Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Centrist Party of Canada (CEN)


Guest Gregory Thompson

Recommended Posts

No one really needs a degree for this kind of stuff! Leadership should be about working together and not about how adversarial a person is like the two major parties. I think that what politics needs is change and a party that works for all Canadians!

I admire your enthusiasm. However, if you are going to create such a party you need qualifications. A degree in political science, public/international affairs, history, business/economics, or law etc., or at least a firm grasp in knowledge in some or all of these, is vitally important if you want to start and lead a national political party, let alone become PM.

Do you know how many Senators we have in Canadian Parliament? Have you ever read Marx and Engels' "The Communist Manifesto"? Do you know what the capital of Singapore or Bolivia is? Can you explain to me what the Treaty of Westphalia was? Who is the current Chancellor of Germany?

You need to know how the world and the country works before you can lead in it.

Also, the idea of creating a "centrist" federal party in Canada isn't exactly an original one. But heck i wouldn't mind seeing it!

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to make contact with you. I am working on a similar endeavour... you can e-mail me at [email protected] if you are interested in pursuing a collaborative effort.

Again, I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. By the sounds of i, you're looking for some kind of red tory or blue liberal party. Seeing that the Progressive Canadian Party is the direct successor to the Progressive Conservative Party (established by Progressive Conservatives who'd refused to join in Canadian Alliance, and who consider their new party to be the direct descendant of the Progressive Conservative Party), the Green Party itself is really more or less red tory on the ideological front, but with a moderate environmental streak (the NDP is greener than the Green Party policy-wise), and that the Liberal Party under Ignatieff ha shifted to the blue liberal spectrum, we thus have 3 parties right there that could serve as that centrist party. Do we really need a fourth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it would help for us to be familiar with the parties already out there to avoid reinventing the wheel and just creating more or less of a duplicate of another party under a different name, thus doing nothing more than splitting the centrist vote between the Green Party, blue Liberals, the Progressive Canadian Party, and this new party of yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IF a party has the NDP ideas of social programs, the Libs ideas to balancing of budgets and the Tories ideas of business, then perhaps a new party could be accepted by Canadians. This would ease Canadians minds about their lives with security for all families. If a government can ease the minds of Canadians that everything is ok, then that party will have power.

Security for all families? Can't argue with that I suppose but why do I think you are talking about economic security? What is the role of families in their security? How does government ease the minds of Canadians? They, in fact, continually make the minds of Canadians uneasy.

Ronald Reagan said the thing that would strike the most fear in people would be the phrase, "We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I don't see the point in reinventing the wheel. By the sounds of i, you're looking for some kind of red tory or blue liberal party. Seeing that the Progressive Canadian Party is the direct successor to the Progressive Conservative Party (established by Progressive Conservatives who'd refused to join in Canadian Alliance, and who consider their new party to be the direct descendant of the Progressive Conservative Party), the Green Party itself is really more or less red tory on the ideological front, but with a moderate environmental streak (the NDP is greener than the Green Party policy-wise), and that the Liberal Party under Ignatieff ha shifted to the blue liberal spectrum, we thus have 3 parties right there that could serve as that centrist party. Do we really need a fourth?

I think the idea presented in the original post is to combine the best of all parties and make one centrist party. A sort of, "third way". Something that Hillary Clinton and Robert Reich presented in their view of the American political landscape in the eighties.

A centralization of ideals is not possible without a clear outline of what the mandate of government is and if it's mandate is defined in terms of social engineering it is nothing but a socialist welfare/warfare state and completely incompatible with the concept of a free nation.

Obama may wake up Americans as to what it's government is doing and how far left they have taken them and perhaps Americans will wake up other nations as to what their governments are doing.

If there is to be a new party I would like to see it promise a contraction of government and decentralization of federal powers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Security for all families? Can't argue with that I suppose but why do I think you are talking about economic security? What is the role of families in their security? How does government ease the minds of Canadians? They, in fact, continually make the minds of Canadians uneasy.

Ronald Reagan said the thing that would strike the most fear in people would be the phrase, "We're from the government, and we're here to help!"

Reagan certainly did help in raising federal debt levels, the first to raise the debt since after WWII, since after WWII to be outdone only by Bush Jr. I believe, unless Bush Sr. also surpassed him but I'm not sure about that last one.

So Reagan wasn't one to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the idea presented in the original post is to combine the best of all parties and make one centrist party. A sort of, "third way". Something that Hillary Clinton and Robert Reich presented in their view of the American political landscape in the eighties.

A centralization of ideals is not possible without a clear outline of what the mandate of government is and if it's mandate is defined in terms of social engineering it is nothing but a socialist welfare/warfare state and completely incompatible with the concept of a free nation.

Obama may wake up Americans as to what it's government is doing and how far left they have taken them and perhaps Americans will wake up other nations as to what their governments are doing.

If there is to be a new party I would like to see it promise a contraction of government and decentralization of federal powers.

Perhaps that is what he meant. Considering how eclectic the 'Third Way' is though, essentially involving any possible mixture of left and right, socialist and capitalist ideas, with even proponents of the 'Third Way' themselves not always in agreement as to which combination of right and left ideas to follow, I don't see how a fully integrated party could be formed around such a general idea. More elaboration would be needed as to what policies precisely it would be promoting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now as for that 'Third Way', we could say that Liberal policy under Chretien was Third Way to a certain extent, willing to mix and match various right and left ideas in a pragmatic manner. Some provincial NDP governments have adopted the Third Way too on occasion, sometimes with success, sometimes not (they can gain more centrist votes, but also risk losing core ideologically socialist supporters in the process).

Link to post
Share on other sites

A party of moderation would be ideal. Some group that would use the best of the right and the left and settle it in the centre using real conservatism - conserving what is tried and true and good. AND some one that would hold the real values of liberalism and liberate people from oppression and corruption no matter how normalized and institutionalized. A party that will serve goodness and not tolerate stupidity in the form of common evil...so can you pull that off? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest Gregory Thompson

With all these Conservative scandals in Ottawa happening under the guise of the Conservatives as reported by Richard Colvin, does anyone predict any mass exodus of people leaving the Conservative Party and does anyone believe that people might just remain in the Conservative Party because the other parties are too far left? Does anyone believe that an alternative needs to be there for a check and balance party for either the Liberals or the Conservatives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gregory Thompson

Also, since the Liberals are going to fall apart since Dion's wife is complaining all about it, does anyone believe that a new centrist alternative has to come about? Personally, I think that the Liberals will continue to go down and the only thing to save them is to either launch a leadership convention and a policy convention to show the Canadian people what they really stand for because as of now the Liberals have fallen to their worst showing ever even with Dion as the leader. I also believe that the coalition could have caused this to happen along with the Liberals inability to be a viable alternative to the Conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ddd

Also, since the Liberals are going to fall apart since Dion's wife is complaining all about it, does anyone believe that a new centrist alternative has to come about? Personally, I think that the Liberals will continue to go down and the only thing to save them is to either launch a leadership convention and a policy convention to show the Canadian people what they really stand for because as of now the Liberals have fallen to their worst showing ever even with Dion as the leader. I also believe that the coalition could have caused this to happen along with the Liberals inability to be a viable alternative to the Conservatives.

I think we have enough parties trying to race to the center. I fail to see how adding yet another one trying to plant their flag on that hill is going to do much good, or be worth the effort.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gregory Thompson

It certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have now in Ottawa. Like I have said in previous posts, I still think that the parties have drifted too far to the left and right and have neglected the centre. I also disagree with your assessment that the centre is being occupied by all the parties. There is no party of the two major parties that looks to be a party of the people and of business. You need to have the balance that the Progressive Conservatives had in Ottawa. Create more law officials to oversee the federal government is a good thing to have in Ottawa. You can't just have full-fettered corruption. People can change things for the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have now in Ottawa.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Like I have said in previous posts, I still think that the parties have drifted too far to the left and right and have neglected the centre.

Huh? The NDP still holds some right to call itself a left-wing party, but the Liberals ceased being a meaningfully left-of-centre a couple of decades ago, and the Conservatives under Harper have very purposely steered to the centre.

I also disagree with your assessment that the centre is being occupied by all the parties. There is no party of the two major parties that looks to be a party of the people and of business.

They're whatever the polls tell them to be. How could you be any more centrist than that?

You need to have the balance that the Progressive Conservatives had in Ottawa. Create more law officials to oversee the federal government is a good thing to have in Ottawa. You can't just have full-fettered corruption. People can change things for the better.

Still nobody interested in your movement, eh?

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that the parties have drifted too far to the left and right and have neglected the centre.

What exactly is this so-called centre? To me the 'Centrist Party of Canada' = a party without any core principles and values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is this so-called centre? To me the 'Centrist Party of Canada' = a party without any core principles and values.

That pretty much sums up the Liberals since Chretien took over, and pretty much sums up the Conservatives since they took power. Both parties will pay a certain amount of lip service to their old guard and the more strident members of their youth wings, but all in all, what they stand for is whatever gets them elected. Neither has the balls to really rock the boat (which is why all this talk of Senate reform and ousting the Monarchy is so much twaddle, can you imagine either leader or anyone in either camp in a position to ever becoming leader actually grabbing at something like Constitutional reform?)

Centrism gets a party elected these days. It also guarantees an endemic lack of vision of any kind. One would like to believe that Layton and Duceppe have some sort of vision, but at the end of the day, they too benefit so greatly from the status quo that they wouldn't change anything of substance.

We live in an age of mice. I yearn even for Trudeau who, whatever else you can say about him, had vision and the kahoonas to go for it. Trying to form a Centrist Party of Canada strikes me as the ultimate admission that rather than new projects, many Canadians will be content to feast upon the glories of the past, building new monuments out of the pieces of the old. Medicare was a vision, now it's just a cliche.

If this is truly the direction Canada is going, our epitaph will be "Nothing Was Ventured, Nothing Was Gained".

And it ain't just us. Forty years ago the United States put a man on the Moon. Now Obama is poised to recommend substantial budget cuts that will likely see the manned space program shut down for at least a decade, and looking to China and Russia to prop up the core. The whole world was presented with a golden opportunity to well and truly reform international commerce, but seems to be settling for giving bankers a few more stink eyes. We live in an age of visionless technocrats, and it seems that Harper and Iggy are picture perfect representations of the kind of leadership, quite happy to make insignificant partisan wars, but so utterly cowardly and visionless that they couldn't dare seek to some greater purpose.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

ddd

I think we have enough parties trying to race to the center. I fail to see how adding yet another one trying to plant their flag on that hill is going to do much good, or be worth the effort.

One more might be the critical mass the freaking center needs to implode, with any luck we'd have a black hole.

I'd love to see Ottawa get sucked into oblivion, just like that temple in The Mummy Returns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Greg, it's an admirable effort.

Obviously, it's a first draft, and while there are a lot of good thoughts in there, here are some critiques.

1) You can't be all things to all people. There is a reason the the Conservatives cut spending on various social programs - and that is to feed their constant tax cuts.

2) You have to balance the amount of new spending and revenue negative changes (ie cutting taxes) with increased revenue and cost reductions. While the Conservatives, often claim that a tax cut will magically make our economy boom, creating new companies and new jobs - resulting in increased government revenues - that never actually happens - in the US or Canada.

3) If you're going to make a fundamental change, that no one else is proposing (ie outlawing attack ads), think about why the current structure exists, and the possible detrimental effects of such widespread change. For instance: what would happen if parties lied year after year, and the opposition couldn't call them on it. Wouldn't that encourage all parties to make false election promises?

4) Generally, parties aren't created by people isolated from the political community that come up with policy in a think tank - they usually start with a splinter group from an established party. Before you start a new party, spend some time with an established party, get to learn the ropes, and what motivates people to contribute to a campaign. Try to find someone with poltical credibility to be the face of the party. If you don't have a great background (education or business), it's going to be very hard for you to lead. You would be better suited to being hte puppetmaster policy guy, who writes the policy but lets someone else pretend to lead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4)...If you don't have a great background (education or business), it's going to be very hard for you to lead. You would be better suited to being hte puppetmaster policy guy, who writes the policy but lets someone else pretend to lead.

5) Besides tracking down any old fill-in-blank-here Goes Wild! recordings that might be lying around the Internet, don't leave anything too weird or controversial behind in these forums.

By the latter token I suspect most of us have long precluded any chance of ever being acceptable as a candidate, notwithstanding I'd rather walk barefoot through razor blades and broken glass than run in the first place. Anyhow, good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...