Talk:Red Tory

Problem

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)

I tried to address some of the problems with the article by moving the discussion of Phillip Blond that was in the introduction to the Definition Drift section, where there was already a discussion of Blond. Putting the blurb about Blond in the introduction would certainly confuse any Canadian looking for a quick and easy definition, because in Canadian popular usage, the term "red tory" is closer to the definition quoted from Front Porch Republic in the Definition Drift section. The Front Porch Republic definition is also actually the dictionary definition. Blond may call his philosophy "Red Tory" but it is probably closer to how High Tory is defined here on wikipedia.184.64.192.223 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Red Tories joined the NDP?

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)

• agreed, I don't think there is a chart of where the various MPs from the PC party went to, but I assume they all joined the Conservatives, with the exception of those two. However, it is talking about Red Tories, not *elected* Red Tories, hence the article is probably correct in its statement that some joined the NDP, Greens, and Liberals. - Tezkah

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)

I've made this change - if we can find a real-life example of some Red Tories joining the NDP or the Greens, we can add that inforamtion later.Kevintoronto 14:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Belinda Stronach

Belinda Stronach a Social democrat? You must be kidding. Kevintoronto 14:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not kidding about Belinda Stronach as a firm Social Democrat

kevintoronto. She is not happy with the Conservatives. Her views and ideas are more like a social democrat then conservative she is in the wrong party right now. Belinda should quit the Conservatives and join the NDP Jack Layton needs her in the NDP caucus like yesterday. Belinda should not trust the Conservative caucus P.S. I'm a NDPer myself and I support Belinda Stronach and the NDP are not insan. - michaelm

It's an interesting viewpoint, michaelm. Can you back this up with any concrete information? Any sources? It seems that all of her actions so far, e.g., her role in bringing the CA and PC Parties together, running for the CP leadership, running as a CP candidate, indicate a loyalty to conservatism, not social democracy, so I think that it would require some concrete evidence in order to make such a statement in Wikipedia. I look forward to your comments. Thanks.

Kevintoronto 08:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Belinda did brining the CA and the PC to from the Conservatives but her intent was to bring the party to the center to bring in center-right and center-left ideas but later on she will bring the party to the center-left (a.k.a. social democracy) but it failed because she did not win the leatership. She should join the NDP.

In the past as a CEO of magna she alowed a trade union (UAW) to go in the Detroit plant the union was ther ever sets. Belinda beleved that trade unions are a human right. Then she heard that Dalmer-Chryser was going to cut 1000 jobs she want down to the Dalmer-Chryser plant in Ontario and stop the job cuts those 1000 people still have those jobs thanks to Belinda. She supports organized labor. I found this on the internet and Its well hidin on the net. She has friands that supports the NDP this is all ture. Belinda Stronach is a Social Democrat and she should join the NDP to keep the NDP to the Left. - michaelm

I think you'll find that Red Tories are not hostile to organized labour like right-wing conservatives, but that does not mean that they are social democrats. Social democrats believe that the government should play a large role in organizing the economy, especially through government ownership of key industries. I don't think the Ms. Stronach would agree with these ideas. I have friends who support the NDP, too, but that doens't mean that I agree with them. For that matter, I even have friends who supported the Reform/CA parties, and I certainly don't agree with them. I think that it would be a very strange and unsuccessful strategy to try to become leader of a right-wing party only to try to get it to abandon its ideology for that of social democracy. Even if she had become leader, it would have been very difficult or impossible for her to convince conservatives and Red Tories to become social democrats. Again, I think that there will have to be concrete evidence of her having social democratic beliefs before the article is changed to state this. I am sure that if you were to ask her, she would not agree that she is a social democrat. (If she did say so publicly, she would have to resign from the Conservative caucus immediately.) Kevintoronto 20:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Belinda would agree with the ideas that the government to play a large role in organizing the economy with government ownership of key industries. because it will crate jobs and grow the economy even more to re-invest. And Belinda is a strong advorcate for human rights Belinda Stronach is a Social Democrat and she should join the NDP caucus because she should not trust the Conservatives but she should trust the NDP. - michaelm

Okay... if you can provide an excerpt from a speech or campaign material that supports this contention, then we can go and make the change to the article. I just have never heard her call herself a social democrat, or speak in favour of government ownership of key industries. I also think that if she were actually a social democrat, the news media might have reported on how strange it was for a social democrat to be working so hard to build a conservative party and to seek to lead it. The point that I am trying make is that your argument is contrary to what pretty well everyone believes. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, only that you will have to present evidence (e.g., from her speeches or public statements) in order to convince people on Wikipedia that you are right. As for human rights, I remind you that it was the PC government of John Diefenbaker that introduced the first Canadian Human Rights Act. Supporting human rights is consistent with Red Toryism. Regards, Kevintoronto 14:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the news media Kevintoronto Belinda Stronach is going to join the NDP at any time. Belinda is not happy with the Conservatives because Belinda is a Social Democrat and about human rights the Sask CCF/NDP government of Tommy Douglas that introduced the first Human Rights Act in canada not Diefenbaker Its ture. Supporting human rights is consistent with Social Democracy. - michaelm

I agree that supporting human rights is consistent with social democracy. It is also consistent with Red Toryism. Let me clarify: Diefenbaker introduced the first "Canadian Human Rights Act", i.e., the first human rights act at the federal level. As far as Stronach joining the NDP, if it happens, then I will concede that you were right all along. But since there is no real evidence, e.g., public statements by her saying that she is a social democrat, though, let's leave it out of the article on Red Tories until it happens. The standard of proof on Wikipedia is more than just what some anonymous guy on the Internet says. Regards, Kevintoronto 20:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, some might shair the same opinion - michaelm

Definition shift

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)

I tried to fix this. Blond may call his philosophy "Red Tory" but in contemporary usage, it is probably closer to High Tory 184.64.192.223 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User 142.161.231.23

User, please explain these edits you're making. Most of them are superfluous, or just plain wrong.Habsfannova 04:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you come into having a monopoly on the truth, or the real story? The fact is, you two have retained some of my edits, particularly with respect to Manitoba, Roblin, Lougheed, the origin of "red" as an appellation, and others. I have an MA in Political Economy, was a member of the PC Party between 1978 and 1993, and attended several PC Conventions. I was a two-time President of a Campus PC Association. I tramped all over the Hill at various times in the 1980's. I have met Joe Clark in his Office, and was invited to, and attended, the National Leadership Institute of the PC Party in 1987. I have met Pierre Trudean, Liberal John Turner, Senator Norman Atkins, David MacDonald, Ed Broadbent, and Brian Mulroney. I campaigned WITH Ron Ritchie in York East in 1979, Bill Domm in Peterborough in 1984 & 1988, and with John Turner (Ontario PC MPP) in 1985. I met, and had seminar with George Grant and studied under people who knew and worked with him. I was born a Toronto Red Tory, lived with Red Tories, associated with Red Tories - and I can tell you that the "fiscally conservative, socially progressive" tag is an over-simplification. I left the PCs after Mexico was admitted to NAFTA.

First, Red Tories are largely bound and influenced by Lord Beaconsfield's One Nation Toryism. This has always been true in Canada. Secondly, we do not accept that the market is anything more than a system for the distribution of goods and services. It is not a social system. Thirdly, Red Tories are Canadian Nationalists who value the Commonwealth connection as a primary guaranator of continental autonomy.

Superfluous some of my edits may have been. Wrong - I doubt it. Final editing was not as polished as I would have liked, but I was editing on the fly. So do not assume that you have it right. I sincerely hope one of you is over 35 years of age; otherwise, you have no personal context to determine who is right and who is wrong on this issue. (Posted by TrulyTory, 3 December 2005)

I apologize for the "wrong" comment, I should have put confusing ("To the centre left of", "Adherence to the monarchy"). While the original lineage of Red Tories may have come from "One Nation" principles, that term really has no relevence today in Canada. Your vast, vauge definitions of what Red Tories are could be applied to any political movement in Canada. I appreciate the addition of Manitoba, however, it's a part of the country that is often overlooked. Please, though, let's try some consensus here instead of just re-adding items without responding to the criticisms. It's the "Red Tory" way, isn't it? :-)Habsfannova 19:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mutual respect is what it is all about. I will disagree with you about One Nation conservatism, as I think we really need a good dose of Disraeli and Diefenbaker right about now. Good sparring however, and that will make this entry more concise and accurate. BTW, I am a die-hard Leafs Fan. 3 of 4 so far .... ;>) (Posted by TrulyTory, 3 December 2005)

I meant relevence as in language...I've never heard the term here. I'm a John Hamm supporter, so I'm in agreement with you.Habsfannova 19:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You've never heard of, or read, Diefenbaker's "Northern Vision" speech of 1958 ?

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents/diefenbaker_-_the_northern_vision.htm

as to One Nation Conservatism, this was always a theme for Red Tories in Ontario for many generations.

Where the "red" in Red Tory comes from?

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)

The CE would be wrong, as RT was never about Socialism. That is a oft-repeated modern myth. RT was about Toryism (not Conservatism), which comes from England - whose National Colour is Red. Canada's national Colours of Red & White, which were granted by Royal Authority were granted as such because they had a lineage to both France and England, but are in the modern use more associated with England and particularly the Crusades, something of which Red Toryism, with its passion for Canada and the Empire-Commonwealth and One Nation Unity mirrors. The Old Gaurd of the old Tory Pary was married to these principles, and fought passionately for them throughout the history of the Party, in the face of the business liberals (Blue Tories) preoccupation with money and markets and taxes. Red Tories revere Burke and Disraeli, rather than Locke and Peel. As well, the Loyalists and British Soldiers in the American Revolt, were called Red Coats, and the Canadaian Army and RCMP use Red Coats in their ceremonial dress. For any person in Canada who values the British roots of the Nation, and this includes Toryism, the colour RED is highly symbolic of this connection. Toryism was not as popular or widespread in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland whose immigrants in Canada tended to be liberals - mirroring thier allegiance in the Home Islands. The Tory Old Guard revered the English Toryism of Lord North, the Pitts, and the Duke of Wellington. To this end, Red and White were England and Red and White became Canada. Look at our current flag - same colour scheme as the Cross of St. George. Coincidence ? No. It was the intent all along, and it was relfected in the Royal Proclamation for Canada of 1921. It was the colour of the Old Guard, because they were defending the principles of Toryism - a unique English political position that has ONLY been found in England and Canada. Talk of Toryism is Australia and they think of it as something that exists only in England. They are wrong of course, as our tory touch came to us in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Some of us still exist. RED FOR REFORM OF ABUSES, RED FOR ENGLISH TORYISM. This was the Disrealean code that heavily influenced things like the National Policy. Disraeli brought the idea of One Nation, National Development via Government, and Tory Democracy to the forefront. Disraeli also opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws (Free Trade). To all of this Macdonald looked to for inspiration.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df6_e.cfm

Red and white: Canada's national colours

History records that in the first crusade, Bohemund I, a Norman lord, had red crosses cut from his mantles and distributed to the 12,000 crusaders, who then wore them as a distinctive badge on their garments.

In subsequent crusades, each nation was distinguished by a cross of a different colour. France long had a red cross on its banners while England used a white cross. Time and again in history, red and white are found as the colours of France or of England.

Red and white were approved as Canada's official colours in the proclamation of the royal arms of Canada in 1921 by King George V.

In 1957, the colour of the maple leaves on the shield of the Royal Arms of Canada was changed from green on a white ground to red on a white ground in recognition of Canada's official colours

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/21032003/n2.shtml

see this one as well

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20030814132155920/print

http://flagspot.net/flags/rel-stge.html

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df5_e.cfm

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca.html

The colours red and white used in the Canadian flag are the same as those colours used in the Union Flag (of the UK). Red and white are the national colours of Canada since 1921 (when they were proclaimed by King George V on the recommendation of the Canadian Government). The heraldic description of the Canadian National Flag is: Gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first.

"The Red and White of the Union Flag is the Cross of St. George - the Flag of England." edit

The Maple Leaf is also represented in our Flag in English Red

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)

That's fine, but I will then delete the CE reference because is it plainly wrong. Turnabout is fair play. To what does the CE atrribute its source to? When I found the article, the reference to "British Roots" was already there. I merely expanded upon the sigficance of "red" in that context, which is obvious to any student of Canadian and English history. Why do you think the Montreal Canadiens jersey is RW&B ? Look at the Union Jack. Yet you will likely find no atribtuion to that fact, as it has all been lost in a sea of political correctness. (Posted by TrulyTory, 3 December 2005)

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)

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/55/br_13.html

"Red tory" is a term that appears in the book a couple of times. Forsey uses it once and the author uses it to refer to George Grant, with whom Forsey corresponded. Both saw a central role for Christianity in public affairs and both were profoundly critical of capitalism and the dominant business élites, but they differed on human's innate nature. Forsey was optimistic about people's rational capacities; Grant was fearful of our irrationality. Thus Forsey became a CCFer and a socialist, while Grant remained a conservative and a Conservative until small-l liberals hijacked his party, something Forsey saw happening decades earlier. It is ironic that Milligan's rather longish listing of secondary sources neglects Gad Horowitz's seminal "Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism: An Interpretation," which appeared in his 1960s book Canadian Labour in Politics. It was there that the "red tory" debuted in the lexicon of Canadian politics and it is precisely there where Grant and Forsey are cited, cheek by jowl, as exemplars of the phenomenon which Forsey characterized as "a conscious socialist with some odd tory notions."

That deals with the "Red" aspect very well, and I accept it. However, I will point out that I merely added an expansion on to the "British Roots of the the Old Guard Tories." The symbolism of the colour Red in that context is obvious. I merely expanded on the logic contained within the statement. I opersonally think both source of the appellation are correct and accurate. The refernce to Liberals was always spurious at best. TrulyTory 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, neoconservatives and neoliberals are the same thing. From the pov of the Political Scientist, the proper term is "neoliberal." Brian Mulroney and his adherents and Stephen Harper and the Calgary School are not "strong fiscal conservatives," or "social conservatives;" and the are not "more conservative" than tories. To misuse this/these terminology(ies) is not only misleading, it is philosophically incorrect. Any First-Year reader of the seminal Christian and Campbell's "Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada" knows this. Stop misusing the term "conservative" in the Canadian context. There are four traditions in the Canadian Conservative experience, and they are:

 (a) English toryism; 
 (b) Canadian Nationalist toryism; 
 (c) Red Toryism; 
 (d) business liberalism, now known as neoliberalism or neoconservatism. 

All four can cross cross-pollinate on the issues of Monarchy, although NCs are generally lukewarm to this staple of traditional Canadian conservatism. There have always been classical liberals in the Canadian tory party, but while they tended to favour the market and capitalism, they also tended - prior to the late 1970's - to favour Crown and Commonwealth as well. This was their link to toryism. The were "capitalist tories," if you will ...

Since the late 1970's these conservatives have embraced the traditional Canadian liberal values of Free-Trade, Continentalism, and provincial-rights. If you have studied any Canadian history or economics, you will recognise these policies as the policies of the Liberal Party up to - I would argue - 1975 (with the exception of the small Walter Gordon experiments in Economic nationalism of the mid-1960's).

Neoliberalism exalts the market, continental free-trade, and decentralisation - NONE of which are traditional conservative policies in this country. The Conservative party, in its many forms, has a 150 year history in the Canadas, and to call the recent organisational dominance by the necons since the late '80s and mid '90's "strong conservatism" is not only inaccurate, but well nigh misleading. Or uninformed ...

My political lineage is within the tory party in this Country. All my ancestors were Conservatives, to a man. I worked in the Party from 1978 to 1993, and I completed an MA in Political Economy. If we are to make this entry a correct one, we must accept the historically-correct political taxonomy for the term "conservative" in Canada. While it may be changing (for the worse in my opinion ... nevertheless), the very nature of change does not, and cannot deny the FACTS about the issue, term, and disposition in this Country and context. TrulyTory 06:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's red, because before any conception of Communism, or Red meaning communism or socialism, Red was the colour of the British Empire, and also Commonwealth. Thats why RCMP are in red uniform, why our flag is red, etc.

One Nation Conservatism means...

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)

Edit Wars ?

I thought there was a consensus to discuss major changes, prior to editing this article. I guess there was a sense that I was away (driven away?) and so the knives have come out? TrulyTory 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the major problem or the "knives coming out"? I simply rearranged the information you provided to make it more readable. No edit war or "major change" at all, just a more readable and understandable format. Habsfannova|t 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you really want, I'll tell you. The article in its given state is a POV screed that borders on hagiography and features archaic language. The article I have put up puts it more readable format, and presents the same basic information more efficiently.

And, if I dare say so, the onus was on you to explain why you blindly reverted my edits instead of critiquing them or changing incorrect areas.Habsfan|t 19:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And, if I dare say so, why is the onus on Me, but not on You? You are the one who engaged in a rewrite. Why do YOU get to arbitrarily decide what is archaic and biased? On whose/what authority do you claim pre-eminent authority? How come you never answer this question? On what basis are you an authority on the subject. At least I can claim a deep familiarity (based on my Master's thesis) with the subject. At least I put some faith this last time in the concept of a "discussion page." You could at least play the by the rules that you so stridently demand I adhere to ... TrulyTory 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:: And, if I dare say so, why is the onus on Me, but not on You?

Because I wasn't the one simply reverting edits with no reason. I rewrit the article simply for understanding. Before you had just reverted the article, you should have gone to talk and asked for an explanation.

Why do YOU get to arbitrarily decide what is archaic and biased? On whose/what authority do you claim pre-eminent authority? How come you never answer this question? On what basis are you an authority on the subject. At least I can claim a deep familiarity (based on my Master's thesis) with the subject.

I don't claim pre-eminent authority on any subject matter. I'm not an administrator, and thus my voice is equal to yours.

""At least I put some faith this last time in the concept of a "discussion page." You could at least play the by the rules that you so stridently demand I adhere to ... No, you didn't. You simply complained about my edits, before simply reverting. I've actually given you the reasons for my changes, the least you could do is say why they aren't worthy instead. Habsfan|t 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

We are in the middle of the edit war, which is not very helpful to anyone. I suggest that we use this page to go through the competing versions of the article, paragraph-by-paragraph. Here are the different versions of the first paragraph.

Version 1: Here is the original version, to which TrulyTory continues to revert:

Red Tory is a term given to a political philosophy, tradition, and disposition in Canada. It has fundamentally, if not exclusively, been found in Conservative provincial and federal political parties. It is a historical legacy that marks differences in the creation, development, and evolution of the political cultures of Canada and the United States. Canadian conservatism and American conservatism - and the philosophical use of the term "conservative" - are fundamentally different, in that the Canadian variant retains a distinct moral, English, and pre-industrial character not evident in the American version.

Version 2: Here is what Habsfannova changed it to:

Red Tory is a Canadian term for a type of conservatism. Red Tories are seen as the traditional left-wing of their contemporary Conservative party, and are usually cast as moderates within the Canadian political spectrum. The term originally refered to the branch of the original Conservative Party (Later the Progressive Conservative Party) that was committed to Canadian nationalism and the welfare state, but has recently undergone a definition shift.

Comments anyone? HistoryBA 13:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to defend my writing...I find that TT's version is too vague in the opening sentance (I woudln't call "red toryism" a philosophy anymore then I would call "Blue Dog Democratic views" one), and that instead of describing the term, just goes on comparing something (That is not yet descrbed in any detail) with the United States.Habsfan|t 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think both versions of the paragraph aren't too bad, but there are two factual errors in my opinion in TrulyTory's edit. Firstly, that it still implies that Canadian Conservatism is different to modern American conservatism in a Red Tory sense, when really Red Toryism has effectively been wiped out of the Canadian right-wing. Secondly, another issue is the comment about Canadian conservatism retaining a 'moral, English and pre-industrial character'. Moral? I'd say that American Conservatism has a far greater emphasis on traditional morality. On the English issue, I'd be inclined to agree with regard to moderate English conservatism, though I can't justify that claim personally. Finally, on the 'pre-industrial' note, that doesn't make sense at all: Red Toryism began effectively with the National Policy of MacDonald, which was based around fostering the industrialisation of Canada with state intervention... Cheers, User:Hauser 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The moral streak (moderation) in Red Toryism is derived from the pre-Peelite influences in English conservatism such as Richard Hooker, Lord Shaftesbury, and Disraeli. I have given reference to these facts by citing Christian and Campbell's work - which everyone here has either not read, or just appears to disregard as a factual citation. There are different moral imperatives in this world, and the Red Tory, and pre-Industrial conservative morality that was its progenitor saw a value in trying to achieve a balance of interests with the goal of social harmony. That is different than American neo-liberal morality to be sure, but it is a type of morality nontheless. Red Toryism DOES NOT begin with the National Policy of Macdonald. It had atecedents in the Canadas from the settlement of the Loyalists through the 1850's - only it was then called "Toryism." Canadian Conservatism was to a great degree always Toryism, and only came to be called "Red Toryism" when the Conservative Party became more inclined to capitalist economics as a core and fundamental policy. This was becoming apparent in the 1920's-1930's when Bennett won the leadership and became Premier. The fact that Bennett turned to (Red) Toryism half-way through Depression as a means of dealing witht he Depression soes not detract from the fact that it was at this point that the Capitalists (Toronto and Montreal business elite) had taken over the Conservative Party. Gad Horowitz would trace the Tory/Red Tory streak and define it as a clear faction within the modern Conservative party by the 1960's - by which time the Conservative party was very clearly becoming a fully capitalist and market-oriented party. (The first editions of this article did not even contain reference to Horowitz, and in fact Habsfan had credited George Grant with the cration of the term, which is not only incorrect, but incredible.) The fact that the modern CPC does nto contain many Red Tories does not mean that they/we do not exist; what it does mean is that we have abandoned formal party politics or have moved on to support other parties. On a final note, Wikipedia can only exist if it strives to become a factual and accurate, and in some cases, academic source; however, if it is is going to tend toward the lowest common denominator and reflect a common and ethereal understanding of topics based on a small quorum streaming of data, then its veracity will always be in question. I find it incredible that having done my graduate thesis on Red Toryism and Economic Imperatives in Canada, that my command of the topic is constantly subject to revision. I have no problem with accurate revisions, but the constant revision of facts so that they become essentially untrue statements is quite frustrating. Furthermore, I have challenged the Habsfan to cite an academic reference for his claim that Red Toryism has undergone a formal and recognised "definition drift." He has so far, refused to comply. I am left to wonder why ... TrulyTory 13:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually...I included the section on Horrowitz (The version you're refering to might be a rough version I was working on...I tend to delete first and then add what's necessary to explain. I also even told you about what I meant by definition shift in the media, and am going to add it to the article when it's unlocked, and I don't appreciate the impication I 'Refuse to comply'. If you desire, I can give you about 10 media links that refer to persons that wouldn't be "traditional" red tories are referred to as that.

If you can prove there has been a "Definition Drift" then please do so. With full citations. TrulyTory 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Which do you want me to prove? My assertion that there has been a media definition shift, or what you interpret in that the term has generally changed? For now, I'll simply provide the Canadian Encyclopedia: [1] that shows the term is used for simply the "left wing" of the Conservative party.Habsfan|t 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"I find it incredible that having done my graduate thesis on Red Toryism and Economic Imperatives in Canada, that my command of the topic is constantly subject to revision."

Well, then I wouldn't reccomend Wikipedia for you.Habsfan|t 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise .... TrulyTory 15:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That sort of statement can be open to multiple interpretations. Do you care to explain? HistoryBA 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your intentions are pretty clear as is .... TrulyTory 01:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I must not have made myself clear. I am inquiring about your meaning, not mine. HistoryBA 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

TrulyTory, as much as the others are correct that it's somewhat arrogant to state your academic qualifications in an attempt to attack the rest of us, I will have to assume you are correct in the instances where you refer to actual sources as I do not have personal access to them. The fact that you regard Red Tories as 'us' within the context of the Wikipedia is somewhat disconcerting (doubtless including your wikipedia handle!), and perhaps signifies that some of what you are saying is not academically based (with regard to the recent developments with regard to Red Toryism, not that which you were talking about the development of Red Toryism up until the 1960s). From what I've seen of your comments and especially that discussion about protectionism, I am close to you politically ('Red Toryism' isn't a label used in New Zealand), but I don't think it's particular relevant in the context of the article. I apologise for the confusion with regard to my comment about Red Tories being wiped out of the right wing: it was more in reference to the existing major right wing parties (as opposed to Canadian Action, for example, which is most definitely a Red Tory praty). I think the 'definition drift' section wouldn't exactly be perceptible in many academic sources specifically dealing with politics, but rather from a sociological observation: politics in liberal democracies within the Commonwealth has been drifting to the right, and there is no doubt that what many would regard as 'left wing', for example, thirty years ago in Canada is entirely different to what they would regard as being 'left wing' today. Cheers, Hauser 10:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hauser: I am not "using" academic qualifications to attack anyone. I simply believe that I have an overall better handle on the subject matter than those who seek to revise facts. That does not mean that my edits should be protected from editing, but it does hopefully require that other editors cite relevant and documented proof for their assertions. Here is the crux of my frustration - I edit the Red Tory page and included references for my edits, correct obvious errors, and then write supplemantary articles on Grant, Farthing, and Horowitz (in the case of the latter two, where articles did not even exist ...). In exchange for these donations (for that is what we are all doing here), my edits are revised by those who refuse to cite their references. They continue to do this, and then label me as "arrogant" because I become frustrated at their unwillingness to play by the same rules that they DEMAND I play by. Could you possibly concede this point of mine on this issue? Habsfan has a notable tendency to re-edit work without citation of reference. As to the sociological orgins of a "Definition Drift," do any of you have proof for your assertions (for that is what they are ...) that you can reference - other than the "Canadian Encyclopedia, which God forbid ! is hardly authoritative on anything in-depth. I have provided academic sources for almost all of my edits on Red Toryism, Grant, Farthing, Ellul, Horowitz, and Disraeli. If that is considered arrogance, then I guess ... etc & et al TrulyTory 23:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, you always provide source articles, articles that never prove your basic point and only allude to the point you are trying to make, while any example I give is not from a "proper" source.

It's not your information that's questioned. I've thanked you before for your contributions to the site, and for your additions to this article. The problem is your sense of control over the article, your lack of NPOV when dealing with it (Us, we, threatening to bring "other Tories" to "guard" the page), your accusing every person who goes against you as being part of a neoconservative cabal against you, the fact that any language change (Not even to any information) prompted an immediate revert, your using people you've met as a form of trying to gain precedence (One only needs to look above me) and your stubborn insistance on going against any article consensus. That's the problem here.Habsfan|t 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem supporting consensus - when it is correct. There is no formal Political Science or Sociological support reference for a "Definition Drift." And you know it. It is obvious POV that I fight, and will continue to fight vigourously. I am not engaging in POV here. The fact that I consider myself a Red Tory does not detract from that fact. In fact, it supports the idea of keeping this article accurate. I do not want any sort of higher precedence in the edit log; rather, I just want the article to remain free of POV and unsupported assertions. If that makes "Wikipedia" a bad place for me, then Wales' project is pointlesss. And for those of you with thin skins, I might suggest you consider that Plato and Kuhn consider paradigm clashes as the necessary fulcrum in the quest for reality/facts/truth. If Wikiepedia is set-up to be a little social club for the like-minded, rather than a forum for the creation of an encyclopedia, then this is a sad little place. For those of you who have never collaborated on a group project, this kind of sharp give and take is normal. It produces a better product. A group of yes-men can only produce average, or sub-standard goods. I am willing to play by the rules, as I have all along. Are You ? TrulyTory 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Because...for at least the fourth time...I never said there was a political science definition shift. I said there was a MEDIA definition shift. Why can't you get that through your head?Habsfan|t 15:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BECAUSE ... you have not cited your reference and/or proof for the assertion that there has been a media shift. Why can't you get THAT through your head? TrulyTory 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not what you've been asking me. You've been asking me for academic sources about a "politica science" shift. I'll go get some media sources now.Habsfan|t 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Make sure your sources are not Blogs. TrulyTory 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I trust blogs about as much as you do. ;-) Habsfan|t 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here we go: CTV describes John Tory as a Red Tory, although Mr. Tory holds up as fiscally right and socially left [2], and simply calls RTs the "moderate wing" of the Ontario PCs. From expierienced media commentator Larry Zolf: [3], and from two Christian activist groups [4] [5]. If you'd like more, I can probably find more.

Again, I'm not promoting their vision of being a Red Tory...I actually, before you came, tried to steer the article in the direction of the traditional direction. I'm just remarking on the change in usage.Habsfan|t 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not really proving the assertion. These are POV. Try these [6] [7][8]. TrulyTory 21:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Yours are correct references to traditional style. I'm only showing that the term has undergone a bit of a definition shift in certain media circles, especially with the CTV article.Habsfan|t 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

TrulyTory, Habsfan notes above something that is 100% correct. It doesn't need to be a reference to something necessarily 'academic', but rather anything relating to Red Toryism must be included here. The policy of 'No Original Research' does not stop us from using sources in the mass media, and I totally agree with Habsfan that there has been something of a defintion drift of the term Red Tory in the media. This doesn't mean anything toward academic studies of Red Toryism, and indeed it's a very similar situation as with the term 'socialist', in that in academia it usually means Marxist, yet in reality the definition of it in popular circles has undergone a pretty big swing to the right. The Wikipedia is not some elitist encyclopedia, but rather one that incorporates all valid points of view, and in my opinion the popular media, considering it's huge importance, is an important POV to represent here. Cheers, Hauser 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Belated Comments on the dispute above

• 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)

All good points and a more fairly balanced analysis then we have been receiving lately. I accept the kudos AND the criticism. Thanks Mike. TrulyTory 16:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

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)

Protection

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)

I never thought we needed it in the first place. There are however, some errors that need correction. I see someone slipped "individual rights" into the article. RT was and is more concerned with collective rights. Once this is unlocked, I will correct this POV. TrulyTory 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would be true. Habsfan|t 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unlock it and fix the first paragraph

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)

3 PC Senators

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red Tory.jpeg

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)

Red Tory Philosophy

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)

"Exist in England"

"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)

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)

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)

Link

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)

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)

Relationship with High Toryism

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)

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)

"Red Tory Party (UK)" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

It is my understanding that Red relates to Britain, not socialism (Canadian context)

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)

A newer definition in the UK (Labour under Starmer)

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)