it is too socially conservative, a Family Coalition voter won't vote Freedom because it is too fiscally conservative and neither Family Coalition nor Freedom voters will vote Green because they aren't interested in environmental conservatism.
So, it's your call, Small 3! Stand united or devide you will fall. If you guys put it together, there are automatically 32 Blue Tory seats to pick up that rejected Red Toryism when the Ontario PCs lost their 56 seats to just 24 and 34.6% under Ernie Eves and John thinks he can do better! I hear COR and Reform may have themselves united this summer under a merged Ontario Confederation of Reform party label since the Reform Party of Ontario name has been taken and can't be used. They said they didn't care about the name, just policy and I guess they really didn't, good for them in taking my advice to restart Reform in Ontario after that pathetic Ontario budget, even if it is with a merger with the COR party instead of doing it from the ground up.
Yours in Reform,
Paul
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason Kauppinen
Joined: 26 Dec 2001 Total posts: 12100 Location: Kingston, Ontario Age: 32 Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 07/ 17/ 04 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's that?
John Tory would be a cross of Bill Davis, Ernie Eves, Bob Rae, and Dalton McWimpy?
Since when is that news?
_________________
Warren Kinsella is the Jar Jar Binks of Canadian Politics
1985 (OPC Minority)/1987 (Loss) /2003 (Loss)/2007 (Loss) --The OPC Red Tory record.
"Back in 1215, if you read Magna Carta Libertatum (my italics; I don’t think they had ’em back then), human rights meant the King was restrained by his subjects. Eight hundred years later, “human rights” CHRC-style means that the subjects get restrained by the Crown, in the form of Queen Jennifer. I liked it better the old way." -Mark Steyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| The Masked Tory Joined: 21 Jan 2004 Total posts: 592 Location: The Great Right Wilderness Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 17/ 04 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Young Reformer wrote: |
.....or likely Jim Flaherty, who would likely cross the floor with his team before the next election and recall this Unity party the Ontario Conservative Party, doing so doesn't matter.....
........ Flaherty needs to find a true-blue party and the red tory-strong Ontario PCs aren't it. He has stated publicly and privately that he wishes to continue the Common Sense Revolution as his primary mission in provincial politics and would give up being a member of the Ontario PC to do this. |
Um. First if you think the majority of Flaherty's team would leave the PCPO for something like what you suggests, then I want some of what you are smoking. Most of his team worked for Belinda Stronach, and are moderate Tories.
And could you please provide a location for the quote, or some proof that Jim has publically stated he would give up being a member of the Ontario PC Party in order to continue the CSR.
I await your link to the quote where he said t his. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Little Big Man
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 18/ 04 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Young Reformer wrote: | | the Environmental-Conservative Green |
You've been duped if you believe that the Greens are conservative at all. They are not, which makes a merger of the Greens with the FCP or FPO as sensible as a merger of the Ontario Communist Party with the FCP or FPO.
| Quote: | | a Family Coalition voter won't vote Freedom because it is too fiscally conservative |
That's way off. Family Coalition voters have no real objections to Freedom party at all. Family Coalition voters don't vote for other parties primarily because only the Family Coalition offers them the religious (perhaps Roman Catholic) agenda they are seeking on social matters.
| Quote: | | and neither Family Coalition nor Freedom voters will [not?] vote Green because they aren't interested in environmental conservatism. |
No, Family Coalition voters and Freedom Party voters won't vote Green because they have no interest in environmental communism.
| Quote: | | Stand united or devide you will fall. |
Oil and water do not unite.
| Quote: | | If you guys put it together, there are automatically 32 Blue Tory seats to pick up that rejected Red Toryism |
The public didn't reject red Toryism. They rejected the PC party. You could more plausibly argue that, by electing the Liberals, they embraced red Toryism. The fact of the matter, however, is that they voted for a "change" of faces because they had heard nothing but bad news about the Ernie Eves PCs for over a year. Also, the PC party had dropped the ball, lost its sense of direction and purpose, and had become intellectual dead-weight: no new ideas, no vision for Ontario, just a few ill-thought-out, expensive, subsidies to key voter demographics - i.e., property tax cuts for seniors, mortgage interest deductibility for the whack of folks buying houses in a housing boom.
Ernie Eves had moved the party away from following a course toward freer markets and privatization, replacing that agenda with a short-sighted voter-incentive program. In other words, he put the party into Liberal mode. The problem: if the public wants Liberals, they will elect Liberals, not PCs in red drag. Also, by changing course, the PCs abandoned many voters who had voted for the party under Harris: for example, conservative historian Michael Bliss wrote a column in the National Post effectively saying he had decided to stay home rather than vote for the Eves conservatives.
Those in the PC party who like Liberal mode (i.e., the red Tories) are backing John Tory. The Toronto Star is backing Tory, implicitly: that should be the first sign that something smells. The Sun (which is most comfortable in red Tory territory...who can forget the shamelessly manipulative "Catherine Watch" - Catherine Clark, that is - that was covered ad nauseum as Joe Clark fought the 2000 election) will back John Tory, if it hasn't already...just watch. Bottom line: the establishment wants its yes-man...an ole' boy..."one of us". They may get it, and, if so, we will officially have two Liberal establishment parties again.
| Quote: | | I hear COR and Reform may have themselves united this summer |
Well, that must have been difficult: the Confederation of Regions "party" is two people: Dick and Elaine Butson. Perhaps the more difficult part would be getting CoR to merge with a party that doesn't exist: Reform Ontario.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 19/ 04 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Little Big Man wrote: | | Young Reformer wrote: | | the Environmental-Conservative Green |
You've been duped if you believe that the Greens are conservative at all. They are not, which makes a merger of the Greens with the FCP or FPO as sensible as a merger of the Ontario Communist Party with the FCP or FPO.
| Quote: | | a Family Coalition voter won't vote Freedom because it is too fiscally conservative |
That's way off. Family Coalition voters have no real objections to Freedom party at all. Family Coalition voters don't vote for other parties primarily because only the Family Coalition offers them the religious (perhaps Roman Catholic) agenda they are seeking on social matters.
| Quote: | | and neither Family Coalition nor Freedom voters will [not?] vote Green because they aren't interested in environmental conservatism. |
No, Family Coalition voters and Freedom Party voters won't vote Green because they have no interest in environmental communism.
| Quote: | | Stand united or devide you will fall. |
Oil and water do not unite.
| Quote: | | If you guys put it together, there are automatically 32 Blue Tory seats to pick up that rejected Red Toryism |
The public didn't reject red Toryism. They rejected the PC party. You could more plausibly argue that, by electing the Liberals, they embraced red Toryism. The fact of the matter, however, is that they voted for a "change" of faces because they had heard nothing but bad news about the Ernie Eves PCs for over a year. Also, the PC party had dropped the ball, lost its sense of direction and purpose, and had become intellectual dead-weight: no new ideas, no vision for Ontario, just a few ill-thought-out, expensive, subsidies to key voter demographics - i.e., property tax cuts for seniors, mortgage interest deductibility for the whack of folks buying houses in a housing boom.
Ernie Eves had moved the party away from following a course toward freer markets and privatization, replacing that agenda with a short-sighted voter-incentive program. In other words, he put the party into Liberal mode. The problem: if the public wants Liberals, they will elect Liberals, not PCs in red drag. Also, by changing course, the PCs abandoned many voters who had voted for the party under Harris: for example, conservative historian Michael Bliss wrote a column in the National Post effectively saying he had decided to stay home rather than vote for the Eves conservatives.
Those in the PC party who like Liberal mode (i.e., the red Tories) are backing John Tory. The Toronto Star is backing Tory, implicitly: that should be the first sign that something smells. The Sun (which is most comfortable in red Tory territory...who can forget the shamelessly manipulative "Catherine Watch" - Catherine Clark, that is - that was covered ad nauseum as Joe Clark fought the 2000 election) will back John Tory, if it hasn't already...just watch. Bottom line: the establishment wants its yes-man...an ole' boy..."one of us". They may get it, and, if so, we will officially have two Liberal establishment parties again.
| Quote: | | I hear COR and Reform may have themselves united this summer |
Well, that must have been difficult: the Confederation of Regions "party" is two people: Dick and Elaine Butson. Perhaps the more difficult part would be getting CoR to merge with a party that doesn't exist: Reform Ontario. |
Little Big Man,
All good points, you should become a professional politician with all the well-thought out answers here, eh? But on to the show, I don't know if I have been duped with believing the media hype that Green is the Environmental-Conservative choice amongst Ontarian and Canadian voters. I may agree they provincially aren't as fiscally conservative as Freedom nor as socially conservative Family Coalition but they do commit themselves towards the goal of conserving the environment within their policies and platform thus are environmentally conservative. And as neither Freedom nor Family Coalition have a strong Environmental-Conservative plank in their platform, as the Greens are the fourth party in the province and as they are currently seen as right-wing by many people within the electorate, one must understand that even if the Green party of Ontario was the Ontario Communist Party, the people's electorate don't see as such and the people are always right when they vote and I believe the electorate voted to see the Small 3 unite their real right before 2007.
I don't know about that. An average Family Coalition voter is usually a caring, compassionate conservative. In other words, a fiscal liberal from the Protestant or Catholic social gospel variety, who wouldn't vote Freedom because it is too tight with the belt on social program spending, would be less likely to help out the poor or needy and would likely cut welfare by percentages never seen during the Harris Tory years thus too fiscally conservative. But yes, the neutral to anti stances taken by Freedom against moral issues towards a social conservative bend are likely the main factor as well.
Perhaps neither will vote for Green because they are "communist" but I think it is more likely that Green isn't fiscally or socially conservative thus isn't one of their special one-issue agendas when those type of voters go to vote. This isn't saying Greens aren't conservative however, as the leader Frank de Jong has stated he and the Greens would bring the "protection, preservation, and restoration of the natural world" onto the mainstream political stage, if that's not conservative environmentally than I don't know what is. Not only are they conservative on environmental matters, but the Ontario public also believes them to be fiscally conservative as well, perhaps more so than Freedom but like Freedom, lose marks on being socially progressive or liberal. Oil and water do not unite perhaps but all three of these parties are conservative in different areas on single issue agendas. People in the know politically and are followers of Small 3 fring politics are already saying these bunch must stand united or divided they will fall.
True enough, the public didn't just reject Red Toryism but the whole Ontario PC Party but, by the end of last year, the Tories had done a good job conning the public into thinking it was only a part of the party and, since the start of this year, they have been saying it wasn't their party but the other one. Chance was what they voted for only to get the same. I actually think Ontarians knew what they were doing and thought Mike Harris cut back too much and it was time to loosen the fiscal belt. Plus Ernie Eves was presenting a Red Tory agenda and the public felt why go Red Tory when you can elect a real Liberal with a real plan for change instead of more of the same status-quo bunk. Freer markets and privatization were definitely not on the menu for Ontario voters during Red October and perhaps that is why the Tories will go with John Tory for a fight for the left and why the importance of a unite the far-right Small 3 has just become that more important.
As a Far-Right Small 3 united, there would be 32 Blue Tory seats automatically pick up because this Unity party would hold the policy the Red Tories and Liberals rejected, because like you said, if the public wants Liberals, they will elect Liberals, not PCs in red drag. I find it sad those three provincial political parties don't wish to quit the split of that right-wing vote to the PCs and will likely finish with a similar vote total again along with numbers of seats at Queen's Park in the Ontario Legislature as well. Yeah, but even with them changing course, the PCs may abandoned many voters who had voted for the party under Harris but, because of their united power, will at worse finish third. With a turn to the left, they have guaranteed they will finish ahead of the NDP who will be cut by, not one, but two parties on the left.
Are you telling me a conservative historian like Michael Bliss, who decided to stay home instead of vote for the Eves Red Tories, wouldn't just love a united far-right Unity Party in the next Ontario election, even if it was just a union between the FCP and FP and a leadership race between Giuseppe Gori and Paul McKeever, without the environmentally conservative Greens and their leader de Jong who hold the bulk of the Small 3's votes at ? I thought so! Instead, Green, Family Coalition and Freedom are letting John Tory and the Red Tories go with a free pass into the Legislature. The Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail even the Toronto Sun have only two choices: Dalton McGuinty or Tory. They don't have a third choice because there is no exciting Unity Party as of yet and no wonder Flaherty or his people talked over their options awhile back, because currently in Ontario there is no other option for Conservatives like Jim, even unfounded rumour heard about COR working with Reformers this summer to form a provincial political pact in Hamilton, especially if it is just three people (don't forget Tilson Beaumont) and a non-existant Reform Ontario!
Yours in Reform,
Paul
PS - If there was a Unity Party leadership race, I could see the FCP's Al Walker from Sault Ste. Marie, Enzo Granzotto from York South-Weston and Linda Freiburger from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound taking a run plus FP's from Silvio Ursomarzo from Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Andrew Falby from Sarnia-Lambton and Trueman Tuck from Prince Edward-Hastings making it an interesting one for all right-wingers across the Province of Ontario, just think of the possibilities and membership sales.
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 07/ 19/ 04 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Masked Tory wrote: | | Young Reformer wrote: |
.....or likely Jim Flaherty, who would likely cross the floor with his team before the next election and recall this Unity party the Ontario Conservative Party, doing so doesn't matter.....
........ Flaherty needs to find a true-blue party and the red tory-strong Ontario PCs aren't it. He has stated publicly and privately that he wishes to continue the Common Sense Revolution as his primary mission in provincial politics and would give up being a member of the Ontario PC to do this. |
Um. First if you think the majority of Flaherty's team would leave the PCPO for something like what you suggests, then I want some of what you are smoking. Most of his team worked for Belinda Stronach, and are moderate Tories.
And could you please provide a location for the quote, or some proof that Jim has publically stated he would give up being a member of the Ontario PC Party in order to continue the CSR.
I await your link to the quote where he said t his. |
The Masked Tory,
Chill out, guy! I come back from a nice weekend of fishing, rest and relaxation to have some balaclava-wearing Tory-rist question my credentials and threaten my reputation here, give me a break. Re-read what I said, as you are deeply emotionally involved with Jim and know his personal agenda, you would know the real Team Flaherty doesn't like the Ontario PC party the way it is right now. I didn't once say Flaherty and his team would leave the Tories right now as a group a la David Orchard, but I did say he would do what he could to make a real Conservative party, not Progressive. What I also said was Jim would start a Bluer Tory party if he knew it would help him politically and had a chance to win, do you disagree with that?
You may also have noticed alot of his best buds in caucus like John O'Toole and outside campaign kin like David Scrymgeour have left him for John Tory (here's hoping John runs in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey - fingers crossed), if that's party loyalty then Flaherty is obviously not part of its future, other than a high-profile MPP living on government cheques until either he is defeated or decides not to run again. Yes, most of his team is from Belinda Stronach, and yes, they are Red Tories but I was talking about his True Blue only inner circle of toughy hawks, not his B.S. Red-Blue coalition campaign team, which as you and Leslie Noble know a rainbow coalition is part of the leadership race game if you are serious in our ever-diverse Ontario. He has said as much before and after Ernie Eves got elected, if that's not good enough for you, you should know better than us as you are top-secret elite with him, right? I believe he actually did make a quote like that publicly in a scrum after his trip to Mexico, something to the effect that he would give his membership card to keep the CSR agenda going on in Ontario for those who voted for him in the leadership, big thing at the time (obviously not big enough for you to note). You can't be serious about wanting me to find every last media note on the Jim-Bo wish to get back the CSR to the point of selling his soul, if you can't believe then don't but you know it's true as high as you are in your Tory drama.
Await all you want, I think Ontario PC leadership race is a joke, worth only enough to add my penny of what I've heard of the grapevine. Believe it or not, it just simply isn't worth the time to look up links on news that is worthless, now anything on the Liberal Party of Ontario right now might be worth my while. But since you are up there in the shadowy OPCYA backrooms of the BradGate, could you also check into the Unity party thing his bunch were talking about awhile back because I am sure there are many Blue Tories other than Paul McKeever here interested in hearing the inside on that rumour from someone as connected and respectable as yourself but if people at Eye, TL or Pundit (remember Flaherty's Ace?) aren't good enough for you, that's really tough and too bad for you The Masked Tory ... um ... for who those allusive 22 Metro Toronto seats will continue to remain out of reach for many, many more years to come a la Larry Grossman (remember Ronald Kanter and the good old Quadra Factor jinx in Ontario) - hopefully.
Yours in Reform,
Paul
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
|
|
| John Tory to be cross of Bill Davis and Mike Harris? |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
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
|
|
|
