Liberals need to move left

[normanchateau]

As I look at the numbers in the last five elections, I see no evidence whatsoever that Canadians have suddenly, or even gradually, become right wingers. The right wing vote has been remarkably consistent. The problem for the Liberals in winning an election is that many Liberal voters have moved left or stayed home. They've not moved right. Here are some numbers:

2008 election

Conservative votes =5,205,334 % of votes=37.6%

2006 election

Conservative votes =5,374,071 % of votes=36.3%

2004 election

Conservative votes =3,994,682 % of votes=29.6%

2000 election

Alliance and PCs combined =4,843,927 % of votes=37.7%

1997 election

Reform and PCs combined =4,959,785 % of votes=38.2%

Many Liberals are under the impression that if Frank McKenna could be drafted as leader, he'd defeat Harper. I doubt it. The Liberals need a leader who can recapture the NDP and Green voters. Much as I'd like to see McKenna as leader, I don't see how he'd appeal to NDP or Green voters. McKenna might draw a handful of Conservative voters to the Liberals but that's trivial compared to a leader who could bring back substantial numbers of NDP and Green voters.

[drewski]

I don't believe you're are taking into account the people who more and more aren't voting who I believe to be centrist voters who don't' like what the Liberals have done and for any number of reasons don't want to vote for Harper.

Looking at this years vote, the Liberals lost 650k more votes then the Greens & NDP (combined) gained (the Cons lost ~170k). That shows me that the support isn't necessarily shifting to the NDP & Greens as much as the centrist supporters (for the Libs & Cons) just aren't showing up to vote.

Also, in the 2006 vote, where the Liberals lost their position as government, the Conservatives gained 2.5x as many votes as the combined Greens & NDP did

[M.Dancer]

Fighting for the left wing vote is a losing option that is fully endorsed by those who would have a centre right government. The Liberals have traditionally been a centrist big tent party and that is the only way that any party can form a government. Fighting the NDP for the 16-18% of Canadians who have no grasp of economics will only repeat Dion's fiasco ad infinitum ad nauseum.

[Mr.Canada]

Fighting for the left wing vote is a losing option that is fully endorsed by those who would have a centre right government. The Liberals have traditionally been a centrist big tent party and that is the only way that any party can form a government. Fighting the NDP for the 16-18% of Canadians who have no grasp of economics will only repeat Dion's fiasco ad infinitum ad nauseum.

And now they have parties on the left and only one in the centre and right of centre. It bodes well for Mr. Harper and The Conservatives.

[madmax]

Fighting for the left wing vote is a losing option that is fully endorsed by those who would have a centre right government. The Liberals have traditionally been a centrist big tent party and that is the only way that any party can form a government. Fighting the NDP for the 16-18% of Canadians who have no grasp of economics will only repeat Dion's fiasco ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Actual Dion fought for the 5 % to 7% of the "Centrist GP" tent. The LPC are used to campaigning on the ideas of the NDP. Implementing them is another story. The LPC of the 90s reacted to Reform pressure, for fiscal responsibility and not running deficits. THe LPC will not be taking marginal GP ideas as a campaign plank. However, the fear that Canadians have is that if the LPC were ever elected, the would implement the Carbon Tax. That the LPC would have a hidden agenda.

Considering that the NDP was more Centrist in this past election then the LPC. One has to wonder, how much further away from the mainstream would a leader be willing to move the party?

And considering that the CPC campaigned on a nothing although steady as she goes and somewhat Centrist platform. It was undermined by individual radical thoughts (ie Harper). It should be clear that the rush should be towards the middle.

Edited October 23, 2008 by madmax

[jdobbin]

Actual Dion fought for the 5 % to 7% of the "Centrist GP" tent. The LPC are used to campaigning on the ideas of the NDP. Implementing them is another story. The LPC of the 90s reacted to Reform pressure, for fiscal responsibility and not running deficits.

Not exactly true. Governments of every stripe were cutting back because deficits were starting to become one of the larger items on the budget.

Considering that the NDP was more Centrist in this past election then the LPC. One has to wonder, how much further away from the mainstream would a leader be willing to move the party?

The main plank of ending the business tax cut probably made people remember that the NDP isn't that centrist.

[kimmy]

2008 election

Conservative votes =5,205,334 % of votes=37.6%

2006 election

Conservative votes =5,374,071 % of votes=36.3%

2004 election

Conservative votes =3,994,682 % of votes=29.6%

2000 election

Alliance and PCs combined =4,843,927 % of votes=37.7%

1997 election

Reform and PCs combined =4,959,785 % of votes=38.2%

The Liberals for a long time had sought the Cinderella voter. "This chair is too big! This chair is too small! This chair is just right!"

Dion's policies took away the Liberals' medium-sized chair and pushed the Liberals in a direction of competing with two other parties offering small chairs. A lot of voters who'd have considered a medium-sized chair probably opted for the large chair. Other voters who'd have preferred a medium sized chair but decided for a smaller chair, found themselves choosing between 3 small chairs. A lot of them opted for the orange-colored small chair rather than the red one.

38% of the popular vote puts the CPC in a range where they can contend for a majority government. Ceding that number to them and moving farther left to compete with 2 other parties for the remaining 62% of the votes would be dangerous for the Liberals for 2 reasons.

Firstly, it's still a first-past-the-post system. Conceding 38% of the voters to the CPC and choosing to fight 2 other parties for the remainder creates a lot of scenarios where the votes split in a way that elect a CPC candidate.

Secondly, it puts a lot of faith in the assumption that the 62% of the people who didn't vote CPC are people would not vote CPC regardless of what the options were. I think a lot of the people who voted Liberal were people who would prefer a centrist option. Taking the Liberals further to the left might leave these voters concluding that the CPC offers the better option for centrist views.

If one notes the drop in "right wing" votes from 2000 to 2004, one suspects that those voters were centrist voters who had supported the Progressive Conservatives, but in 2004 decided that the Liberals reflected their views better than the new "united right". In the time since, those voters appear to have changed their mind, probably more because of corruption (2006) and Dion straying from the centrist path (2008). Those voters would be willing to reconsider the Liberals. Conversely, some Liberal voters would probably be willing to consider the CPC if the Liberals continue to abandon their traditional position in the center. Or, more likely, traditional Liberal supporters who feel abandoned would just stay home. "That's not the Liberal party I used to support. I think I'm going to stay home and watch Sarah Connor instead of voting."

-k

[normanchateau]

Dion straying from the centrist path (2008).

The conventional wisdom is that Dion did indeed stray from the centrist path but other than the Green Shift, it's not clear to me that his policies were other than centrist. He supported corporate tax cuts, extending the mission in Afghanistan, the federal budgets, crime legislation, etc. I don't see that he moved the Liberals left (nor would he have succeeded given his inability to influence others).

[eyeball]

Firstly, it's still a first-past-the-post system. Conceding 38% of the voters to the CPC and choosing to fight 2 other parties for the remainder creates a lot of scenarios where the votes split in a way that elect a CPC candidate.

This is why the Bloc is such an important factor. More power to them and regionalism in general if it prevents ideological majorities and locks Canada into an endless chain of minority governments. Hopefully the frustration this causes will move things along towards electoral reforms.

Oe way or another it seems we're destined to arrive at pizza parliament where the majority of Canadians each try to order a tailor made slice.

Its time the first-past-the-posters embrace the horror and accept the inevitable.

[Brunopolis]

It wasn't even a matter of moving left. The Liberal "Green Shift" plan had possibly the worst timing I've ever seen(massive increases in oil prices) so that gave the Conservatives lots of ammunition to use against the Liberals. In addition, Dion, to the populace, seems to be a rather weak leader so he wasn't really able to defend against the Conservative attacks very well. And finally, to top it all off people still are a little sour from the sponsorship scandal and aren't all that keen to give the Liberals another chance yet.

I don't think it's very surprising that the Liberals had their worst showing ever. They just need a relatively reliable leader with a fairly safe platform and just wait it out. In 4-5 years they will probably win again by playing it "safe".

[independent]

It wasn't even a matter of moving left. The Liberal "Green Shift" plan had possibly the worst timing I've ever seen(massive increases in oil prices) so that gave the Conservatives lots of ammunition to use against the Liberals. In addition, Dion, to the populace, seems to be a rather weak leader so he wasn't really able to defend against the Conservative attacks very well. And finally, to top it all off people still are a little sour from the sponsorship scandal and aren't all that keen to give the Liberals another chance yet.

I don't think it's very surprising that the Liberals had their worst showing ever. They just need a relatively reliable leader with a fairly safe platform and just wait it out. In 4-5 years they will probably win again by playing it "safe".

You nailed the problems. The Liberals were not at all prepared to go to an election. The polles were not on their side. There election platform was a work in progress. It is best for the Liberals to maintain a central-central right position and wait in out.

[betsy]

The conventional wisdom is that Dion did indeed stray from the centrist path but other than the Green Shift, it's not clear to me that his policies were other than centrist. He supported corporate tax cuts, extending the mission in Afghanistan, the federal budgets, crime legislation, etc. I don't see that he moved the Liberals left (nor would he have succeeded given his inability to influence others).

His big spendings on social programs are definitely leftist.

[independent]

His big spendings on social programs are definitely leftist.

What spending are we talking about?

[scribblet]

Interesting, this writer thinks the Liberals need to turn right -

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opi.../article/457204

In veering the Liberal Party sharply to the left, Dion essentially abdicated the centre-right, where Liberals have most successfully governed from in the past, to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, at a time when stage left is so crowded and fractious, what with Jack Layton's NDP slugging it out with Elizabeth May's also left-turning Greens and in Quebec the lefty Bloc as well, for basically the same cohort of voters.

Even absent Dion's many personal angularities, his deliberate choice in pandering to Canada's oversubscribed left-wing faction made the Liberals' 27-seat meltdown and popular vote nosedive in the election outcome hardly a shock.

[independent]

Interesting, this writer thinks the Liberals need to turn right -

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opi.../article/457204

(If you leave out all the exageration for effect) The article makes some good points. The Liberals have to concentrate at what they do best and let the NDP represent the Left which they do quite effectively.

[eyeball]

It wasn't even a matter of moving left. The Liberal "Green Shift" plan had possibly the worst timing I've ever seen(massive increases in oil prices) so that gave the Conservatives lots of ammunition to use against the Liberals. In addition, Dion, to the populace, seems to be a rather weak leader so he wasn't really able to defend against the Conservative attacks very well. And finally, to top it all off people still are a little sour from the sponsorship scandal and aren't all that keen to give the Liberals another chance yet.

I don't think it's very surprising that the Liberals had their worst showing ever. They just need a relatively reliable leader with a fairly safe platform and just wait it out. In 4-5 years they will probably win again by playing it "safe".

The economic timing for introducing tax shifting or has been terrible. Just in time to make people think fearfully about trying to account for the loss of natural capital in the real world that fuels growth in our economy.

If I didn't know any better I'd say the timing of the financial crisis was deliberate. In reality though, it's no coincidence that thousands of animals are on the brink of extinction due to a crisis of natural capital at the same time we human's are having a financial capital crisis. The easy wealth has been liquidated and humans are now reduced to reaching for yield by selling and trading numbers on paper.

Playing it safe...what does that mean to people who can't even recognize never mind acknowledge the real danger they're actually in?

[independent]

The economic timing for introducing tax shifting or has been terrible. Just in time to make people think fearfully about trying to account for the loss of natural capital in the real world that fuels growth in our economy.

If I didn't know any better I'd say the timing of the financial crisis was deliberate. In reality though, it's no coincidence that thousands of animals are on the brink of extinction due to a crisis of natural capital at the same time we human's are having a financial capital crisis. The easy wealth has been liquidated and humans are now reduced to reaching for yield by selling and trading numbers on paper.

Playing it safe...what does that mean to people who can't even recognize never mind acknowledge the real danger they're actually in?

People who not recognize real danger vote. It is up to the government, media, intellectuals etc. too educate the public.

[segnosaur]

As I look at the numbers in the last five elections, I see no evidence whatsoever that Canadians have suddenly, or even gradually, become right wingers. The right wing vote has been remarkably consistent. The problem for the Liberals in winning an election is that many Liberal voters have moved left or stayed home. They've not moved right.

The key problem in your whole argument is the assumption that people automatically vote according to their position in the left-right political spectrum.

People cast their votes for a multitude of reasons... personality of both the local and federal candidates, scandals and other events (just the appearance of the Green Party in the national debates would have been enough to give them exposure to increase their vote count, even if people did not necessarily support their policies). Even ignorance is a big factor (if you tell people if they want lower taxes or higher taxes/spending, they'll probably go with the lower taxes, but they still may vote for a left-wing candidate without understanding how their policies affect them.)

Heck, I could even point out that the left-vs-right wing is flawed because its possible to be 'right wing' economically but left wing socially.

This doesn't mean people have or haven't "become right wingers", only that looking only at the number of votes cast for various parties doesn't really give a proper indication of whether the person themselves is left wing or right wing.

[normanchateau]

Heck, I could even point out that the left-vs-right wing is flawed because its possible to be 'right wing' economically but left wing socially.

An excellent point and perhaps I should modify my hypothesis and/or my terminology. I suspect that the average Canadian is both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Unfortunately no current political party easily fits that description. CPC certainly aspires to fit that description and is probably perceived as fitting that description by many CPC voters.

Yet the "Conservative" vote, from 1997 to 2008, really has not increased in any meaningful way. In my opinion it has remained flat because the current CPC government has failed to alter the perception of nonCPC voters.

NonCPC voters do not see CPC as socially liberal and never will with the current leader. CPC has convinced a large segment of the Canadian population, probably a majority, that they are fiscally conservative. This is an incredible accomplishment given that their spending to date has outpaced that of the previous Liberal government. Harper's major accomplishment is that Canadians perceive CPC as fiscally conservative despite evidence to the contrary.

So why has the number of "Conservative" voters not increased? Perhaps it is because more than 60% of Canadians view themselves as socially liberal and neither Manning, Day nor Harper, all party leaders at one time and all perceived as fiscal conservatives by a majority of Canadians, will ever convince Canadians that they are socially liberal. Quebecois will be especially difficult to convince.

I stand by my belief that the Liberals need to recapture some NDP and Green votes rather than Conservative votes. I don't see Frank McKenna doing that. However, if Frank McKenna were the CPC rather than Liberal leader, he'd win a majority with ease by resonating with the average fiscally conservative, socially liberal voter. Brian Mulroney was twice able to convince Canadians that he fit this description despite his deficit spending.

Ultimately how Canadians perceive their leader is far more important than the leader's actual policies, priorities, behaviour and location on the left-right continuum.

[Kitch]

Fighting for the left wing vote is a losing option that is fully endorsed by those who would have a centre right government. The Liberals have traditionally been a centrist big tent party and that is the only way that any party can form a government. Fighting the NDP for the 16-18% of Canadians who have no grasp of economics will only repeat Dion's fiasco ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Not that I support the NDP but why is it so commonly assumed that an individual who does has 'no grasp of economics' rather than having a different perspective of the economy... or simply has different priorities?

Edited October 24, 2008 by Kitch

[Mr.Canada]

Not that I support the NDP but why is it so commonly assumed that an individual who does has 'no grasp of economics' rather than having a different perspective of the economy... or simply prioritizing differently?

That would be partly because if Canada followed the NDP fiscal plan it would most certainly bankrupt the country. Raise interest rates and taxes to the point of near total market collapse.

However they can make all sorts of pie in the sky promises as they know they'll never form a government.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

Not that I support the NDP but why is it so commonly assumed that an individual who does has 'no grasp of economics' rather than having a different perspective of the economy... or simply has different priorities?

Fpr the NDP, to propose taxoing business more in the face of an economic slowdown, which would only increase unemployment, lower productivity and reduce the tax revenue is not to understand economics.

The sliver lining is:

1) there's a snowballs chance they would ever get elected.

2) there isn't a senior civil servant alive that would allow such irresponsibility to go unchallenged.

[Kitch]

Fpr the NDP, to propose taxoing business more in the face of an economic slowdown, which would only increase unemployment, lower productivity and reduce the tax revenue is not to understand economics.

The sliver lining is:

1) there's a snowballs chance they would ever get elected.

2) there isn't a senior civil servant alive that would allow such irresponsibility to go unchallenged.

What you've said doesn't sound unreasonable. But it is possible (I'm making no comment on the likelihood) that some businesses view providing their service/product to Canadians as more important than making more money. No matter how many people dislike this notion or believe it to be an unlikely scenario, it's not ridiculous.

(how much more do businesses make when business taxes are reduced anyway? Don't they have good accountants that know how to navigate through tax laws?)

[Mr.Canada]

What you've said doesn't sound unreasonable. But it is possible (I'm making no comment on the likelihood) that some businesses view providing their service/product to Canadians as more important than making more money. No matter how many people dislike this notion or believe it to be an unlikely scenario, it's not ridiculous.

(how much more do businesses make when business taxes are reduced anyway? Don't they have good accountants that know how to navigate through tax laws?)

Most big business is based in the US. Shareholders and the bottom line are all that are important. As always the consumer would foot the bill and the price of goods would go up across the board.

[Kitch]

Most big business is based in the US. Shareholders and the bottom line are all that are important. As always the consumer would foot the bill and the price of goods would go up across the board.

We used to have our own 'big' businesses until NAFTA. Relatively speaking, of course.