Liberals vs. Conservatives

[dre]

I'm sorry, but I happen to LIKE a formal, written party platform!

Yup... nice for counting up the broken promises later.

[Evening Star]

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

That's a better way of putting it, thanks.

[Wild Bill]

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.

So you equate 'elite' with 'rich'. Well, that's your POV and you're entitled to it.

Myself, it means those in power, who run things. I saw your premise as just another party that treats its members as mules, or plebes while the 'boys on top' determine the policies.

By that definition, you still haven't explained how I'm wrong.

[Keepitsimple]

So you equate 'elite' with 'rich'. Well, that's your POV and you're entitled to it.

Myself, it means those in power, who run things. I saw your premise as just another party that treats its members as mules, or plebes while the 'boys on top' determine the policies.

By that definition, you still haven't explained how I'm wrong.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

People like Nicky are drawn to the superficial mealy-mouthed, feel good statements and anti-Harper positions of the current Liberal Party......that attempt to mask the rot that still remains at its core. The Party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up - its constitution and party democracy, its fundraising, and its leadership.

I've edited this post to add an article that was in the Post this morning....here's a few excerpts:

............The electoral situation facing the party today is far more difficult than anything Chretien faced. The easy assurance of two or three dozen seats in Quebec is over. French voters are content to send the Bloc Quebecois to Ottawa as their envoy, freeing them from any concern for the rest of the country. Western Canada’s distaste for Liberal presumption has spread from Alberta to encompass Saskatchewan and much of B.C. and Manitoba as well. Two generations of treating the region as an afterthought now has the party paying a very stiff price. Only the Maritimes and downtown Toronto hold fast to the dream.

Canada has changed, the Liberal party hasn’t. Leader Michael Ignatieff keeps touring the country to expose himself to voters, both sides trying to get a feel for the other. It’s a bit late for Mr. Ignatieff to still be sorting out his mission, and Liberal tactics smell overwhelmingly of too many advisers searching for a magic potion that will suddenly arouse Canadian passions.

It would be better for the party to accept, once and for all, that there are no more Keith Daveys. The Rainmaker can’t save them. Justin Trudeau isn’t his father. The Tories won’t commit suicide. Canadians can’t be bought off with shiny policy trinkets on which the price tag has been carefully hidden. The problem is with the party — not Canada, or Parliament, or the Conservatives. The sooner the Liberals recognize that and begin building a structure that reflects the concerns of Canadians outside southern Ontario and Atlantic Canada, the sooner they may fulfill their hopes of a return to the sunny high ground of power.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/kelly-mcparland-death-of-davey-leaves-liberals-bereft/

[nicky10013]

People like Nicky are drawn to the superficial mealy-mouthed, feel good statements and anti-Harper positions of the current Liberal Party......that attempt to mask the rot that still remains at its core. The Party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up - its constitution and party democracy, its fundraising, and its leadership.

I've edited this post to add an article that was in the Post this morning....here's a few excerpts:

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/kelly-mcparland-death-of-davey-leaves-liberals-bereft/

Not only from National Post, but Kelly McParland, one of the most anti-Liberal editorialists out there.

Not surprisingly, a message of doom.

As for what draws me to the Liberals? Now that's hilarious. Perhaps you should ask that of yourself and the CPC.

Edited January 20, 2011 by nicky10013

[Wild Bill]

Yup... nice for counting up the broken promises later.

:lol:

[WIP]

Does anyone want to take a crack at defining the Liberal Party of Canada's principles

Are you telling me that they have principles?

[bloodyminded]

Are you telling me that they have principles?

Right, I object to the premise.....

[PIK]

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...

The reason all this mess started was over money the vote money harper wanted to end ,that is the only reason why it happened ,nothing to do with you or me or the country it was 2 bucks a vote. And harper is right,the bloc does not even need to raise money, the 2.3 mil I think they get is enough for them since they only campaign in one province. So it was greed , liberal greed.

[nicky10013]

The reason all this mess started was over money the vote money harper wanted to end ,that is the only reason why it happened ,nothing to do with you or me or the country it was 2 bucks a vote. And harper is right,the bloc does not even need to raise money, the 2.3 mil I think they get is enough for them since they only campaign in one province. So it was greed , liberal greed.

How about the fact that since corporate and union donations were halted, it would destroy the income for every opposition party leaving the Conservative Party unchallenged? You'd like that, though. A nice transparent way of destroying democracy for the next 10 years.

I have no problem dropping the subsidy, but the only fair way to do it is go back to the good old days of big corporate and union hand outs. The CPC wouldn't want to do that, though, because considering past history, Bay Street cash wouldn't flow to Harper, now would it?

How's that for Liberal greed. It seems like the only party to truly implement campaign finance reform regardless of whether they'd be politically helped or not was the Liberal Party. Their own reform has hurt the party quite a bit in terms of money. Now Harper wants to finish the job, and you're calling the LPC greedy? Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some.

Edited January 21, 2011 by nicky10013

[August1991]

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.

Our system of government is in tatters? WTF?

And why this smug, holier-than-thou obsession with "principles"?

To win an election, many, many different people have to choose the same political party. Invariably, many compromises have to be made. Moreover, other political parties also want to win. So, inevitably, the parties most likely to win are going to present similar "policies" or feign similar "principles" - while arguing that they are different from the other parties. Indeed, to make distinctions between the parties, many people simply resort to personal scandal: was Politician X accused of philandering/taking money?

------

Here's a radical thought: who cares what principles or policies the parties have? For all I care, let's call them Party A and Party B. In every respect, the two parties are identical - but they are two separate parties.

The mere fact that we can throw the buggers in Party B out and choose Party A instead means that the system is honest. We have a choice. (Compare this to a system where there is only Party A and no Party B at all.)

I'm suspicious of coalitions or "reaching across the aisle" (bipartisanship), as the Americans put it. I prefer political parties that hate one another - because it means that we have a choice.