How to fix the Liberal party - easier than most people think

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm not much of a Liberal supporter, but the "this is Armageddon for the Liberals" thinking based on the last election is just way overblown. Many people are scurrying to figure out how to redefine or reshape the party. What is our party ideology? Should we lean center or more left-of-center. Should we merge with the NDP?

This is all crap. The Libs don't need to redefine their party ideology. They are a political powerhouse, and recently have simply made some very bad policy & party decisions that are, IMO, easily rectifiable. Here's the major reasons why the Liberals suck ass right now:

- Years of corruption and arrogance by the Chretien gov finally caught up with them, culminating in the sponsorship scandal, with Canadians angry enough to throw them out for the CPC in 2006. Libs never recover from the scandal fallout in Quebec.

- Liberals choose Dion as leader, Dion is horrid, Libs continue to sputter.

- Libs choose Iggy as leader, he's even worse, and lefties all jump on the snowballing NDP bandwagon as a left-wing alternative. Lying scumbag leaders like Dalton McGuinty in ON don't help the Liberal cause.

Ok, so what's the main pattern here? Horrible leadership + corrupt/lying politicians. Therefore, the solution is to find a leader who is likable, competent, & electable (ie: NOT Bob Rae!), while working to be more honest to repair their reputation as lying/corrupt scumbags. Then just hope the electorate doesn't get too comfy with Layton. All easier said than done, but that's it!

Edited May 13, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Also, all of this "we need to define our ideology" stuff is nonesense. The fact that since at least the Chretien years the federal Libs have often simply governed based on what is popular and what would get them elected is what helped drive the success of the Chretien gov't. Governing based on what most of the public believes/wants rather than a dead-set ideology ie: "conservative" or "social democratic" is a brilliant & simple way for a party to maintain power, IMO, and obviously never bothered voters before the sponsorship scandal.

[Evening Star]

That does make sense. However, a party with no real principles other than achieving and maintaining power seems likely to be a magnet for corruption and dishonesty...

[August1991]

Therefore, the solution is to find a leader who is likable, competent, & electable (ie: NOT Bob Rae!), while working to be more honest to repair their reputation as lying/corrupt scumbags. Then just hope the electorate doesn't get too comfy with Layton. All easier said than done, but that's it!

MG, even the federal Liberals now recognize that a good leader is not their magic bullet to success.

However, a party with no real principles other than achieving and maintaining power seems likely to be a magnet for corruption and dishonesty...

Really?

If it was a magnet, it took over a hundred years to exert any force of importance. Since 1896, Canadians voted Liberal despite magnets.

----

I have a simple view of this question: the federal Liberals can't win seats.

When the federal Liberals start to talk seriously of specific seats they can win, then I'll take them seriously as political players. Until then, Marc Garneau, Bob Rae and Justin Trudeau are like the Toronto Star - they are urban English-Canadian dilettantes.

Edited May 13, 2011 by August1991

[TimG]

MG, even the federal Liberals now recognize that a good leader is not their magic bullet to success.

The future of the liberals depends a lot on whether the extermists in the NDP turn people off. If the NDP comes across as a bunch of ideological nutcases over the next 4 years you will see people migrating to the Liberals even without a leader.

[August1991]

The future of the liberals depends a lot on whether the extermists in the NDP turn people off. If the NDP comes across as a bunch of ideological nutcases over the next 4 years you will see people migrating to the Liberals even without a leader.

So what? Harper or the CPC leader will just have a larger majority.

[TimG]

So what? Harper or the CPC leader will just have a larger majority.

The CPC will eventually wear out its welcome. It may not happen in 2015 but it will eventually happen. No party can stay in power forever. The question is whether the Liberals will be a credible alternative government when that happens. A lot depends on the NDP.

[ninjandrew]

The CPC will eventually wear out its welcome. It may not happen in 2015 but it will eventually happen.

Still waiting in Alberta...

I agree that they'll be back. They've been too favored for too long. I'm sure people will give them one more chance, at least if they clean up their act.

[betsy]

In-figthing. That's their biggest problem!

On Tuesday when they had their first meeting, several Liberal MPs came out talking to the press. Carolyn Bennett was rabid (calling for Liberal Party President App's resignation), Ray and Kuriyakis also gave their rebukes!

As one Liberal strategist said, they should stop talking to the press!

It's true. How can you rebuild and re-package the Party into something new? Furthermore, not only do they seem so divided....it also make them seem so undisciplined!

Some Liberals have this tendency to vent to the press. You don't wash your dirty linens in public! That should be their first rule.

Edited May 13, 2011 by betsy

[Keepitsimple]

Also, all of this "we need to define our ideology" stuff is nonesense. The fact that since at least the Chretien years the federal Libs have often simply governed based on what is popular and what would get them elected is what helped drive the success of the Chretien gov't. Governing based on what most of the public believes/wants rather than a dead-set ideology ie: "conservative" or "social democratic" is a brilliant & simple way for a party to maintain power, IMO, and obviously never bothered voters before the sponsorship scandal.

The problem is that while the Liberals have been slowly imploding, the Conservatives have been nibbling/chomping away at the right flank of the Liberal Party. Most recently, they have eaten away most of the center of the Liberal Party. The Conservatives have thus become much like the Liberal Party - except they view things from the Center Right. It will be a long road to "re-claiming" the ground that has been lost if Harper can remain at the Center. I have no doubt that he will - but many Canadians are yet to be convinced. As Tim G. has said, every party falls out of favour sooner or later - either at their own hands or simply due to "events". The Liberals biggest challenge will be to create/influence events that keep the NDP portrayed as a far-Left party so that the Libs can at least hold on and grow their party from the Center Left and start nibbling back towards the Center. A wild card is Thomas Mulcaire. He was Environment Minister in Jean Charest's Liberal government - it was a big surprise that he ended up with the NDP....but it's thought that he has Center - if not Center/Right tendencies. If Mulcaire can influence Layton to bring the NDP towards the Center and shed the extreme elements of their Leftist ideology over the next 4 years, the Liberals will be a third place party for a long time. Interesting times.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Governing based on what most of the public believes/wants rather than a dead-set ideology ie: "conservative" or "social democratic" is a brilliant & simple way for a party to maintain power, IMO, and obviously never bothered voters before the sponsorship scandal.

That is because ideology is more often than not, not adaptable but people are.

Politics reminds me of taking a philosophy course in Unversity. We sat and argued the merits of the extremes but in reality, the true answer was a compromise in the middle... a compromise that we never considered because we were only supposed to focus on the extremities.

Spending on social programs, for instance. Spending too little leads to social decay. Spending too much leads huge inefficiencies and financial hardship. The solution is in the middle.

Economic freedom. Giving immortal corporations full economic freedom leads to fascism and marginalization of the population. Taking all economic freedom leads to communism and lack of incentive to innovate. The solution is somewhere in the middle.

One thing that many people forget is that Canada, all things considered, is somewhere in the centre of the political spectrum. Our parties have extreme elements, as any system does, but our policies are fairly close to centre.

Edited May 13, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[pegasus]

I agree with betsy. In-fighting will be the Liberal's greatest problem. I also believe that the Liberal's greatest problem right now is that they have too many MPs. The old blood is still entrenched, which will not allow any new blood to take a strong lead.

Last night, out of sheer boredom, I went over all the ridings in Canada and looked for a pattern of close second place finishes for the Liberal party (i.e. 10% or less of the vote) and found most to be from southern Ontario (20 ridings). Of those 20 ridings, 19 are Conservative, and 1 NDP. However, across the rest of Canada, I only noted 10 ridings with close second place finises. Of all ridings across Canada, 24 were lost by a close margin to the Conservatives, while 6 were lost by a close margin to the NDP.

Therefore, I would say the Conservatives were the ones who took seats away from the Liberals and the Liberals have a huge mountain to climb everywhere except for southern Ontario, especially in the western provinces and Quebec (outside of Montreal) where in many occasions they were a distant third or worse.

What the Liberal party needs is new blood, and that is why I opened with the statement that they have too many MPs. It will be hard to change the direction of the party with 34 sitting MPs fighting against any changes. Also, based on my findings, with 24 second place finishes, with a loss at less than 10%, the Liberal party could now go out into the next election and say with almost certainty, that they are the only party that could stand up against another Harper majority in 2015.

But that last statement is a maybe. I haven't yet counted the close second place finishes by the NDP across Canada, where the NDP lost to a Conservative candidate. I will keep you informed when I have more free time to do this.

Looking over the elected Liberal MPs, I really don't see anyone who could lead this party to substantial gains in the next election. Are parties allowed to choose leaders who are not sitting MPs? If so, maybe that is where they should be looking. Someone who will bring in new blood and more up to date policies. Perhaps they should be going through their membership profiles with a fine tooth comb.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Plan to fix liberal party:

Get an attractive, charismatic leader with a smile.

Avoid answering any hot topic questions, and any unscripted questions.

Ban MP's from speaking, they are a liability, not an asset.

When forced to enter the debate and tackle unscripted questions, always answer questions on your parties mishaps with "That is not how we see it" or "We see if differently"(Patented by Harper, may have to pay royalties) then change topic or try to appear as the victim of partisan attacks.

Give a list of generic policies, and some ideological policies that evoke emotion and make people look bad for opposing. Law and order is a good one, who wants to criticize that policy and look soft on sexual predators?

[Evening Star]

Really?

If it was a magnet, it took over a hundred years to exert any force of importance. Since 1896, Canadians voted Liberal despite magnets.

But I think that the Liberals did stand for identifiable ideological principles and policy approaches at least in the St Laurent, Pearson, and Trudeau eras. (The Trudeau Liberals were, for example still trying to emulate European social democracy in the early 80s, when the tide had turned in the US and UK. I don't think they "simply governed based on what is popular and what would get them elected".) You've even referred to them as a 'leftist party' more than once. It is more recently that there is no real sense of what they stand for other than winning power. This is different from having ideological principles and being willing to compromise them - as Harper does.

When the federal Liberals start to talk seriously of specific seats they can win, then I'll take them seriously as political players. Until then, Marc Garneau, Bob Rae and Justin Trudeau are like the Toronto Star - they are urban English-Canadian dilettantes.

Is Justin Trudeau really seen as English-Canadian?

[pegasus]

Is Justin Trudeau really seen as English-Canadian?

This is a good question. The Liberal party goes so under the radar in the rest of Quebec, other than Montreal, its never brought up. This gives me a project. I think I may ask some people here in Quebec City what they think.

[GostHacked]

You know what happened to them?? Ignatief.

[Evening Star]

This is a good question. The Liberal party goes so under the radar in the rest of Quebec, other than Montreal, its never brought up. This gives me a project. I think I may ask some people here in Quebec City what they think.

Tbh, I didn't really think Joseph Jean-Pierre Marc Garneau was considered an English-Canadian either...

[Moonlight Graham]

That does make sense. However, a party with no real principles other than achieving and maintaining power seems likely to be a magnet for corruption and dishonesty...

I think it can, yes. The liberals got into a nasty habit of promising whatever people wanted to hear before an election, then reneging on so much of it after being elected. Yes virtually all politicians do this, but the Liberals were particularly bad. Telling the truth is sometimes not what the electorate wants to hear.

On the other hand, isn't a party that governs based on what most people want a very democratic way to govern? Don't we want our MP's/government to vote the way we want them to, rather than what they believe?

[Posc Student]

Liberals do need to figure out their ideology because it has seen a major shift. Chretien's government was centre-right on economic issues and centre-left on social issues. Since Chretien left the party has slowly moved further left to the point that Ignatieff was running the NDP-lite.

[Evening Star]

Liberals do need to figure out their ideology because it has seen a major shift. Chretien's government was centre-right on economic issues and centre-left on social issues. Since Chretien left the party has slowly moved further left to the point that Ignatieff was running the NDP-lite.

But in the House, their voting record was much closer to CPC-lite. I'll repost something I wrote on a different forum:

I don't even know that it's a [leadership] personality issue as much as that there has just been no sense for the last half-decade that the Liberal Party stands for much other than believing that they deserve to be in power because of their past glories. One of their prouder moments from the past decade was refusing to enter combat in the Iraq War - and then they picked as their leader one of Canada's most prominent supporters of that war. In the Commons, the Ignatieff-led party was an Official Opposition that rarely opposed the government - and then they brought down that government at a time when there seemed to be little popular will to change to a Liberal government. Out of nowhere, they put together an NDP-esque platform - and then they refused to co-operate with the NDP, not only by swearing off a coalition but also by strongly contesting NDP-held ridings like Outremont and generally ridiculing the NDP for having no chance at forming government, as though the Liberals had been anywhere close in years. They brought down the government over contempt for Parliament, which is a fundamental issue. During the campaign, however, they always brought this issue up alongside relatively trivial things like Bruce Carson's 22-year-old girlfriend or the CPC kicking students out of a private party rally or the funding of Kairos, as though the LPC themselves had no sense of how serious an issue contempt for Parliament is. (The first time they released an ad showing Michelle McPherson in her underwear was the point where I started giving up on the LPC altogether.) If you're going to fight an election on Parliamentary procedure, you need to impress on people how seriously you take procedure. This is especially the case since there was little sense that the Liberals even cared that much about some of the issues beyond procedure itself: Not only did the lack of transparency over fighter jet costs not turn out to be a core campaign issue but the Liberals didn't even seem to have that much of an alternative defence strategy, which the NDP did. They never really seemed that opposed to the principle behind buying the jets in the first place. If we need attack aircraft, then we probably need it regardless of the price, honestly. We could perhaps have more of a competitive bidding process but I don't know how many firms even manufacture these jets in any case.

I'd sooner take my chances with a bunch of McGill students, frankly.

[Evening Star]

I think it can, yes. The liberals got into a nasty habit of promising whatever people wanted to hear before an election, then reneging on so much of it after being elected. Yes virtually all politicians do this, but the Liberals were particularly bad. Telling the truth is sometimes not what the electorate wants to hear.

On the other hand, isn't a party that governs based on what most people want a very democratic way to govern? Don't we want our MP's/government to vote the way we want them to, rather than what they believe?

I'm not sure about this, actually. I don't think most people necessarily have a deep knowledge or strong understanding of political issues. I think what people are looking for is someone who knows more than they do who can make them believe - who can explain the issues to them and sell them on a solution that makes sense to them. And so we do want to feel that these leaders are actually sincere about what they tell us.

[icman]

I think it can, yes. The liberals got into a nasty habit of promising whatever people wanted to hear before an election, then reneging on so much of it after being elected. Yes virtually all politicians do this, but the Liberals were particularly bad. Telling the truth is sometimes not what the electorate wants to hear.

On the other hand, isn't a party that governs based on what most people want a very democratic way to govern? Don't we want our MP's/government to vote the way we want them to, rather than what they believe?

Perhaps we do, but if so, then it's a mistake. MPs have access to information we can only speculate about, and it is their job to be informed and make informed decisions. While I consider myself well informed in Canadian politics and policy, it's not my job to be informed and make decisions for the country based on being informed - my job is to tell companies and governments how to secure critical infrastructure. So when I vote for someone, I have to place my trust in that individual to fight for what they say they will fight for. I also have to place my trust in that individual to know when to balance ideology with what is best for Canada, and sometimes let me know that I can't have what I want for various reasons, some of which they can't tell me. If I can't trust my representative to make good decisions informed partly on what I know of their ideology, but mostly on information they have that I don't, then I shouldn't be voting for that person, even if they share my ideology.

[Evening Star]

And, more generally, if a party has no ideological principles and just stands for staying in power by pandering to people, it is bound to attract unprincipled, power-hungry personnel, which will lead to corruption. So I do think it is important for Liberals to know what they stand for if they want to remain viable.

[icman]

And, more generally, if a party has no ideological principles and just stands for staying in power by pandering to people, it is bound to attract unprincipled, power-hungry personnel, which will lead to corruption. So I do think it is important for Liberals to know what they stand for if they want to remain viable.

I agree. I think what any party stands for can change, but that change needs to be justified by changing circumstance. There are atomic principles that underpin a party's ideology that shouldn't change except after great consideration of the party electorate, and there are strategies to deliver on those core principles that can change as needed, so long as leaders can articulate those needs. Governing a party should not be that different from governing a nation in this regard.

[munsinger]

The Liberals need to:

1. Take a hard look at the Apps, Herles, Smiths, Reids, etc......the so-called Liberal "brain trust", who have shaped previous tactics and electoral strategies - and chop a few heads.

2. Have a real party leadership convention with one member - one vote....the convention they should of had in 2006.

3. Have the policy convention, they were going to have in 06, with an eye to figuring out actual direction for the party - and for god's sake...don't call it a "thinkers conference"

4. Don't rely on _______mania, Iggy, Trudeau or whoever - to bail out the party fortunes.

5. Quit acting and talking as if anyone who didn't vote for you.... is somehow uneducated, short-sighted or simply delusional