Liberal Democratic Party of Canada

[Smallc]

I think it is Liberal ideology is a centrist belief of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism as well as a strong sense of federalism. I don't think the present Conservativism aren't as strong in three of those areas whereas the NDP is strong in two but very poor in the remaining. I'm sure most will know where I think the NDP is particularly weak in.

I do know which one your talking about, but if Gary Doer's Government is any indication, they can balance budgets and spend money on infrastructure at the same time.

[White Doors]

Traditional Infrastructure is one of the core responsibilities of government.

It is not a left wing or right wing thing.

The type of infrastructure may be..

[Smallc]

Traditional Infrastructure is one of the core responsibilities of government.

It is not a left wing or right wing thing.

The type of infrastructure may be..

Your right, but it didn't seem to be a core responsibility of our last PC government....then again, they weren't really very good at much.

[Wild Bill]

I'm not sure I understand the simile here. The Reform Party was the western faction of Mulroney's PCs. Their raison d'etre was ideological, they did not want to work with the Quebec faction (The Bloc Quebecois) and Mulroney could no longer hold it all together.

Canadian politics has become divided regionally. Those regions don't want to work with each other, they're all just battling for a larger piece of the pie. I think the first-past-the-post system is partly responsible for this, so how would a centrist party form? What piece of the map would they control that would ensure they get seats in our first-past-the-post system?

That's WAY too simplistic to be accurate!

Reform was hardly just western PC's. It stole a LOT of Liberals and NDP away as well! For many years the PC's enjoyed western support only by default. The Liberals had nuked their bridges with the National Energy Ripoff and many supporters across the ENTIRE country had come to believe that the PC's were conservative in name only. They were really just Liberals who had more trouble winning governments.

There was even a term going around at the time; "disenfranchised conservative". This referred to a voter who wanted a conservative choice but there really wasn't one, just a party that had the name on their tshirts.

Reformers were horrified by the growing national debt load and also were offended by the brokerage brand of politics where regions were bought off for votes with our own tax money. Quebec may have been the biggest symbol but it was hardly the only recipient. They felt that reform of the very structure of federal government was necessary, to make it self-sustaining and more truly democratic. They stumped for senate reform, where it was "elected, equal and effective". They wanted free votes in Parliament to be the norm rather than the rare exception. They wanted our MP's to represent their constituents' wishes to Ottawa and not the reverse, which is our historical status quo.

The PC's losses were never their top brass. They tended to keep their generals but lost all their privates, corporals and sargeants! By this I mean that all the workers, campaigners and volunteers bailed on the PC's. These were the folks that for years had felt taken for granted. I know, for I was one of them! We were all expected to do the grunt work and raise the money but we had ZERO effective input into PC party policy!

Once those "grunts" saw a party available that would allow them to sit in on policy committees that would produce BINDING party principles there was no holding them back! They couldn't leave the PC's fast enough.

So no, it wasn't just grumpiness towards Quebec, although there was a widespread belief that Quebec was favoured for its votes and those in the west were taken for granted. The tipping point came with a maintenance contract for F-18's that was given to a Quebec firm when a Manitoba one had more experience, resources and the cheaper bid. That ignited the fire that sparked the western growth of Reform but it was the rest of it that accounted for several million votes across eastern Canada.

Reformers were never looking to take a bigger piece of the pie by reducing Quebec's cut. They simply wanted things fair across the country! They didn't like a system where ANY region was bought by tax money bribes!

Just FYI!

[cybercoma]

It is possible that a centrist party might re-emerge. I doubt it is the NDP unless their leadership drags them to the center.

I know it's beside the point in the rest of your post, but I think Jack Layton and NDP supporters need to take a long hard look at this point. Tony Blair's Labour Party has been successful largely because they tempered their message to the voters. I'd suggest the Canadian electorate is particularly sensitive to ideology being thrust upon them and that is a large reason why the NDP has not been as successful as democratic parties in other western nations. Jack Layton has pulled the party back up to it's mid 60s to mid 80s position of 15-20% of the popular vote, however if he wants to become a serious contender he needs to seriously consider moving closer to the center. It may very well be too late for Layton himself to make the changes necessary, since Canadians have already made up their mind about him. So, I think it might be worth having a leadership review, replacing Layton and moving the party closer to center. There's no reason the NDP couldn't be as popular in Canada as the Labour Party became in England.

[cybercoma]

That's WAY too simplistic to be accurate!

Reform was hardly just western PC's. It stole a LOT of Liberals and NDP away as well! For many years the PC's enjoyed western support only by default. The Liberals had nuked their bridges with the National Energy Ripoff and many supporters across the ENTIRE country had come to believe that the PC's were conservative in name only. They were really just Liberals who had more trouble winning governments.

There was even a term going around at the time; "disenfranchised conservative". This referred to a voter who wanted a conservative choice but there really wasn't one, just a party that had the name on their tshirts.

Reformers were horrified by the growing national debt load and also were offended by the brokerage brand of politics where regions were bought off for votes with our own tax money. Quebec may have been the biggest symbol but it was hardly the only recipient. They felt that reform of the very structure of federal government was necessary, to make it self-sustaining and more truly democratic. They stumped for senate reform, where it was "elected, equal and effective". They wanted free votes in Parliament to be the norm rather than the rare exception. They wanted our MP's to represent their constituents' wishes to Ottawa and not the reverse, which is our historical status quo.

The PC's losses were never their top brass. They tended to keep their generals but lost all their privates, corporals and sargeants! By this I mean that all the workers, campaigners and volunteers bailed on the PC's. These were the folks that for years had felt taken for granted. I know, for I was one of them! We were all expected to do the grunt work and raise the money but we had ZERO effective input into PC party policy!

Once those "grunts" saw a party available that would allow them to sit in on policy committees that would produce BINDING party principles there was no holding them back! They couldn't leave the PC's fast enough.

So no, it wasn't just grumpiness towards Quebec, although there was a widespread belief that Quebec was favoured for its votes and those in the west were taken for granted. The tipping point came with a maintenance contract for F-18's that was given to a Quebec firm when a Manitoba one had more experience, resources and the cheaper bid. That ignited the fire that sparked the western growth of Reform but it was the rest of it that accounted for several million votes across eastern Canada.

Reformers were never looking to take a bigger piece of the pie by reducing Quebec's cut. They simply wanted things fair across the country! They didn't like a system where ANY region was bought by tax money bribes!

Just FYI!

You're right and I appreciate the additional background info.

I still think it's fair to say that the Mulroney PCs were split into 3 parts. The Quebec faction went to the Bloc Quebecois w/ Lucien Bouchard, the western faction that became Reform (the reasons for which you've explained and I don't disagree with that at all) and the "others".

Your others would be the PCers that more readily identified themselves with the Liberal Party than either BQ or Reform. A lot of the old PCers were socially liberal but fiscally conservative and did not fit in with the new ideological factions. These people either stayed with the sinking ship PC or they began voting Liberal, which I think partly explains the power of the Liberals through the 90s.

Canadian politics are severely divided down regional lines. I guess that's the only point I'm really trying to get at here.

The party that can unite Canadians will be the party that holds power long into the future. Historically, that has been The Liberal party, but the growing regional divide is changing that. I also think that Quebeckers are becoming discontent with the BQ and if Stephen Harper continues to give reason to believe his party is the logical alternative for them, I think the CPC may become the dominant party over the next decade.

[Barts]

Barts, you want to restrict the choices of NDP, Green and Liberal voters. As a Leftist, at least you are consistent.

Does the premise of a left of centre coalition party entail anything that the Canadian federal right wing parties--Reform and Progressive Conservatives--have not done? Did they not restrict the choices of right wing adherents? As this seemed to allow them to gain political power, why should the left of centre parties not do the same?

[M.Dancer]

There's no reason the NDP couldn't be as popular in Canada as the Labour Party became in England.

Except I believe that trade unionism is larger and better organized in the UK and unlike Canada, trade unionists there vote for the left wing party.

[cybercoma]

Except I believe that trade unionism is larger and better organized in the UK and unlike Canada, trade unionists there vote for the left wing party.

That very well may be so. Trade unionists here are not loyal to the wishes of the union leaders. I think that may be in part to the fact that the unionists view the union leadership like corporate executives whom act in their own interests rather than the interests of the employees. When it comes down the line that the employees should vote NDP (or Liberal as the case may be now), employees ignore the leadership because they don't have any credibility.

However, having a tempered ideology that is more pragmatic and in tune with the wishes of the electorate would be a benefit to any party. I think Jack Layton is content with just holding the balance of power this way he can direct legislation from the bleachers without getting his hands dirty. I don't think Jack Layton wants the party to grow or have a viable chance forming government, otherwise he would be working on moving the party more towards the center.

Edited September 18, 2008 by cybercoma

[JerrySeinfeld]

I read a column basically saying this: Really, in Canada every party is peddling the same bullshit. Whereas in the USA there is a clear choice whereas in Canada, there is some eery "assumed" direction the country is already going (long ago decided upon by Trudeau and his ilk) - for example environaziism, wealth transfer, universal health care etc., and it's a doctrine all the parties must bow to. So whether you're a liberal or a conseravtive or a NDP, you all tout your priority is to "preserve our universal health care system, fight to save the trees and vow to redistribute wealth so that all provinces are roughly equal, suck up to first nations people with more money, swallow Buzz Hargrove's bs etc."

That's why our election is bullshit and the american one is fun and interesting to watch. Because we've all long ago resigned ourselves to our fate as a socialist mecca ruled by Toronto and Montreal lawyers, professors and CBC reporters, whereas the states is a clear battle of ideological differnces where large chunks of the country refuse to be told what to do by ivory tower left wing cesspools (like harvard or columbia) and media know-it-alls.

Edited September 23, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld