The Liberal Party Must Be Destroyed

[August1991]

The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.

Nicky, you are attempting to paste ideology on a political party (and a federal politics) where regionalism is far more important.

The federal Liberal Party used to be a mechanism (even up to Pearson) to horsetrade among regions. Canada is as fractious as it has ever been and the Liberal Party should get back to its historical task.

definitely, and that is a phenomenon of the last 30 years or so.

Every province or group of provinces is on their own, fighting with each other for money, with the feds pitted agaisnt them too.

Only the last 30 years? I'd go back much further. 200 years at least.

IOW, regional jealousies and political maneuvering have been part of Canadian politics for centuries. Indeed, that's mostly what Canadian politics are about.

I think we're forgetting that "Urban Canada" is 90% of the population. Why should thos 90% should be held hostage?

So, the majority has the right to impose a dictatorship on the minority? And where are you getting this 90% number from?

What's really happened here, of course, is that Urban Canada has imposed ludicrous restrictions on Rural Canada, because, shocking as it seems, every once in a while some maniac manages to get his hand on some firepower and kills a bunch of people, so therefore every farmer with a shotgun clearly is a potential lunatic that will walk into a big city university and kill a bunch of women.

ToadBrother, I am very much an urban citizen but I hear you loud and clear.

I know that this invites a thread hijack but it seems to me that we could enact much better gun control while leaving rural people with unregistered guns. Unfortunately, it is very hard to make that argument with urban voters who have never seen a gun and cannot understand why anyone needs one.

Edited June 15, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

Nicky, you are attempting to paste ideology on a political party (and a federal politics) where regionalism is far more important.

The federal Liberal Party used to be a mechanism (even up to Pearson) to horsetrade among regions. Canada is as fractious as it has ever been and the Liberal Party should get back to its historical task.

I disagree. The Liberal Party was and always been a federalist party. It was a federalist party from the time of Laurier to right now with Ignatieff. It's the only true federalist party left. The PCs up to Mulroney used to be the same. When the PCs exploded into the Reform Party and the Bloc is when regionalism, which has always been an issue, became as prominent an issue as it is today. The Bloc is all about Quebec and the Reform, now CPC has been playing east off west since the early 90s. The only party since that explosion to run a consisten message from coast to coast during campaigns and out has been the Liberal Party.

Unless of course that's what you're advocating they should do. In that case, I completely disagree with that. It's the federal government. We're all Canadian.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

[August1991]

I disagree. The Liberal Party was and always been a federalist party. It was a federalist party from the time of Laurier to right now with Ignatieff. The PCs up to Mulroney used to be the same. When the PCs exploded into the Reform Party and the Bloc is when regionalism, which has always been an issue, became as prominent an issue as it is today. The Bloc is all about Quebec and the Reform, now CPC has been playing east off west since the early 90s. The only party since that explosion to run a consisten message from coast to coast during campaigns and out has been the Liberal Party.

Unless of course that's what you're advocating they should do. In that case, I completely disagree with that. It's the federal government. We're all Canadian.

You have made my point for me. What do you mean when you say that the Liberals are a "federalist" party?

To me, a succesful federalist party in Canada must horsetrade between regions (and the Liberals were exceptionally successful at this, particularly under Laurier, King and St-Laurent). I have argued that the Liberals should go back to that basic skill.

At present, Harper is the only federal politician succeeding in joining the various regions but he's doing a half-assed job of it.

[nicky10013]

You have made my point for me. What do you mean when you say that the Liberals are a "federalist" party?

To me, a succesful federalist party in Canada must horsetrade between regions (and the Liberals were exceptionally successful at this, particularly under Laurier, King and St-Laurent). I have argued that the Liberals should go back to that basic skill.

At present, Harper is the only federal politician succeeding in joining the various regions but he's doing a half-assed job of it.

I think a party needs to join the regions but I don't necessarily believe that should be accomplished through "horse-trading." In terms of federalism, I mean that the leader of a party treats all Canadians at the same basic levels. The CPC is doing an incredibly half assed job. He runs ads out west that he doesn't run out east because apparently we're not at the same level. Apparently east and west don't have the same ability to comprehend a message about policy.

[August1991]

I think a party needs to join the regions but I don't necessarily believe that should be accomplished through "horse-trading."

Well, how the hell is a political party supposed to make a regional country work except through horse-trading?

Nicky, are you naive or just stupid? Since you're obviously a federal Liberal partisan hack, I'll say that you are disingenous.

In terms of federalism, I mean that the leader of a party treats all Canadians at the same basic levels.

And a mother loves all her children equally.

In fact, that comparison is wrong. The federal government, our PM, is not a mother to a large family, since Canada is not a family. Canada is a place on the map, a society of millions, that has chosen a federal State for deciding certain public affairs.

To make such a society work and be civilized, there's a heck of alot of horsetrading going on.

-----

Nicky10013, the next time you post here, just say what you mean. Don't try to influence an agenda, pretend to be what you're not, advance a cause, promote an agenda or a particular party. IOW, don't be a party hack. Just say what you truly think. (After all, who knows who Nicky10013 is?)

Stating what you think in public can be remarkably liberating.

Edited June 15, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

Well, how the hell is a political party supposed to make a regional country work except through horse-trading?

Nicky, are you naive or just stupid? Since you're obviously a federal Liberal partisan hack, I'll say that you are disingenous.

I'm not a hack. I'm a member of the party but I don't agree with every policy and I've disagreed multiple times with the party here on these boards. Nor can I be a hack because I don't work for the party. I also find it funny and hypocritical that you would call me a hack as I've NEVER EVER in my time on these boards EVER see you go off a Tory talking point.

That being said, I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out what YOU define as horse trading. Sure the government needs to interact with the regions, my only point is that shouldn't be at the expense of others for political gain which is what the CPC is known for.

And a mother loves all her children equally.

In fact, that comparison is wrong. The federal government, our PM, is not a mother to a large family, since Canada is not a family. Canada is a place on the map, a society of millions, that has chosen a federal State for deciding certain public affairs.

To make such a society work and be civilized, there's a heck of alot of horsetrading going on.

Yeah but since the time of confederation there has always been arguments over favouritism by the regions so it would appear that the family analogy is more apt than you're willing to admit.

My only point is that despite the fact that "horse trading" goes on between the regions and the federal government, the government shouldn't do it at the expense of other regions for political expediency and it should never not be in the interests of all Canadians as a whole. I think that's a fairly simple concept that's neither naive nor stupid.

-----

Nicky10013, the next time you post here, just say what you mean. Don't try to influence an agenda, pretend to be what you're not, advance a cause, promote an agenda or a particular party. IOW, don't be a party hack. Just say what you truly think. (After all, who knows who Nicky10013 is?)

Stating what you think in public can be remarkably liberating.

How can anything on here influence any agenda? We're not making policy, we're debating it in a non-official capacity. I say what I mean, the fact that you THINK there's an agenda implies you don't.

[madmax]

The whip didn't do his job.

ToroKaka

Liberal MPs voted against women and in support of the Conservative government.

Edited June 18, 2010 by madmax

[madmax]

I disagree. The Liberal Party was and always been a federalist party. It was a federalist party from the time of Laurier to right now with Ignatieff. It's the only true federalist party left.

The CPC have seats in EveryProvince but NFLD and broad support. The NDP have Static Support and Seats in Every Province. The Liberals have medium support and do not have seats in Many Provinces let alone in Rural regions which are dominated by the NDP and CPC.

The Liberals are not the only true Federalist party left.

]

The PCs up to Mulroney used to be the same. When the PCs exploded into the Reform Party and the Bloc is when regionalism, which has always been an issue, became as prominent an issue as it is today.

The PCs did not "Explode" into the Reform Party. The Reform party with a populist movement created in the same molding as its predecessor the Social Credit Party. Reform gained votes from people who had previously voted PC or NDP. THe BQ was formed with the defections of PCs MPs from the Mulroney Government as well as Liberal MPs and Activists in Quebec.

With the creation of the Conservative Party the party has surpassed the "Liberal Federal Party".

While Liberals and Conservatives have historically fought over Centralization vs Decentralization, the Liberals under Trudeau were the first to try to enact a Centralized Government. Even then, Quebecs regional interests were safeguarded while the Wests weren't. Which is why its a Celebrated event when a Liberal MP is elected west of Thunderbay. Both Chretian and Martin moved away from Centralization towards Decentralization, including downloading to Provinces, reducing federal control in Provincial matters (unlike Trudeau) and moved away from National programs.

Today, most will argue there isn't much difference between the two parties. And that is historically the case. Government and Government in waiting. The main difference is the PCs are better in opposition then the Liberals.

Edited June 18, 2010 by madmax