Liberals vs. Conservatives

[Keepitsimple]

Does anyone want to take a crack at defining the Liberal Party of Canada's principles and perhaps how they might differ from those of the Conservatives?

Another topic caused me to search around to see if I could find a set of principles that defined the Conservative and Liberal Parties. My first step was to just do a google search on Conservative Principles and Liberal Principles. Fairly close to the top of the results was a page from the Conservative website titled Founding Principles. I found nothing that really related to our Liberal Party of Canada. When I went to the Liberal Website, I was immediately presented with an optional request for name and email address (it seems to disappear after you've been to the website). Skipping this, I got to the site itself and although I could find no defined set of principles, every page had a large "DONATE NOW" button. Ironically, the Conservatives are far better fundraisers - yet I couldn't find anywhere on the website where there was a request to donate.

Liberals: http://www.liberal.ca/

Conservatives: http://www.conservative.ca/

For the impatient types, here's the Founding Principles of the Conservative Party:

The Conservative Party will be guided in its constitutional framework and its policy basis by the following principles:

A balance between fiscal accountability, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities;

Build a national coalition of people who share these beliefs and who reflect the regional, cultural and socio-economic diversity of Canada;

Develop this coalition, embracing our differences and respecting our traditions, yet honoring a concept of Canada as the greater sum of strong parts;

The Conservative Party will operate in a manner accountable and responsive to its members;

A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in accordance with the Constitution of Canada, the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law;

A belief in the equality of all Canadians;

A belief in the freedom of the individual, including freedom of speech, worship and assembly;

A belief in our constitutional monarchy, the institutions of Parliament and the democratic process;

A belief in the federal system of government as the best expression of the diversity of our country, and in the desirability of strong provincial and territorial governments;

A belief that English and French have equality of status, and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada;

A belief that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are:

The freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightened and legitimate self-interest within a competitive economy;

The freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent; and

The right to own property;

A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others;

A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion;

A belief that the purpose of Canada as a nation state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy;

A belief that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage to be protected by each generation for the next;

A belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations of the world;

A belief that good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and has representatives who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interest of all;

A belief that all Canadians should have reasonable access to quality health care regardless of their ability to pay; and

A belief that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair.

[nicky10013]

A fiscally responsible socially progressive party. The parties espouse the same doctine on the economy but there's only one that's actually backed it up with real action. The main difference is in the social sphere where there are gigantic differences in terms of supporting and not supporting individual rights. Gay rights, abortion rights, drug use, crime, poverty. In every respect it's actually the Liberals that stand for the greater empowerment of individual freedom. But, those aren't on your list you found on the website so I guess this doesn't count.

Nevermind the fact that the CPC has had 5 years in government and hasn't lived up to pretty much anything on that list.

[ccen]

That is why no Canadian should ever be loyal to just one political party and that is the reason why our system of government is in tatters and that is why Canadians need to constantly be looking for another choice to vote for.

In terms of the principles of what they both stand for they both stand for increasing the size of the military, health care being just public, both for same sex marriage and abortion, both for freedom of religion, almost the same policy on the economy, both are with big business pretty much. Yup no real choice in who to vote for.

[ccen]

The Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible but they are the biggest spending government of all time and they have created larger government but the Liberals gave the Conservatives the best possible fiscal situation in the entire G7 in 2005-2006 so the Conservatives just claimed the situation and said it was their doing. Never give neoconservatives government because they just create debt and deficit.

[Keepitsimple]

A fiscally responsible socially progressive party. The parties espouse the same doctine on the economy but there's only one that's actually backed it up with real action. The main difference is in the social sphere where there are gigantic differences in terms of supporting and not supporting individual rights. Gay rights, abortion rights, drug use, crime, poverty. In every respect it's actually the Liberals that stand for the greater empowerment of individual freedom. But, those aren't on your list you found on the website so I guess this doesn't count.

Nevermind the fact that the CPC has had 5 years in government and hasn't lived up to pretty much anything on that list.

You seem to know a lot about the Liberal Party of Canada. Could you direct me to the Liberal Party's list of Principles? I know they're out there but I just haven't been able to find them.

[nicky10013]

You seem to know a lot about the Liberal Party of Canada. Could you direct me to the Liberal Party's list of Principles? I know they're out there but I just haven't been able to find them.

I'd say the biggest principle is that within the definitions of fiscally responsible and socially progressive, few ideas are stupid one. The current LPC is a pragmatic post-ideological party where it will take the best ideas of the day and try to implement them to the betterment of all Canadians. You confine yourelf to a list then you automatically limit where the ideas come from and why would you want to do that? There is no list and that's a good thing. Then again, I fear that's the entire point of this. How can you support a party with no list of their principles? Principles are more than words written on paper. Those can be broken as demonstrated by the list from the CPC. Why not have a general direction and just tailor the best possible platform to that direction? What's so wrong with that?

[PIK]

The Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible but they are the biggest spending government of all time and they have created larger government but the Liberals gave the Conservatives the best possible fiscal situation in the entire G7 in 2005-2006 so the Conservatives just claimed the situation and said it was their doing. Never give neoconservatives government because they just create debt and deficit.

We are still trying to pay off trudeaus debt, every goverment since has done well in bring down spending and to come thru this world wide recession and only owe 50 bil, we are lucky. And lets not forget iggy screaming for more money to be spent. Edited January 19, 2011 by PIK

[Jack Weber]

We are still trying to pay off trudeaus debt, every goverment since has done well in bring down spending and to come thru this world wide recession and only owe 50 bil, we are lucky. And lets not forget iggy screaming for more money to be spent.

Let's not forget that your boy gave in to "Iggy and the Stooges"...

He had a choice and chose power over principle...

[PIK]

Let's not forget that your boy gave in to "Iggy and the Stooges"...

He had a choice and chose power over principle...

And if he did'nt we would have to spend another 400 mil on a election. People here complained about proroging, tell me why that happened?

[Jack Weber]

And if he did'nt we would have to spend another 400 mil on a election. People here complained about proroging, tell me why that happened?

So you think that Stevie Benevolence was saving the country from an election by proroging parliament to hang onto his gov't he was sure to lose???

Right....

Of course...He was standing up for Canada....Again...

Edited January 19, 2011 by Jack Weber

[guyser]

People here complained about proroging, tell me why that happened?

Cuz Steve was scared the truth would come out?

[punked]

A fiscally responsible socially progressive party. The parties espouse the same doctine on the economy but there's only one that's actually backed it up with real action. The main difference is in the social sphere where there are gigantic differences in terms of supporting and not supporting individual rights. Gay rights, abortion rights, drug use, crime, poverty. In every respect it's actually the Liberals that stand for the greater empowerment of individual freedom. But, those aren't on your list you found on the website so I guess this doesn't count.

No that is the NDP. They have balanced wayyyyyyyyy more budgets then either party when in power. Oh and the Liberals have a terrible track record of balancing budgets in government.

[PIK]

Cuz Steve was scared the truth would come out?

Come on. tell us what really happened, you can do it. What caused the opp to go crazy,that led to it happening?

[Wild Bill]

I'd say the biggest principle is that within the definitions of fiscally responsible and socially progressive, few ideas are stupid one. The current LPC is a pragmatic post-ideological party where it will take the best ideas of the day and try to implement them to the betterment of all Canadians. You confine yourelf to a list then you automatically limit where the ideas come from and why would you want to do that? There is no list and that's a good thing. Then again, I fear that's the entire point of this. How can you support a party with no list of their principles? Principles are more than words written on paper. Those can be broken as demonstrated by the list from the CPC. Why not have a general direction and just tailor the best possible platform to that direction? What's so wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but I happen to LIKE a formal, written party platform! What you suggest sounds more to me like blind faith and and a blank cheque to a party's leadership, which too often is a synonym for 'elite'.

Are you asking folks to become members of a political party or of a church?

[Evening Star]

This seems to be a start ("What We Stand For"), with more info when you click on the specific issues:

http://www.liberal.ca/issues/

Edited January 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I do agree that it's less detailed when it comes to fundamental principles and philosophy than the Conservative list but there is quite a bit of information on policy when you go to the links, e.g. on "Arts and Culture", where their policy proposals are quite different from the CPC's.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

In terms of the principles of what they both stand for they both stand for increasing the size of the military, health care being just public, both for same sex marriage and abortion, both for freedom of religion, almost the same policy on the economy, both are with big business pretty much. Yup no real choice in who to vote for.

This is why I see no point at all in supporting or even forming a 'centrist' party that positions itself in between two parties that are already rather close ideologically.

[ccen]

This is why I see no point at all in supporting or even forming a 'centrist' party that positions itself in between two parties that are already rather close ideologically.

How about for one important thing having a policy to cut taxes and be about compassionate conservatism. That is one important thing and another is being balanced on foreign policy instead of unilaterally supporting Israel. Another important reason for having another party is to save Canada from separating and having a party that is strongly supported across the country. Also, another important reason is because voter intention is low and Canada needs strong leadership and a moderately ran economy and one that is led by someone who is pragmatic and willing to work in the old Tory tradition which is about parliamentary democracy and about middle grounds and compromise.

That is why we need a centrist party.

[Evening Star]

How about for one important thing having a policy to cut taxes and be about compassionate conservatism.

The LPC and CPC have both cut taxes, perhaps excessively. If you want to fund 'compassionate' social programmes, the money will have to come from somewhere.

That is one important thing and another is being balanced on foreign policy instead of unilaterally supporting Israel.

The LPC is a little more balanced than the CPC on Israel... The NDP already advocates even less pro-Israel policies, which is one issue that keeps them from having "strong support across the country".

Another important reason for having another party is to save Canada from separating and having a party that is strongly supported across the country.

Seems a bit unlikely that some totally new party that afaict has little institutional support can achieve this better than parties that have been around for a century or more.

Also, another important reason is because voter intention is low and Canada needs strong leadership and a moderately ran economy and one that is led by someone who is pragmatic and willing to work in the old Tory tradition which is about parliamentary democracy and about middle grounds and compromise.

Again, a middle ground between what and what? Compromise between what and what? By your own acknowledgement, the LPC and CPC are already very close on many fundamental issues.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[ccen]

The LPC and CPC have both cut taxes, perhaps excessively. If you want to fund 'compassionate' social programmes, the money will have to come from somewhere.

The LPC is a little more balanced than the CPC on Israel... The NDP already advocates even less pro-Israel policies, which is one issue that keeps them from having "strong support across the country".

Seems a bit unlikely that some totally new party with little institutional support afaict can achieve this better than parties that have been around for a century or more.

Again, a middle ground between what and what? Compromise between what and what? By your own acknowledgement, the LPC and CPC are already very close on many fundamental issues.

Like everyone else who reads what we would propose as a party if created they like to diagnose every little thing that gets discussed. I think an even better answer to say to you is the middle ground that we would propose is whenever a party during the time of an election or during any time we would try to find that balance between the two parties. I think that would satisfy those people looking for the balance between the issues of their preference.

[Evening Star]

I think an even better answer to say to you is the middle ground that we would propose is whenever a party during the time of an election or during any time we would try to find that balance between the two parties.

I dunno... A party that defines itself primarily in reference to and in reaction to two other parties doesn't really sound like a winner to me.

[ccen]

I dunno... A party that defines itself primarily in reference to and in reaction to two other parties doesn't really sound like a winner to me.

There is so much more to the party did you see the platform page about the fact we would be strong on law and order simply because of how we are as a party and the same goes with tradition as a country with peacekeeping and on health care and education keeping what is necessary but compromising on other issues. On certain issues like child care, democracy and other issues we would be open so things are not written in stone.

[nicky10013]

I'm sorry, but I happen to LIKE a formal, written party platform! What you suggest sounds more to me like blind faith and and a blank cheque to a party's leadership, which too often is a synonym for 'elite'.

Are you asking folks to become members of a political party or of a church?

Who says a platform isn't forthcoming? I never said there shouldn't be a platform. Of course voters need to know where the stand on any one issue. What I'm against is having a list of "principles." The bigger the list, the narrower your focus. Some think that's a good thing. Considering the breadth and scope of our nation and it's populous, I think governing within narrow ideological principles is a bad thing.

EG. Census.

As for elite, you may want to read a dictionary. When elite comes to MY mind, it's the people making into the 6 figures.

Edited January 20, 2011 by nicky10013

[Smallc]

Could you direct me to the Liberal Party's list of Principles?

http://www.liberal.ca/issues/

[Smallc]

I do agree that it's less detailed

I'd say it's more detailed. It's less matter of fact.