Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

Removing "Internal Factions" from infobox

Would like to seek a consensus on this. The difference between a Blue Tory/Red Tory is best presented elsewhere in the article. It does not provide an objective reader with an accurate, objective view of the party's ideology. When objectively used, these terms best describe historical conservatism in Canada.

The contemporary Conservative Party is not defined by Red Toryism/Blue Toryism, at all. The latter term is hardly used to describe any federal Conservative politician.

"Red Tory" describes practically nobody in the parliamentary caucus. From my experience, the only people who use this term are those trying to present the party in a pejorative manner. I challenge anybody in support of this to tell me the leader of the "Red Tory" faction in the Conservative Party.

Presenting a party whose leader won as a non-incumbent with 71% of the votes cast and a 59 point margin as having deep-rooted internal factions is simply misrepresentation. Deathying (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Though most Conservative MPs seem to align with Blue Toryism, there are still a few that can fit the "Red Tory" label...Michael Chong comes to mind, and Erin O'Toole does to. Erin was a former party leader, and his opposition to repealing the carbon tax and the 2020 assault-style weapons ban as well as his proposal to balance the budget without major cuts makes him a Red Tory.

Also, one leadership election does not mean the party is "100% Blue Tory" as you feel it is. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Erin O'Toole campaigned to the right of Peter MacKay and changed dramatically during the 2021 campaign. His slogan "Take Back Canada" during the leadership race was not meant to curry favour with "Red Tory" members. The article about Red Toryism itself acknowledges a definition drift in Canadian politics. It's applied too broadly towards any Conservative that's not a social conservative.

Chong placed 5th in the 2017 contest. Behind the overt social conservative, Brad Trost.

It's not reflective of the modern day party to place Red/Blue as factions because the agreement within the party seems quite broad. If we look back to the time of the PC-CA merger, you'll note that many PCs, like Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Scott Briton, etc. simply switched to the Liberals or never even joined the new Conservative Party whatsoever. Deathying (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

To just add a little more: the Red Tory/Blue Tory distinction was most prevalent in Canada nearly 20 years ago, at a time the country was 25% smaller in population. A generation ago. At the federal level, nobody is flying a Red Tory banner anymore. And nobody characterized as one by media sources embraces the label.

The Conservatism in Canada article names Peter MacKay as a Blue Tory despite him having animosity with social conservatives during the leadership race, and widely called a Red Tory by the media. Probably because he supported the merger, which happened a generation ago.

These inconsistencies are because these terms are based purely on opinion. The bottom line is that there are no factions. There's a clear, majority ideology. Deathying (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

And no, I never said "100% Blue Tory" anywhere. Do we call progressive Liberals like Terry Beech "Orange Grits" or "Green Grits"? Did we ever call Martin a "Blue Grit"? Do we need to place a fringe part of the party and it's membership on equal footing with the common majority ideology, referencing a 20 year old political event, that bears no significance to the political situation of 2023, all because the media recycles the terms to hype up leadership elections? Deathying (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

We absolutely did call Martin a Blue Grit. The only reason we don't have a name for left-wing Liberals is because nobody has ever tried to push one. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think anybody is trying to suggest the party is disunited or more riven by factionalism than other parties, but just maintain links to relevant subjects. However, as I look around the Wiki, this doesn't actually appear to be common practice. For example, neither Democratic Party (United States) nor Republican Party (United States) list any of their internal caucuses in the infobox; Australian Labor Party doesn't include Labor Left and Labor Right; Conservative Party (UK) doesn't include one-nation conservatism; Union for a Popular Movement doesn't include The Strong Right, The Social Right, et al; Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), an extremely factionalized party, doesn't list anything, either. I actually can't find any infobox that lists factions. Seems fair to remove them here; the body works just as well for the links. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal from the infobox. The topic doesn't merit listing in the infobox. By all means, there should be a section/heading for the topic, but there's only so much that should be listed in an infobox, and factions isn't one of them. Regards, PKT(alk) 19:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it based on this vote. Should we still keep the part in the first paragraph where it says, "...and welcoming a broad variety of members, including "Red Tories" and "Blue Tories""? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's still worth keeping in the lede. — Kawnhr (talk) — Kawnhr (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Kawnhr and User:PKT, mind sharing your opinion on the bottom discussion (adding fiscal conservatism to infobox)? Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Updates to ideology infobox

Would also like to seek a consensus on this to avoid an edit war with Ak-eater06.

There currently is a comment advising against a change to linking Conservatism with Conservatism in Canada in the infobox. I would like to make this infobox consistent with other conservative parties such as the GOP, Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, Conservative Party (UK). I cannot find any prior discussion in the archives besides comments supportive of what I want to do here. Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada/Archive_2#Internal_factions, from 2017. If you do have a link to why this comment was made, please link it.

Under the ideology row, we should change Conservatism to Conservatism (Canadian) This is in line with the examples I linked above, and recognizes the differences between the CPC and the ideology itself. The CPC's ideology and how conservative they can actually be is heavily defined by Canadian culture and values, warranting some distinction here.

Deathying (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Fine. I'm okay with changing it to "Canadian Conservatism". The UK Conservative Party article using "British Conservatism" changed my opinion on this edit conflict. The definition of conservatism varies from country to country too (e.g. a Conservative in Canada, the UK, Australia might not be considered conservative in the US). Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add fiscal conservatism

• Support We should also add Fiscal conservatism back as an ideology associated with the party, especially when it is so plainly spelled out in the party constitution and party platform. I might add the last (relatively) balanced budget in Canadian history was introduced by this party. If that's not fiscal conservatism, I don't know what is.Deathying (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I would have no problem with Canadian conservatism change.... but fiscal conservative is a pipe dream....Fraser Institute

https://www.fraserinstitute.org › ...PDF Examining Federal Debt in Canada by Prime Ministers Since Confederation, 2022.Moxy- 23:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/conservatives-economic-vision-for-canada-is-hardly-conservative Moxy- 12:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• What do the sources say? I'm wary of adding anything here simply based on our own analysis and what the party itself claims, because that has the potential to open a nasty can of worms. I'd also note that, after clicking through parties of the International Democrat Union, I see very few parties that have "fiscal conservatism" included — "economic liberalism" seems to suffice. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose now. Kawnhr's right; few Western right-of-centre parties don't list fiscal conservatism as an ideology. There's no need to add it to the ideology section in the infobox then. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)