Talk:One-nation conservatism/Archive 1

Moderate Canadian Tories
As a long-time Red Tory, I have never heard the phrase "One Nation Conservative" used to mean moderate Tories in Canada. "One Nation" was only used, as far as I know, by the Diefnbaker Tories opposed to the deux nations concept being proposed at the time of the Progressive Conservative leadership convention, 1967. Ground Zero | t 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're spot on...Habsfannova 22:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. HistoryBA 20:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I have made changes to the Canadian portions of the article, but they may need more work. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad you guys seem to agree, but have any of you read the Conservatism section of Christian, William Edward and C. Campbell (editors), Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada (Note: several editions of this textbook have appeared since 1974, reflecting the changes in Canada's politics.) Your smug arrogance as to your command of the facts regarding conservatism in Canada is getting tiresome. C&C wrote of the influence of Disraelian thought on Canadian conservatism - and Disraelian thought is largely based on the ideas contained within Sybil. So what's next? A reliance on the "Socially Progressive and Fiscally Responsible" pap that your little cabal tried to pass off as Red Toryism? We caught your little agenda-making scheme there. There are still Tories out here, despite what the neocons and masquerading liberals try to contend. I can guartantee I have READ more on the subject than the three of you combined. Losing my sense of civility here? You bet I am, but you guys are amazingly arrogant, uninformed and unread - and YET you feel you have the right to delete correct content. TrulyTory 13:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Inadvertently violated 3RR rule in correcting a minor edit. Sorry TrulyTory 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but please assume good faith, be civil and remember Wikipedia's policy: no personal attacks. I posted a question about this on January 23rd of this year, as is shown above. Over the next almost two months, no-one came to defend the statements in the article. Two editors who work on Canadian political articles frequently came in recently to agree with me. Since there were no objections, I made the changes I thought were appropriate. Can you explain why you saw fit to call me smug and arrogant? What agenda do I have beyond building a better encyclopedia? How did I become a member of a cabal without getting a membership card? Ground Zero | t 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * TrulyTory: Would you be good enough to subtantiate your blast above. Precisely which one of my edits to this article are you objecting to?  Was it when I fixed a link?  Or was it when I changed "aka" to "or"?  Does that constitute "neoconservatism"?  HistoryBA 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you don't like working in a collaborative environment and if you don't believe you should work toward consensus, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.  HistoryBA 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Responding to TT's claims, just because something is influenced by something doesn't mean the term heads over the pond...they are very similar, and should be linked to each other, I agree, but it doesn't mean the term is the same.Habsfannova 00:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Characterisations are not personal attacks. The facts are that Disraelian Toryism was perhaps THE critical influence on modern Canadian Toryism from the time of Confederation to the late 1970's. Sybil and the idea of One Nation was a driving force in Canadian politics for many decades, but in Canada became tied quite tightly (after Riel and the Conscription Crisis of 1917) to English-Canadian Imperialism. This caused it to lose relevance in Quebec, although pre-Riel, even Quebecois policiticans such as Cartier were influenced by the idea. My whole raison d'etre over the last twenty years has been to counter the Americanisation of Canadian culture and history by reminding (often younger) people that Canada had a set of traditions and cultural predispositions that were not merely derivative of American mass culture and politics. By dismissing - out-of-hand - these clear facts about Canadian history you unknowingly contribute to the eradication of that which made Canada unique in North America for over a Century. It is the casual dismissal of things that my generation and previous generations KNEW and were taught about Canada that raises my ire. If you were not so casual and so apparently callous about your revisions, I perhaps could be more moderate in my reaction to such edits. In watching your talk pages however, I can be forgiven if I am given the impression that you edit things merely because you "had not heard of them before." That smacks of arrogance, because the statement assumes that you have a monopoly on information relevant to the topic at hand - and it is quite clear that you do not retain such mastery. TrulyTory 05:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not see how you can accuse me of being "casual" in my editing when I posted a question here and waited two months to see if anyone would defen what had been written. I was not hasty about it in any way. You did not hesitate to blast me for my edit and make unsubstantiated accusations. You called me arrogant and smug. You accused me of being part of a cabal. You accuse me of an "agenda-making scheme". Those are personal attacks. Please withdraw them and apologize. Ground Zero | t 18:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for making comments that were taken as personal attacks. I withdraw them. I would also respectfully ask that you refrain from editing away content because you "have never heard of it before," as it demonstrates a unjustifiably superior attitude toward subject matter that may or may not be borne out in a more appropriate manner as in (a) a talk page; or (b) through deeper self-study. I travel extensively on business, so I may not always see previous challenges on the talk page within your timeframe for resolution. TrulyTory 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambig
I don't think that this article represents the breadth of international usage of the term 'One Nation'. In particular, the Australian One Nation Party is a major denotation of the term "One Nation". I'm therefore moving this article elsewhere and changing One Nation to a disambiguation page. mg e kelly 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
I would dispute the neutrality of the following statement: "However, whilst inflation came under control during the Thatcher years, unemployment spiralled out of control." 87.84.243.66 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Mike C
 * The phrase 'spiralled out of control' is emotive and not specific.
 * Don't think it's relevant to the article
 * If it were to be included, should be reworded and reference actual unemployment and inflation figures over the Thatcher years

Broader
I would say that this is too rigid a view of One-Nationism to take. One-Nationism may mean different things to different people. The it is also implied here that the concept is necessarily at odds with Thatcherism. Margaret Thatcher herself believed her policy to'One-nationist' in the tradition of Disraeli and Macmillan. I not too sure of Heath's inclusion in the list however, he was really more of a Classical Liberal that an One Nation Tory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.227.171 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, classical liberals believe in low taxes, minimised regulation, and non-interventionism of the state in economic affairs. Heath did not. Bastin 17:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And Thatcher did. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
Can he really be considered a one Nation Tory? 101.100.130.165 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)