How federal Liberals can defeat Harper without joining the NDP

[Evening Star]

Provincial NDP governments have been more like small-l liberals or perhaps Red Tories but I still think they've governed further to the left than the Chretien/Martin Liberals, from what I know. Maybe Romanow was an exception? Don't know enough to judge that case. I used to generally think that Doer or Dexter were pretty similar to McGuinty's Liberals in Ontario but even then, they do seem further left on taxation (and generally, better at balancing their books!). Also, less likely to pull crap like what happened with G20 policing.

--

The Ontario Liberals are a bit of an enigma, tbh, and I voted for them twice.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Evening Star

[Guest Derek L]

Provincial NDP governments have been more like small-l liberals or perhaps Red Tories but I still think they've governed further to the left than the Chretien/Martin Liberals, from what I know. Maybe Romanow was an exception? Don't know enough to judge that case. I used to generally think that Doer or Dexter were pretty similar to McGuinty's Liberals in Ontario but even then, they do seem further left on taxation (and generally, better at balancing their books!). Also, less likely to pull crap like what happened with G20 policing.

--

The Ontario Liberals are a bit of an enigma, tbh, and I voted for them twice.

That’s a fair assessment, you could add the Mike Harcourt NDP government to that list.

[Newfoundlander]

Provincial NDP governments have been more like small-l liberals or perhaps Red Tories but I still think they've governed further to the left than the Chretien/Martin Liberals, from what I know. Maybe Romanow was an exception? Don't know enough to judge that case. I used to generally think that Doer or Dexter were pretty similar to McGuinty's Liberals in Ontario but even then, they do seem further left on taxation (and generally, better at balancing their books!). Also, less likely to pull crap like what happened with G20 policing.

--

The Ontario Liberals are a bit of an enigma, tbh, and I voted for them twice.

Harcort, Romanow and Doer are who I was thinking of. Doer was ranked the second most fiscally conservative premier in Canada a few years back. Liberal is a dirty word in most of the west so if you want to get elected and hold power you pretty much have to decide to either be an NDP or a Conservative. This also happened federally, Dippers joined the Liberals to get elected. Trudeau had been a member of the NDP but he knew that if he wanted to be Prime Minister he'd have to go Liberal.

Has anyone else noticed though that many people still refer to the Liberals as the ones who are the alternative to the Conservatives when it comes to forming government?

[Evening Star]

Harcort, Romanow and Doer are who I was thinking of. Doer was ranked the second most fiscally conservative premier in Canada a few years back.

This is "fiscally conservative" in the sense of "fiscally responsible and balances his budgets" as opposed to "an economic conservative who favours minimal government intervention in the economy - low taxes, low social spending, deregulation, privatization, etc", right? The former is not only compatible with social democracy but is generally claimed as a fundamental traditional principle by Tommy Douglas-style New Democrats. The latter seems to apply more to the LPC of the 90s.

Has anyone else noticed though that many people still refer to the Liberals as the ones who are the alternative to the Conservatives when it comes to forming government?

Yes but I don't read much into it. I'm sure there were some who still spoke that way about the PCs soon after the 1993 election.

[Newfoundlander]

This is "fiscally conservative" in the sense of "fiscally responsible and balances his budgets" as opposed to "an economic conservative who favours minimal government intervention in the economy - low taxes, low social spending, deregulation, privatization, etc", right? The former is not only compatible with social democracy but is generally claimed as a fundamental traditional principle by Tommy Douglas-style New Democrats. The latter seems to apply more to the LPC of the 90s.

Yes but I don't read much into it. I'm sure there were some who still spoke that way about the PCs soon after the 1993 election.

Can't remember exactly what the report said but Premier's were ranked on their ability to balance budgets as well as cut taxes, among other things.

[Evening Star]

This is the study?: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17134&terms=fiscal+performance+premiers

I just read most of it. It's interesting. They're measuring "fiscal performance" (by their criteria), not "fiscal conservatism" per se. As you can see, Doer does so well mainly because he kept his budgets balanced (perfect score there) and restrained public spending from growing faster than the province's economy (#2 score there). Those two criteria are not particularly "conservative". (Most sensible social democrats would also agree that those are important.) They only placed him 6th in the country on taxes, however. This is the one area where the Fraser Institute's criteria are truly right-leaning. They rank the premiers on how much they reduced taxes on high income earners and the richest corporations and on how close they come to a flat tax system!

MB's income taxes are on the high end for the country:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

They charge no tax on small business and about average taxes on larger corporations:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/crprtns/rts-eng.html?=slnk

This actually seems closer to a Nordic model to me.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Evening Star

[Newfoundlander]

Bob Rae is going on a summer bus tour now, while he may not be the permanent leader I think this is a smart idea.

[August1991]

Bob Rae is going on a summer bus tour now, while he may not be the permanent leader I think this is a smart idea.

Who cares about the bus. The last thing the Liberals need now is another leader in a cross-Canada bus tour.

This is what they should have done a long time ago:

OTTAWA - When the Conservatives are kicking your butt by $10 million in fundraising each year, it might be time to try something new.

For the Liberals, that something new is ripping a page - or rather a letter - right out of the Conservative play book.

Liberal Leader Bob Rae said Tuesday his party is going to start more targeted appeals for contributions.

The Tories have perfected that strategy over the years by sending out letters to party members and others, asking them for support in pushing specific policy issues.

For example, they've used the threat of a political coalition on the left, their campaign for the abolition of the gun registry, as well as a distinctly pro-Israel foreign policy, to gather cash.

Rae said the Liberals are turning themselves into a "professional fundraising organization," and following the example of successful parties inside and outside Canada.

Global

This isn't enough however. The Liberals have to poll to know where their potential donors/voters are and what issues drive the donors/voters.

For years now, the Liberals have not done this. Under Chretien and Martin it was understandable. They were old guys, out of touch. But under Dion and Ignatieff, it was criminal.

While Chretien's political funding reforms made things more difficult, they are not the real issue. The Liberals live in a 1970s world while all other political parties are in the new millenium. Barack Obama raised alot of money through small donations. Bush Jnr (and Harper) got elected because staffers knew where potential supporters were and what they thought.

----

I'll ignore the article's spin. The journalist portrays Tory fundraising efforts as somehow "pushy".

Edited July 5, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

In simple terms, there are millions of Canadians willing to give $50 to the federal Liberal Party and vote Liberal in the next election.

Those are two massive assumptions for which you have provided no support at all.

True FT, I have absolutely no evidence at all.

The Libs have managed to cede the center to the Tories without much of a fight. Big mistake, they'll have trouble getting it back. Good news for the Tories is that Jacques Layton/NDP have no apparent interest in the center.

As to ceding the centre to the NDP, I disagree.

Weird events aside, knowable/unknowables to coin a phrase, the NDP and the federal Liberals are not going to unite before 2015.

The Liberals are on their own to defeat Harper, splitting the anti-Harper vote with the NDP.

I happen to think that it would be easy to defeat Harper in 2015. Harper is not popular in French Canada or in English Canada. It's hard being a right-wing politician (you have to say no to the kids) but Harper is worse than all the others. Sarkozy, Reagan, Bush Jnr, John Howard connected better with the base than Harper. Heck, even Mitt Romney explains himself better and arguably has a better political touch than Harper.

But to defeat Harper, the Liberals need money and they need to know where their potential donors/supporters are. FT, if someone gives $10 to a political party in 2013, I'll bet the person is more inclined to vote for the party on election day 2015.

[bloodyminded]

It's hard being a right-wing politician (you have to say no to the kids)

Wow.

Beside the fact of pointing out that I'm speechless...I'm speechless.

[August1991]

Wow.

Beside the fact of pointing out that I'm speechless...I'm speechless.

Barack Obama and Jack Layton, to cite two examples, have made careers of saying yes to everyone. Fortunately, Layton has not had access to much of other people's money or their credit cards.

[RNG]

Barack Obama and Jack Layton, to cite two examples, have made careers of saying yes to everyone. Fortunately, Layton has not had access to much of other people's money or their credit cards.

Great post.

[Molly]

Great post.

Pft! Meaningless, pointless rhetoric.

Paul Martin earned the name Dithers by saying 'Yes' too many times. John Tory cost himself a political career by being rediculously too eager to say it... but let's hear y'all quote Janice McKinnon being thoughtlessly overgenerous, even one time.

[Evening Star]

Barack Obama and Jack Layton, to cite two examples, have made careers of saying yes to everyone. Fortunately, Layton has not had access to much of other people's money or their credit cards.

I have to wonder what "everyone" means here. No one accuses Layton of saying "yes" to the oil industry, for example, or to asbestos mining companies, or to the pro-Israel lobby. It was not Layton's idea to give tax credits for things like children's sports programmes. Does it only count as saying "yes" to 'everyone' when you say "yes" to the poor or disadvantaged?

Edited July 7, 2011 by Evening Star

[Tilter]

How federal Liberals can defeat Harper without joining the NDP

About the only way this will happen is if the remaining liberals shoot all the liberals that the public don't trust. As the last liberal commits suicide (to achieve the above mentioned goal) he will realize the futility of his task.

[August1991]

I have to wonder what "everyone" means here. No one accuses Layton of saying "yes" to the oil industry, for example, or to asbestos mining companies, or to the pro-Israel lobby. It was not Layton's idea to give tax credits for things like children's sports programmes. Does it only count as saying "yes" to 'everyone' when you say "yes" to the poor or disadvantaged?

Big ticket items? Asbestos, pro-Israel lobby, children sports? (Pro-Israel lobby? I'm still shaking my head at that one... )

Oil? Layton wanted to offer subsidies for home-heating oil, wanted to control credit card rates and he wanted to boost pension payments. Those are big ticket items. (And they're only the ones that come first to mind.)

----

For all politicians, it's easier to say yes. Politics by its nature draws attention-seekers with big egos who need the crowd to adore them. What better way to receive adoration than to write a big fat cheque using other people's money/credit card?

What politician, left or right, wants to be the Grinch in the corner who says no all the time? (I suspect that Harper named Clement to Treasury Board as an experiment to see whether he'd learn any gumption.)

----

Anyway, getting back to the OP, it's hard being a right wing politician who says no. Right wing politicians have to be better communicators because their message is harder to sell. Harper is no communicator. So, I reckon that it's possible (even easy) to defeat him.

It would be even easier if the NDP and Liberals were united into a Liberal Democratic Party (the name even sounds stylishly European). That may happen after 2015 when Harper likely wins another majority but it ain't gonna happen before.

But I'm just saying that it need not be. The Liberals, without the NDP, can defeat Harper. But to do this, they need broad based funding, and they have to poll extensively to know where their likely support is and who it is. I think the Liberals can win seats in western Canada, for example, but they first have to know alot more about who/where likely Liberal voters are.

There is a wild card in this calculation, call it a known/known: the federal NDP caucus will likely split before 2015 and any way, there will be a lot of Quebec seats in play by then.

Paul Martin earned the name Dithers by saying 'Yes' too many times. John Tory cost himself a political career by being rediculously too eager to say it... but let's hear y'all quote Janice McKinnon being thoughtlessly overgenerous, even one time.

Paul Martin earned the named Dithers because he said no one day, and yes the next. As to John Tory, I don't know Ontario politics well but it seems to me that between a politician who consistently says yes, and a politician who appears to say yes to curry votes, voters tend to choose the credible politician.

Sorry, I don't know who Janice McKinnon is and google isn't helping me.

Edited July 7, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

Big ticket items? Asbestos, pro-Israel lobby, children sports? (Pro-Israel lobby? I'm still shaking my head at that one... )

Oil? Layton wanted to offer subsidies for home-heating oil, wanted to control credit card rates and he wanted to boost pension payments. Those are big ticket items. (And they're only the ones that come first to mind.)

I was referring to subsidies for the Alberta oil sands, the proposed cancellation of which has not been an asset for Layton in AB.

What about cuts to the GST? Cuts to income and corporate taxes, generally?

----

For all politicians, it's easier to say yes. Politics by its nature draws attention-seekers with big egos who need the crowd to adore them. What better way to receive adoration than to write a big fat cheque using other people's money/credit card?

What politician, left or right, wants to be the Grinch in the corner who says no all the time? (I suspect that Harper named Clement to Treasury Board as an experiment to see whether he'd learn any gumption.)

----

Anyway, getting back to the OP, it's hard being a right wing politician who says no. Right wing politicians have to be better communicators because their message is harder to sell. Harper is no communicator. So, I reckon that it's possible (even easy) to defeat him.

August, is this why the NDP has dominated postwar Canadian political history so thoroughly? Douglas, Broadbent, and Layton have all been strong communicators after all, so that's not the issue.

"We will protect you from the enemies outside our borders (by ramping up military spending) and give you freedom from the parasites within our borders (by slashing your taxes and building prisons)" has certainly proven to be a saleable message in the US. The milder version seems to work here. I certainly don't think it's any less marketable than "We will raise taxes and spend the money on collective projects."

Janice McKinnon was Romanow's finance minister in SK.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Evening Star

[August1991]

August, is this why the NDP has dominated postwar Canadian political history so thoroughly? Douglas, Broadbent, and Layton have all been strong communicators after all, so that's not the issue.

Douglas and Broadbent were crappy communicators. (BTW, I met both.) Layton is better. The NDP dominated because the Liberals were spending other people's money. It was a federal Canada version of the good cop/bad cop routine. The NDP said "Do it!" The federal Liberals said, "No, we can't." Different regions in Canada looked at who was writing the cheque, or whose credit card bill would assume the charge.

To understand Canada, forget left/right ideology. Think of "friends" eating in a restaurant. When the bill comes, how do they pay? Are there separate bills, or do you make the waitress' job easier by asking for a single bill?

If you know it's going to be a single bill, do you order a cognac at the end? And with a single bill, do you leave some money anyway for the waiter?

----

IMV, this is Canada. We manage all these affairs in a civilized manner. If I am Canadian, it is because Canada is a civilised place to conduct/organize affairs. We order as if we had separate bills but we happily pay our share of the single restaurant bill. And then some of us leave a tip for the waitress.

Canadians do this, French and English, because they know that we gain more by such a mentality than thinking otherwise.

Edited July 7, 2011 by August1991

[Molly]

First, Janice McKinnon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_MacKinnon

If Mr. Flaherty is even halfway serious about eventually balancing a budget he might benefit from seeking her advice.

And second, Douglas a crappy communicator?!!! What planet are you from?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Molly

[Evening Star]

I don't get that either. Broadbent was the most popular party leader in the 80s. I'm guessing this must indicate that he had an ability to communicate (as opposed to, say, dashing good looks). My point was just that the NDP's failure cannot be blamed on their leaders' inability to communicate. I just don't agree that the 'left' message is inherently more superficially appealing to people

[August1991]

And second, Douglas a crappy communicator?!!! What planet are you from?

I listened to your youtube "video". In fact, it's an "audio".

Molly, maybe you're right. Years ago as a kid, by a concours de circonstances, I was brought to a Tommy Douglas speech. I remember being pushed to the front to shake his hand. Nothing. Even then, I realized that he was at most a Baptist minister. (BTW, I had met Trudeau before this and I recall that he was something.)

Broadbent? Much later in life, I met him on several occasions. I recall having to deal with his office/him when he was no longer NDP leader. Decent guy, boring university professor, his French was awful.

----

In federal Canada, Layton is the best communicator the NDP has ever had. (BTW, I have never met Layton in person.)

I don't get that either. Broadbent was the most popular party leader in the 80s.

The NDP did well in 1984 when everyone hated inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, and John Turner's declaration that his hands were tied. IOW, Broadbent was lucky.

Nowadays, Ed Broadbent and Tommy Douglas are part of CBC/NDP/Canadian Leftist hagiography.

[Thread drift ahead] But what of David Lewis? Why does the CBC ignore Lewis?

Edited July 9, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

The NDP did well in 1984 when everyone hated inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, and John Turner's declaration that his hands were tied. IOW, Broadbent was lucky.

If that's all it was, the NDP should have been popular, not Broadbent himself. And, while the party did do better in 1988 than it ever had before, Broadbent was far more popular personally than his party, more so even than Mulroney, who was a brilliant communicator.

[Thread drift ahead] But what of David Lewis? Why does the CBC ignore Lewis?

Because Petro Canada and the FIRA are less universally loved than socialized health insurance, I'm guessing? Broadbent is important mainly for leading the NDP to what used to be a record level of success.

[Molly]

Douglas knew his audience, and was passionate about his subject. His fable-style made things clear to folks in a way that... well, how many years later do folks still recognize and understand the implications of any reference to the cats of Mouseland?

The list of 'communicators' who have had such an impact on the lore (or who have so eloquently described a situation to a full egalitarian understanding) is very, very short indeed.

I could hear any number of criticizms of him-- experienced more than my share of CCF/NDP failures and illogic-- but 'poor communicator' is just not on that list.

I don't see Layton or Broadbent as approaching the same class. Trudeau's 'Just society' sneaks into the vicinity. Any other? None that come immediately to mind, and that's largely the test. Nearest is 'Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription', hardly inspirational.

Edit: Diefenbaker's "ravishment if not the rape of parliament..." He was an orater, but didn't have the delicious ideas to put to words.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Molly

[Tilter]

I strongly believe that the NDP support will slowly drop while the Liberals slowly rebound. Think of the history of our country. As long as Harper keeps the CPC close to the center, it will still be a tough row to hoe.

The NDP popularity will wane as people get to know them. The people in Que will see the error of their ways & drop them like hot Patat Frites and likely split their loyalty between Lib & PC & the NDP will again be the party of losers they have been, are and will always be

[Newfoundlander]

The NDP popularity will wane as people get to know them. The people in Que will see the error of their ways & drop them like hot Patat Frites and likely split their loyalty between Lib & PC & the NDP will again be the party of losers they have been, are and will always be

There huge win in Quebec may have been the worse thing for them. While a breakthrough was obviously great for them I think they would have been better off winning 30 some odd seats in Quebec. Right now the majority of their caucus is from Quebec and if they don't want to lose their new base of support there they will need to stick up for them even if it doesn't sit well with the other provinces. It's not good for any party to be dominated by one province or one region of the country, look at what happened with the Liberals by having a base in eastern Canada.

The NDP are going to face a problem trying to satisfy Quebeckers and all other regions, especially seeing the party has strong support out west. Jack Layton may have been better off if Gillese Duceppe and the Bloc had more seats left.