The Liberal Party Must Be Destroyed

[scribblet]

I thought you might enjoy reading this He has a point though - for the Liberals to become a viable force again, they need a complete redo - maybe the merger idea has some merit (for the Liberals).

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/10/jon-kay-the-liberal-party-must-be-destroyed-%E2%80%94-for-its-own-good/

The Liberals’ treacly love affair with themselves wasn’t a problem in the Trudeau era, when the country truly did hunger for the sort of large-scale national projects that played to the party’s grandiose sense of holy ordainment. Nor was it a problem in the 1990s, when the opposition had fractured into regional constituencies, and the Liberals could declare themselves a “natural governing party.” But now that the right has united, and the taste for Trudeuvia has evaporated, Liberal self-love has sabotaged the party in two major ways:

1. It has made Liberals existentially incompetent at the act of opposition, since the role itself is seen as an insult to the natural order of the universe. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom (with whom I normally disagree) nailed this point when he recently wrote that “the Liberals don’t take the role of opposition seriously. Desperate for power, they are unwilling to do anything to spark an election until they are reasonably sure of winning it.”

-snip-

Liberals should welcome their own party’s funeral. As things stand, most of the lifelong Liberals I know walk around in a state of unspoken shame because their party isn’t fulfilling its divine destiny. Surely it must be someone’s fault, they suppose — and so they cast about for internal enemies, attacking one another in a whirlwind of panic and bickering.

By starting fresh, Liberals such as Grafstein could finally reawaken to the idea of politics as an exchange of ideas, rather than a sentimental, self-righteous marketing exercise.

[Molly]

National Post and Jonathan Kaye?

Now that makes more sense... Conservative partisans as the push behind the merger gossip.

[maldon_road]

What the Liberal Party needs is a leader who doesn't sound like a condescending academic. Of course with four parties (Libs, NDP, BLOC, Greens) essentially all going after the same vote the Tories start every election with an edge.

Edited June 11, 2010 by maldon_road

[Hydraboss]

National Post and Jonathan Kaye?

Now that makes more sense... Conservative partisans as the push behind the merger gossip.

Maybe, but if I were to guess at the true impetus behind the merger talk, I would "follow the money"....right to Bob Rae. Who stands to gain more than the sort of-NDP, sort of-Liberal that can "save everyone and mend fences"? If I were Bob, I'd push for it. None of the other "leadership candidates" (including Iggy) would stand a chance of uniting the left.

[Topaz]

Maybe, but if I were to guess at the true impetus behind the merger talk, I would "follow the money"....right to Bob Rae. Who stands to gain more than the sort of-NDP, sort of-Liberal that can "save everyone and mend fences"? If I were Bob, I'd push for it. None of the other "leadership candidates" (including Iggy) would stand a chance of uniting the left.

How about both, the Tories and Bob Rae? Both would benefit from this. The Tories know what the voters thought of a coalition in the past and Rae, always wants to be leader of the Liberal. I, personal, like Rae but rather have Dominic Le Blanc as the next leader of the Liberal. What could the Tories possibly have on Dominic? He's clean as far as I know, and Rae always has being the Premier of Ontario in his past and the Tories don't let him forget it either. I'm sorry Iggy isn't working out but there are some people that aren't meant for politics. I bet if you get Le Blanc in the leadership, you have more of Quebec supporters.

[scribblet]

The point is, without a complete turnaround and cleaning out, the Liberal party can't go anywhere.

I do believe that Bob Rae is behind this as he has the most to gain from a leadership convention. -

[capricorn]

Ignatieff is not in the good graces of the Desmarais powerhouse, as are Chretien and Bob Rae. I wouldn't be surprised that this was Rae's objective from day one of joining the Liberals...to merge the two parties. He has a friend and ally in Chretien.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree entirely - that the Liberal Party has to be re-made from the ground up. As several pundits have said, the Liberals have been backstabbing each other for 30 years - Chretien/Turner, Martin/Chretien, Martin/the Liberal Party, Dion/the Liberal Party, now Ignatieff/ the Liberal Party. The Chretien divisive majorities only served to mask the fratricide within the party. Socialized/Welfare State countries are imploding all over the world. This did not happen yesterday - it's been a slow decline as national debts and taxation mounted. The economic crisis is just the straw that broke the camel's back. As with all things political, the pendulum has swung back. Countries simply cannot afford the grand plans of yesterday. There is a fine balance between socialism and fiscal responsibility - one that is out of kilter in many countries. As a result, countries have been moving to Center/Right governments. Since Trudeau, the Liberals have always done waht's best for the Liberal Party - not what's best for Canada.

One illustrative example was featured on CBC Politics yesterday. Two guests were asked to analyse the government's new legislation on making it harder to obtain Canadian citizenship and not so nearly impossible to lose it. Originally you needed to be in Canada for 5 years before you could apply for citizenship. Both agreed that the Liberals changed it to 3 years so they could "get those people's votes". They both agreed that it was a bad thing to do and welcomed the new changes - even though "they don't go far enough".

Good for the Liberals, bad for Canada. They need to be re-built - and re-conscioused.

[Machjo]

In response to the title of tis OP. Why only the Liberal Party? All parties should be destroyed.

[nicky10013]

A merger isn't going to happen. A lot of people don't mind the thought of a coalition to get rid of Harper but when the talk of an actual merger comes up I don't know of a single person who supports such a move. It would have to be voted on and it won't be approved.

[ToadBrother]

A merger isn't going to happen. A lot of people don't mind the thought of a coalition to get rid of Harper but when the talk of an actual merger comes up I don't know of a single person who supports such a move. It would have to be voted on and it won't be approved.

I tend to agree. Everyone concentrated on the Liberal caucus having serious issues with co-operating with the Bloc in 2008. What most people didn't pay much attention to was the fact that a number of Liberal MPs weren't exactly thrilled to have Layton sitting in a Liberal cabinet. I think maybe they would tolerate it so far as defeating the Tories, but to actually merge? Like I said, I think you would have the more right-leaning Liberal MPs cross the floor at that point. There is a lot of contempt for Layton and the more extreme socialists in the NDP among a lot of Liberals.

[nicky10013]

I tend to agree. Everyone concentrated on the Liberal caucus having serious issues with co-operating with the Bloc in 2008. What most people didn't pay much attention to was the fact that a number of Liberal MPs weren't exactly thrilled to have Layton sitting in a Liberal cabinet. I think maybe they would tolerate it so far as defeating the Tories, but to actually merge? Like I said, I think you would have the more right-leaning Liberal MPs cross the floor at that point. There is a lot of contempt for Layton and the more extreme socialists in the NDP among a lot of Liberals.

If there's a merger, I don't think anyone would cross the floor immediately. If Harper goes and the party becomes more moderate, then you'll see people cross the floor. However, that arrangement wouldn't last long as the crazy nutjobs from out west would leave and it would be reform all over again.

[scribblet]

The CPC is very moderate, they are governing from the Centre, so if you mean more left wing or more socialism, that ain't going to happen.

[Machjo]

The CPC is very moderate, they are governing from the Centre, so if you mean more left wing or more socialism, that ain't going to happen.

The CPC is neither right nor left. I have no clue what it is, but I don't see how a fake lake plays in its ideological make up.

[eyeball]

The CPC is neither right nor left. I have no clue what it is, but I don't see how a fake lake plays in its ideological make up.

I do see how it plays into people's awareness of the CPC's character.

But like Machjo's point why just stop with the Liberals? Like the old lawyer joke, it would be a good start.

[madmax]

The CPC is neither right nor left. I have no clue what it is, but I don't see how a fake lake plays in its ideological make up.

ROTFLMAO....

Nice Pitch....

[wyly]

I do see how it plays into people's awareness of the CPC's character.

the honeymoon is over, people are seeing what Harper an the CPC are about...if the latest opinion polls are accurate if an election were held today the CPC would lose 23 seats in BC and Ontario, panic must be setting in the PMO's office right about now...if opinions remain constant we'll see another minority government and likely a coalition so there'll be no merger and Canadians now being more informed in regards to coalitons aren't being frightened by that option

[ToadBrother]

the honeymoon is over, people are seeing what Harper an the CPC are about...if the latest opinion polls are accurate if an election were held today the CPC would lose 23 seats in BC and Ontario, panic must be setting in the PMO's office right about now...if opinions remain constant we'll see another minority government and likely a coalition so there'll be no merger and Canadians now being more informed in regards to coalitons aren't being frightened by that option

Until next week when they're up three points.

The only thing the last year of polling has demonstrated is that we're circling. Whether it's the airport or the toilet I'll leave to others to decide.

[Moonlight Graham]

Wow, the Liberals lose a couple of elections by a minority govt and some Liberals are thinking about self-destruction & complete reorganization? That's like the New York Yankees talking about chaning their name & moving to Orlando after they miss the playoffs a few years in a row.

Don't worry Liberals, find a decent leader who has lived in the country most of his life then wait for the CPC to shoot themselves in the foot and you'll be alright. Oh, and please forget about Bob Rae.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[madmax]

the honeymoon is over, people are seeing what Harper an the CPC are about...if the latest opinion polls are accurate if an election were held today the CPC would lose 23 seats in BC and Ontario, panic must be setting in the PMO's office right about now...if opinions remain constant we'll see another minority government and likely a coalition so there'll be no merger and Canadians now being more informed in regards to coalitons aren't being frightened by that option

There isn't going to be an election TODAY. And the CPC have all the time in the world to plan and message a campaign. And they will have a well messaged campaign. The CPC is a well oiled machine with a squeaky leader who needs a little lubricant to get to the finish line with a majority.

The LPC is a machine without oil. The whole mechanism is squeaking. Parts of it work, lots of it is dysfunctional. Once the campaign begins, the vacant lot will become apparent.

Look how easily a partisan hack can make such a provocative thread title and there is little coming to kill or address this nonsense head on. It almost gives the thread title legitimacy.

Like mentioned elsewhere, why end with the LPC, lets do a favour and continue.

Canadians were only frightened of the coalition because the CPC shit their pants when they saw their power disolving and needed to create a panic to avoid a panic. To clever by half they CPC nearly tossed away their government and luckily and smartly got it back under control. But it was the CPC that pointed the weapon and shot their own foot and the CPC that applied the tourneqy to their wound.

The rediculous coalition messaging has no resonance as you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. And that can be taken as a statement for both the PRO and CON coalition parties messaging.

The LPC is in trouble. Infact, it is very probable the LPC will be reduced in seat count, although not by many. And it is very probable the CPC will increase in seatcount, but not by many.

The LPC need not be destroyed, but it does need to be put out of its misery.

If the CPC wacknuts and there crazy policies went to the wastebucket, the LPC would be merging in a heartbeat. OR more importantly the LPC doesn't have those crazy nutbars that cost the CPC a majority.

But the LPC lacks a leader, policy and vision. In effect. Its not a party but a club.

Compared to the CPC which is a club supported by a party.

[fellowtraveller]

delete

Edited June 11, 2010 by fellowtraveller

[fellowtraveller]

National Post and Jonathan Kaye?

Now that makes more sense... Conservative partisans as the push behind the merger gossip.

Yes, and the greatest coup of the dirty tricks boys at CPC HQ was to fabricate those photos of Dion, Laytong and Duceppe smiling and shaking hands.

[nicky10013]

There isn't going to be an election TODAY. And the CPC have all the time in the world to plan and message a campaign. And they will have a well messaged campaign. The CPC is a well oiled machine with a squeaky leader who needs a little lubricant to get to the finish line with a majority.

The LPC is a machine without oil. The whole mechanism is squeaking. Parts of it work, lots of it is dysfunctional. Once the campaign begins, the vacant lot will become apparent.

Look how easily a partisan hack can make such a provocative thread title and there is little coming to kill or address this nonsense head on. It almost gives the thread title legitimacy.

Like mentioned elsewhere, why end with the LPC, lets do a favour and continue.

Canadians were only frightened of the coalition because the CPC shit their pants when they saw their power disolving and needed to create a panic to avoid a panic. To clever by half they CPC nearly tossed away their government and luckily and smartly got it back under control. But it was the CPC that pointed the weapon and shot their own foot and the CPC that applied the tourneqy to their wound.

The rediculous coalition messaging has no resonance as you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. And that can be taken as a statement for both the PRO and CON coalition parties messaging.

The LPC is in trouble. Infact, it is very probable the LPC will be reduced in seat count, although not by many. And it is very probable the CPC will increase in seatcount, but not by many.

The LPC need not be destroyed, but it does need to be put out of its misery.

If the CPC wacknuts and there crazy policies went to the wastebucket, the LPC would be merging in a heartbeat. OR more importantly the LPC doesn't have those crazy nutbars that cost the CPC a majority.

But the LPC lacks a leader, policy and vision. In effect. Its not a party but a club.

Compared to the CPC which is a club supported by a party.

After the crap he's pulled, Harper is never going to win a majority. Until he's gone, no party will win one. Harper has become the log jam.

As for the Party - there's a vision, there are principles and core values but there isn't a platform and it won't be released until the campaign starts because it'll be smeared up and down simply because the CPC has money to burn.

As for being leaderless, every party is leaderless until the first campaign. They're unknown and almost always treated in a hostile manner - see Harper, Chretien etc. Does Ignatieff have what it takes? I don't know. However, for those saying he doesn't, just remember that they all get this treatment.

[August1991]

The point is, without a complete turnaround and cleaning out, the Liberal party can't go anywhere.

Once upon a time, I thought the same as you Scriblett. Now I realize that the problem is more fundamental.

From the Kay link in the OP about the federal Liberal Party:

The most common is the one about the Liberals being “the party of Laurier” — as if the party affiliation of someone who’s been dead for almost a century should have the slightest bearing on how anyone today should vote. It’s the equivalent of an American Republican describing the GOP as “the party of Taft,” or a Democrat declaring his fealty to the “Party of Wilson.”

Kay sadly must use a US reference. Well, on this question, the US is a very bad example.

When it comes to federal politics, Canada is original in its own way.

----

When teh Liberal Party chose Wifrid Laurier as its leader, it chose a Roman Catholic francophone from Quebec. Since 1896, the Liberals always had support in Ontario and French Quebec (excepting 1958 under Pearson against Duplessis) and, well, since the rise of teh BQ.

IOW, between 1896 and recently, the federeal Liberals were the party of a united Canada.

The federal Liberals now are not a player in French Quebec and they only run candidates with French names (Marc Garneau) in west island ridings (Westmount).

If you don't believe me, you might believe Chantal Hébert:

Pour un parti qui n’a à peu près plus de racines à l’ouest de l’Ontario et qui est largement absent du Québec francophone depuis plus de vingt ans...

L'Actualité

-----

My point here is that federal politics is not driven by ideology but by regionalism. The federal Liberal Party was once the great uniter/cross-over between English/French Canada, Catholic/Protestant Canada. The Bloc has driven a stake through the Liberal Party. Canada today is deeply divided along regional lines and these divisions are apparent within the federal Liberals.

Is it fault of Canada? Or is it a failure of the Liberals? I don't think it's the Liberals fault - Canada has changed.

It may be possible to unite Canadians along ideological lines (this is after all the 21st century) but I somehow doubt it.

Edited June 12, 2010 by August1991

[William Ashley]

This thread represents another reason why partisan politics fail. It ain't the party, it is what gets done. What good is a machine that threshes your arm, or bulldozes your house?

I could care less who was voting yes or no on a bill as long as they voted the right way.

As far as goverment is concerned - I don't want legislators running government, they ought to be crafting guidelines, not running it. Parliamentary Secretaries make sense, but the most popular person ain't necisarily going to be the most able - when was the last time a deputy head of a department - the actual life time civil servant was made a minister - you'd think they would be more qualified than some person who hasn't even ran a government ministry - or acted as a parliamentary secretary.

Using probabilities, the best legislators wouldn't also always be the best ministers. Likewise a secretary of state and a parliamentary secretary are totally different roles. The fact these almost always come from the commons when the senate is full of much more experienced people tends to demonstrate how bad prime ministers have been in composing cabinets. The cabinet should not be left to the commons but should be filled with able people. While the PMO and Speaker make sense to be voted from the house of commons (although not always for the PMO role) cabinet should draw upon experts not partisan persons - you can't do your job right if you have biases, and even more so if you voted against a law you have to administer - it is a conflict of interest.

If required the legislators would give more information or lobby the courts if there was a breach of law, if dialouge between parliament and the minister didn't remedy isssues of administration.

To clarify

MP's are suppose to represent their ridings.

PM's are suppose to organize a government that administers laws called upon by the people through their representtives, or by government on behalf of petitioners or the requirements of state. A PM has a conflict of interest in performing their duties and should have to resign their riding if they are elected as PM.

Cabinet - is suppose to be the most qualified individuals to oversee the performance of ministries, and to coordinate in council within the confines of law for right practice of government - making this partisan by creating it from political parties or MP's is a conflict of interest.

Individuals such as Royal Comissions or Parliamentary secretaries should be able to have their reports read or be brought to a committee of the whole to deliver reports on ministry functions.

Secretaries of state should lias between functions of state such as the GG in overseeing the functions of the GG and likewise while it may be prudent for the PM to appoint these, having these are representatives is a conflict of interest.

MP's should however be able to be part of parliamentary committees, and these committes should also involve relevant persons such as ministers and secretaries for best function.

Government is simply too partisan; however, teechnically, by oath of allegiance they are still suppose to be serving the interests of the queen, but I think that there is room for conflict of interest if they are both legislators and government functionaries.

This is not to say that all people elected are incompetent hacks out for their own interests rather than doing their job. It is to say that not everyone is qualified for their position, while sometimees they may be, most times they probably won't.

Edited June 12, 2010 by William Ashley