Liberals stand for nothing while Conservatives are party of principle

[Nate]

I was debating with a friend and he said the following statement, What do you think?

"The Liberals were successful because they were a coalition of power that stood for nothing. The Conservatives a party of principle and paid the price."

What are your thoughts on this statement

Edited December 6, 2007 by Nate

[Fortunata]

It appears Mulroney sure was the leader of a party of principle doesn't it? Wasn't it because of all the goings-on of the conservative party in government that all the Conflict of Interest guidelines had to be brought in?

As far as this conservative government goes, we see principles in the HoC everyday wherein not one question is answered; where democracy is being ignored; issues that change policies aren't even discussed in Parliament before enacted.

I think your friend wants to believe what he says but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny really. Governments (as in the party in power) work to gain further power. That's what they are interested in, bottom line.

[Michael Bluth]

"The Liberals were successful because they were a coalition of power that stood for nothing. The Conservatives a party of principle and paid the price."

It is partially true.

The Liberals pay lip service to representing the centre-left in Canada.

The precursors to the current CPC all stood by their principles to far too much of an extent and it lead to Chretien leading majority Governments for far too long.

[Moxie]

I was debating with a friend and he said the following statement, What do you think?

"The Liberals were successful because they were a coalition of power that stood for nothing. The Conservatives a party of principle and paid the price."

What are your thoughts on this statement

Every academic essay I've read about Liberalism basically states they stand for nothing. The create great public fear by creating issues (Y2K, Globally Warming, Ice Age etc) and then they preach it as the gospel. The public falls for their scam and then the Liberals save the day by implimenting programs to ensure our survival from said propaganda. It's party idiology is fluid, if it helps get them elected they'll swear to it. They are like bubbles, no sustanance or substance. The public is suckered in by their social policies, yet the Conservatives are socially conscious but are accused of having no social consciousness. The modern Liberal appears to be power hungry socialist elites, who want to rule for a life time. One only has to see how England is governed to see our future, a nanny nation. It's sold it's soul to Islamists, so they can govern for a lifetime. It will be interesting to see if the Brits fight back by voting Labor out office.

[Topaz]

Party of principles???? IS that why today the Cons made of point to tell Schreiber that the conservative party he is saying is HIS party, is not the present government??? They are not Brian Mulroney's conservatives. Of course, the noise in the room went through the roof. As I asked before what is the difference between the two?? IF a person thinks the Libs stand for nothing then that's their opinion. Let remember only 30?% thought the conservatives stood for principles.

[Michael Bluth]

It's interesting how the left swings back on forth on the PCs and the CPC.

When it suits the interests of the left the two parties are nothing alike. Alas, when it suits the interests of the left the two parties are the same entity.

Which is it?

On the record. To be remembered forever...

[guyser]

It's interesting how the left swings back on forth on the PCs and the CPC.

Which is it?

On the record. To be remembered forever...

stevey.

[daniel]

stevey.

For a while their principles were Liberal policies.

[Michael Hardner]

And now Harper is trying his best to be as Liberal as possible....

The precursors to the current CPC all stood by their principles to far too much of an extent and it lead to Chretien leading majority Governments for far too long.

Yes, who can forget 'We'll turn Stornaway into a bingo hall' or 'We'll never accept an MP's pension'.

Maybe it's better to say - the Liberals pretend that they're a party of principles, and the CPC has actually convinced themselves that they are....

[August1991]

"The Liberals were successful because they were a coalition of power that stood for nothing. The Conservatives a party of principle and paid the price."

That quote must come from someone with little knowledge of recent Canadian history.

The federal Liberals have traditionally been the party that bridges Canada's linguistic divide. This has been the case since Laurier. As recently as Trudeau, the Liberals stood for the inclusion of Quebec within confederation and treating Quebec as just another province. (In 1968, Stanfield ran on a platform of Two Nations and Mulroney tried to negotiate Quebec's distinct society status.)

Regionalism, not ideology, is the driving force of Canadian federal politics.

You might have a case about the Liberal Party since Chretien. Other than being federalist, I don't know where the Liberals stand anymore on regionalism. Dion supported Meech Lake and the Quebecois as a nation motion. Trudeau (and Pearson) would never have done either. Moreover, Chretien killed the Liberal Party in French Quebec with his sponsorship scheme.

It appears now that the Conservatives will be Canada's party bridging the linguistic divide. The next federal election will likely be significant in Canadian history for this reason.

Edited December 12, 2007 by August1991

[Leafless]

Regionalism, not ideology, is the driving force of Canadian federal politics.

Bullshit!

[Oleg Bach]

Bullshit!

Liberals want power - conservatives have it but don't know what to do with it. If Convervatives were a party of principle - they were well aware of the Supreme court action that I was apart of - where I exposed corruption practiced by lawyers and the judges that I saw in 20 courts who saw and facilitated this corruption and crimminal behaviour by officers of the court - I layed it out for them - so if the Conservatives were so god damned principled why did they not correct the courts? I will tell you why - because the liberals and conservatives in parliment have no power - that power is in the hands of a few powerful old lawyers in Toronto and Montreal - men that appoint Prime ministers and run the theatre we call democracy..who ever controls the money controls it all.

[capricorn]

they were well aware of the Supreme court action that I was apart of - where I exposed corruption practiced by lawyers and the judges that I saw in 20 courts who saw and facilitated this corruption and crimminal behaviour by officers of the court - I layed it out for them -

You must be related to noqueenslave.

[Visionseeker]

Bullshit!

Wow! Did you develop brain cramps formulating this reply? August raises good points in this post.

I will say that it is foolish to reduce all political expression in this country as motivated by regionalism, but it is equally foolish not to recognize the immense influence it actually exercises.

[Wild Bill]

And now Harper is trying his best to be as Liberal as possible....

Yes, who can forget 'We'll turn Stornaway into a bingo hall' or 'We'll never accept an MP's pension'.

Maybe it's better to say - the Liberals pretend that they're a party of principles, and the CPC has actually convinced themselves that they are....

Your quotes are complete non sequiturs, given that Harper's Conservative Party shows no signs of any Reform roots or component whatsoever.

They are about as relevant as using them against the NDP.

[Michael Hardner]

Harper's Conservative Party shows no signs of any Reform roots or component whatsoever.

WB

Well, it's the pension scandal, or the blue conservatives taking bags of cash - take your pick.

Unless you want to advance the position that the CPC materialized from thin air....

[Leafless]

Wow! Did you develop brain cramps formulating this reply? August raises good points in this post.

I will say that it is foolish to reduce all political expression in this country as motivated by regionalism, but it is equally foolish not to recognize the immense influence it actually exercises.

Regionalism is an immense influence?

All regionalism does is further fragments the country, destroying the nature of federalism by undemocratically redistributing political power and influence, to provinces that in some cases are not even federalist initially.

Besides regionalism constitutionally speaking, means zilch.

We need strong federal leadership.

[Oleg Bach]

Regionalism is an immense influence?

All regionalism does is further fragments the country, destroying the nature of federalism by undemocratically redistributing political power and influence, to provinces that in some cases are not even federalist initially.

Besides regionalism constitutionally speaking, means zilch.

We need strong federal leadership.

From what I remember is that Conservatives held the money and power perminently in Canada - and Liberals were simply the duped henchmen sent out to do their bidding. At this point in time there is no evidence of conservatism in Canada - just guys put into positions politically to serve international big big buisness...conservatism has been upsurped by neo-colonialism. The Charter of rights is NOT adhered to - nor is the so-called Canadian Constitution - in five years plodding through the justice system - I saw not one sign of true rule of law - none!

[myata]

I'm OK with Harper's Conservatives being a "party of principle". If only they were more forthcoming about what those principles are. So that we won't have to go guessing from their little sneaky policy moves here and there.

[Wild Bill]

Regionalism is an immense influence?

All regionalism does is further fragments the country, destroying the nature of federalism by undemocratically redistributing political power and influence, to provinces that in some cases are not even federalist initially.

Besides regionalism constitutionally speaking, means zilch.

We need strong federal leadership.

Something tells me you live in Ontario...

[Oleg Bach]

I'm OK with Harper's Conservatives being a "party of principle". If only they were more forthcoming about what those principles are. So that we won't have to go guessing from their little sneaky policy moves here and there.

There is only one principle instilled in Harper shortly after election by his supporters and handlers - domestic and to the south - maintaining a sick status quo based on fantastic wealth for a few at the espense of the many. There was an abrupt change in Harpers attitude..he did not know what the job turely entailed untill after election - that he was to do the bidding of internatinalist buisness and nothing else - that's it in a nut shell - and the boy prime minister through the weakness that is ego - took the bait - if we can just pull the hook out of his mouth..all will be well - we will have to just wait until the Chaney presidency has fininished it's tenure - and if we are smart all will readjust - and we may just have a real government again - a real conservative one. Things take time - Harper fears Chaney and righfully so.

[Wild Bill]

WB

Well, it's the pension scandal, or the blue conservatives taking bags of cash - take your pick.

Unless you want to advance the position that the CPC materialized from thin air....

Where were you the past 20 years or so? When the CPC merger occurred it prevented what was left of the old PC party from VANISHING into thin air!

When Reform came on the scene the old PC party had been knocked back to 2 seats! By the time the parties got back together Reform was the official opposition and the old Tories were still just a dozen seats in the Maritimes, trying desperately to stay above the magic minimum number to retain official party status. The Reform/Alliance were flush with cash, tens of thousands of party members and OWNED the seats west of Ontario! What's more, they were continually growing, expecting to take more seats in Ontario and eventually Quebec.

The Tories were broke, with membership at an all time low and had problems scraping up ANY candidate to run in all ridings, let alone candidates with enough appeal to have a good shot at winning!

The big fear in the old PC party over a merger was that they would be swamped out as a spit in the ocean amongst the much larger Alliance party. This fear was only logical, given the apparent factors.

Yet if you look at the new CPC as to how it acts and how it's run, it truly seems that virtually every major plank in the old Reform/Alliance platform has been abandoned.

For this reason I find it ironic that Harper now has to watch out for some of the mud slung at Mulroney sticking to him as well. If he hadn't worked so hard to cozy up to the Mulroneyites from the old PC's he wouldn't now have the problem.

[Leafless]

Something tells me you live in Ontario...

Does not matter where I live.

I know who has been demanding asymmetrical federalism ( don't you) more than any other province and where this will lead Canada.

Down the tube.

The federal government should know how to answer the regionalism question with a plain NO.

[Wild Bill]

Does not matter where I live.

I know who has been demanding asymmetrical federalism ( don't you) more than any other province and where this will lead Canada.

Down the tube.

The federal government should know how to answer the regionalism question with a plain NO.

And so the innate problems go on and on and on....

Canada has always had severe regional disparities. Whether by chance or intent it grew from conception into a system that dramatically favoured central Canada. Starting in the 60's we finally started admitting to the problems but instead of fixing the structure the Liberals began programs of what amounted to federal welfare to attract votes. This was perhaps most strong in the Maritimes, which were declared a "economic disparity zone" and bushels of federal money were dumped in supposedly to create longterm, sustainable industry.

Of course, 30-40 years later we saw very few long standing new industries. We did see a lot of people that needed that federal money to feed their kids! It was the old story of selling your soul to the company store. Only the gas/oil discoveries have shown any chance of breaking out of the dependency cycle.

Those parts of Canada that were not happy with the situation really weren't asking for handouts, just some reform to the system to give them more equal opportunity. Of course, then they wouldn't be beholden to Ottawa anymore so of course we have seen virtually no reform to our political structure in generations, if ever.

Whenever these parts complain they are told that "Canada needs a strong federal system!" and that they are being somehow "un-Canadian" by complaining. It's like belonging to a club where you have to do all the work, pay the lion's share of the dues and yet never get to eat any of the doughnuts.

You can scold the rest of the country all you want but that's hardly the way to inspire their support.

[Leafless]

Whenever these parts complain they are told that "Canada needs a strong federal system!" and that they are being somehow "un-Canadian" by complaining. It's like belonging to a club where you have to do all the work, pay the lion's share of the dues and yet never get to eat any of the doughnuts.

You can scold the rest of the country all you want but that's hardly the way to inspire their support.

There is no magic bullet.

There will always be poorer provinces and richer ones, just like in the U.S. with poorer states and richer states.

Don't worry the Atlantic provinces get to eat a lot of the freebie doughnuts and have been for years.

Regional disparities have not been as bleak as you paint them.

http://www.canadianalternative.com/gettoknow/regions.cfm