Who should have the Liberals made leader?

[blueblood]

A party that supports anti-immigrant, anti-gay views is The Enemy in Ontario. End of sentence.

Your from Toronto right? End of sentence.

10% of Canada's population and one-third of Ontario's. Pretty much the same size as Alberta and larger than the whole block of the Atlantic Provinces combined. Toronto counts as a substantially large electoral block that has a relatively predictable voting pattern based on a half-dozen key political issues. That's all I'm saying here - nothing more, nothing less.

On the basis of Toronto's federal voting record going back for 40+ years, any mention of anti-immigrant or anti-gay is electoral suicide - in Toronto. This is 10% of the seats in Parliament. That is a simple fact, like or not.

Being formerly from the 905 myself, I know people there could have an appetite for conservatism, definitely tax cuts, definitely things to make the middle class better off, and I'm sure they see that in Harper. In immigrant filled Toronto, of course we won't see the CPC make a break through. That'd be just silly. Those populations have their special interests whispered into the ears of Dion daily, why would they give that up?

You've obviously been out of the 905 belt for a long time - with the exception of a few isolated 'white' enclaves, the 905 belt is as immigrant-driven as Toronto is.

And yes, as I have already noted, Toronto and Ontario both have long histories of support of the Progressive Conservative party (the old Big Blue Machine, for example). Fiscal conservatism sells in Ontario and can sell in Toronto too. But social conservatism is toxic in Toronto and a hard sell in Ontario generally.

That's an electoral fact. The Reform Party destroyed the old PC party and took the party off to the right on the social conservative side and that is where Ontario has drawn a line. Harper, if you will recall, only succeeded in a minority and only by promising to step back on every social conservative policy issue (which had doomed a succession of previous conservative campaigns).

Being too far to the left doesn't fly in Western Canada either. Western Canada accounts for a large portion of seats in parliament too. Guess what, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism is pretty popular out here. Maybe in order to get a unified government, they might have to accept that. Hypocricy in it's finest, the left being so adamant about accepting everything, but won't accept social conservatives.

[Canadian Blue]

Didn't the Reform party usually get around 20% of the vote in the 93 and 97 election. They can't really be that anti-Ontario if quite a few people still voted for them.

[madmax]

Being too far to the left doesn't fly in Western Canada either. Western Canada accounts for a large portion of seats in parliament too. Guess what, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism is pretty popular out here. Maybe in order to get a unified government, they might have to accept that. Hypocricy in it's finest, the left being so adamant about accepting everything, but won't accept social conservatives.

Ironic that Western Canada brought the "Progressives" to the Conservatives and now are rid of the "Progressive" element of the Conservative Party. Really adapting the Liberal views that the Old Conservatives opposed.

The origins of the Progressive Party can, in many ways, be traced to the politics of compromise under Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The most important issue to farmers in western Canada at the time was free trade with the United States.

The Progressive Party was founded in 1920 by Thomas Crerar, a former Minister of Agriculture in the Unionist government of Robert Borden. Crerar quit the Borden cabinet in 1919 because Minister of Finance Thomas White introduced a budget that did not pay sufficient attention to farmers' issues. Crerar became the first leader of the Progressive Party, and led it to win 65 seats in the 1921 general election.

The Reform Party only managed 52 seats then 60 seats. So getting 65 seats in their first go the Progressives did pretty good.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't think any merger took place between the Progressives and the Conservatives, the actual history is that Bracken only ran for the Conservatives if they added Progressive to their name. More or less it was semantics. Progressives never really joined the PC's, and instead opted for the Liberals or CCF, which would make the most logical sense.

A brief history of the Progressive Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_of_Canada

Crerar attempted to introduce certain attributes of a standard party to the Progressives, including Parliamentary Whips and a national party organization. These efforts were resisted, however, and in 1922, Crerar resigned as leader. He was replaced by Robert Forke, another ex-Liberal who agreed with Crerar on most issues. The Progressives proved unsuccessful in Parliament, and lost much of their moderate support in eastern Canada. While in the 1921 election Crerar had toured the entire nation, Forke abandoned everything east of Manitoba. In the 1925 election, the Progressives lost almost all of their Ontario members, but were still moderately successful in the west.

This left the party dominated by the radical Alberta wing. Moderates like Forke returned to the Liberal party (as Liberal-Progressives), and the remaining Progressives reconstituted themselves as parliamentary representatives of the United Farmers of Alberta. Some of them continued to sit in Parliament until the they were routed by the election of 1935, when most sitting United Farmers of Alberta MP's joined the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and were defeated at the polls by the Social Credit Party of Canada.

The Progressive Party of Manitoba had merged with the Manitoba Liberal Party in the 1920s to form a Liberal-Progressive party there. Despite this, in 1942, Manitoba Premier John Bracken, a Progressive, was persuaded to become the leader of the national Conservative Party. As a condition of his accepting the leadership, the party's name was changed to Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The Progressive Party of Canada, however, refused to disband, and ran its own candidates in the subsequent federal election against Bracken's Tories. The party's electoral fortunes continued to decline, and most Progressives ended up joining either the Liberal Party or the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), rather than the renamed Progressive Conservatives.

[madmax]

Didn't the Reform party usually get around 20% of the vote in the 93 and 97 election. They can't really be that anti-Ontario if quite a few people still voted for them.

They won one seat in Ontario 1993 and then lost it in 1997. It was the Social Conservatism that wasn't going over well, not being Anti-Ontario.

[madmax]

I don't think any merger took place between the Progressives and the Conservatives, the actual history is that Bracken only ran for the Conservatives if they added Progressive to their name. More or less it was semantics. Progressives never really joined the PC's,

We are reading from the same page. He became Leader much like Stockwell Day, when the Reform and "Progressive Conservatives" pretended to merge and create the Canadian Alliance. He was a Progressive whom joined the Conservatives and lead the opposition. Clearly the intent was to persaud Progressives to join the newly named Progressive Conservative Party. While there was fallout, no different the what recently happened with the creation of the "Conservative" party, eventually progressive voters did accept the newly labeled party. And the Party did adopt many Progressive Values.

Alot of the talk here is Semantics. You are right.

So, who should have been the Liberal Leader?

Elizabeth May

[Canadian Blue]

But it didn't really help them much, since it wasn't until what 1958 that Diefenbaker was elected PM. Unless my history is abit incorrect, either way I doubt it had anything to do with the name change as the Progressives would be much more at home in the NDP, Liberals, and even Social Credit.

They won one seat in Ontario 1993 and then lost it in 1997. It was the Social Conservatism that wasn't going over well, not being Anti-Ontario.

The social conservatism is what did them in, if it wasn't for that, they could have made more of an impact. Plus the Quebec ads didn't help out much either and was a huge mistake. The Reform party lost some good MP's because of some of the BS that happened in the first term.

Interestingly enough the three MP's who were the most opposed to including aspects of social conservatism were Jan Brown, Jim Silye, and Stephen Harper.

Gerard Kennedy should have been the Liberal leader. If had become Liberal leader, I would have probably shifted my support to the Liberals.

[Michael Bluth]

Neck and neck in Ontario? Polls can say anything apparently. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Conservative polling in Ontario rises/falls all the time - but it just isn't there on Election day.

To bring Ontario back to the Federal Conservatives requires re-establishment of the 'progressive' element that was banished when the Reform Party took over. Until then, the Federal Conservatives just seem like "Bush-lite" from an Ontario perspective.

Do you have any support for your wild assertions Mikey? Any evidence of this Conservative polling rising/falling?

The Conservative party has never polled within the margin of error of the Liberals for more than two consecutive polls since they have been formed.

Sad, sad Liberals still trying to use the scary Reform name, coupled with the inaccurate GW Bush comparison.

You aren't in government right now because you couldn't think outside that box. Try electing a leader with real, practical policies that will help people instead of scaring people.

Stephen Harper has been Prime Minister for almost 14 months. Persuadable voters are moving towards his party because they see what a sham the scare mongering is.

[Mad_Michael]

Being too far to the left doesn't fly in Western Canada either. Western Canada accounts for a large portion of seats in parliament too. Guess what, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism is pretty popular out here. Maybe in order to get a unified government, they might have to accept that.

1. Fiscal conservativism has always been a very strong political value in Ontario. That's what feuled the Big Blue Machine, that's what made Mike Harris Premier and that's what supported Paul Martin's fiscal policies through the 1990's.

2. Even in the west, social conservativism is a minority position that is concentrated in rural areas which are disproportionately represented in Provincial Legislatures and in Parliament, which creates a fake appears of electoral strength. Use equal sized electoral districts for all ridings, federal and provincial, and the power of the social conservative rural base will be significantly reduced. Indeed, rural areas have been falling in population pretty much non-stop for half a century now with no end in sight to this trend.

3. I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative.

4. Social conservatives are certainly accepted - they are entitled to their political viewpoint and are welcome to contribute to our great nation. Indeed, is not the present Prime Minister a representative of social conservative interests? Your point that social conservatives cannot be accepted is obviously not reflected in reality.

Fact is, even if social conservativism can be sold to the voters, it is only in the West as you say. The West cannot hope to make a majority on their own and thus, it is an electoral dead end. Social liberalism has a solid majority constituency (Ontario and Quebec and urban ridings across the country). It is only social liberalism that has any hope of providing a unified political government in the country. Ergo, I see no reason why a majority of social liberals ought to sacrifice their core values and accept/adopt a minority position of social conservativism.

Hypocricy in it's finest, the left being so adamant about accepting everything, but won't accept social conservatives.

This is tripe. Just a rightwing talking point imported from the USA.

Apparently, in order to prove their liberal credentials and prove they are not hypocrites, Canadian liberals must all accept and support US social conservative policies. This is absolutely outrageously absurd.

And liberalism does not hold that one must "accept everything". That is equally absurd, but hey, what's a good political argument with a decent strawman fallacy anyway?

[Mad_Michael]

Do you have any support for your wild assertions Mikey?

I don't reply to this kind of crap.

You will address me by my user name or not at all.

[White Doors]

3. I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative.

This is false. Does that matter to you? The big scary conservatives paid down 13 billion in debt the last budget and will balance this upcoming one with significant tax decreases. Your anti-Americanism is clouding your judgement.

[Mad_Michael]

3. I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative.

This is false. Does that matter to you? The big scary conservatives paid down 13 billion in debt the last budget and will balance this upcoming one with significant tax decreases. Your anti-Americanism is clouding your judgement.

I will not reply to you or your baseless accusation of "anti-Americanism".

[Michael Bluth]

I don't reply to this kind of crap.

How is "do you have any support for your wild assetions" crap? Is it crap because you are being ask to support your claims?

You will address me by my user name or not at all.

Control issues ....

To any users out there please feel free to call me Mikey if you so wish. If I have a concern with a name you used to address me I will politely ask you to use another.

[sideshow]

The liberals should have made Stephen Harper their leader-then they could merge with the conservative/alliance/reform and create one party and keep us from having expensive elections over and over again to basically flip a few policies back and forth.

[Keepitsimple]

3. I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative.

If the media ever accurately reported how Martin balanced the budget, your hero would be a little tarnished. There were two major components that I can remember:

1) He kept Employment Insurance Payments artificially high and tightened up the eligibility to collect. In doing so, he then changed the process to direct the EI surplus into general revenues where they were used to help balance the budget.

2) He slashed the transfer payments to provinces for Healthcare and Education and it's taken the Provinces the better part of 10 years to recover.

[Michael Bluth]

I am a strong fiscal conservative and always have been - meaning, I'm no leftwinger at all. That is the number one reason I've dropped support for the Conservatives and prefer the Liberal party. The Liberal Party is the ONLY party since WW2 to actually balance the budget - indeed, to also pay down the national debt. For this, Paul Martin is my hero. I do not trust the Conservative party to be fiscally conservative.

Uhhh, but the first Flaherty budget was balanced. This one will be two.

Do explain how the Conservatives didn't *actually* balance the budget? In fiscal 2005-2006 they repaid $13.2 Billion of the Federal debt. The biggest one time debt payment in Canadain history.

Waiting for that explanation...

[Topaz]

I agree with geoffrey.

Bob Rae stands little chance of being elected. He's possibly the most reviled politician by many Ontarians.

No, I would say Mike Harris is and Mulroney to follow both PCers.

[gc1765]

The more I watch politicans, the more I think they should have made ME leader.

[geoffrey]

The more I watch politicans, the more I think they should have made ME leader.

Your numbers would likely be better than Dion's.

Though Harper is looking damned good with all the enviro spending, at least in the eyes of the votes he's trying to snatch up.

[madmax]

If the media ever accurately reported how Martin balanced the budget, your hero would be a little tarnished. There were two major components that I can remember:

1) He kept Employment Insurance Payments artificially high and tightened up the eligibility to collect. In doing so, he then changed the process to direct the EI surplus into general revenues where they were used to help balance the budget.

2) He slashed the transfer payments to provinces for Healthcare and Education and it's taken the Provinces the better part of 10 years to recover.

Exactly the policies that fiscal federal conservatives wanted and got. The media has accurately reported this. I don't recall a peep over this from the Reform Party, Canadian Alliance parties during this period. The criticism came from the Provinces, particularly both Bob Rae and Mike Harris. About as different as you can get.

[daniel]

Judging from Harper's December 3rd copy-cat style, my preference would now have been Ignatieff as the Liberal leader. Then Harper would leave the country for 30years.

[madmax]

I agree with geoffrey.

Bob Rae stands little chance of being elected. He's possibly the most reviled politician by many Ontarians.

No, I would say Mike Harris is and Mulroney to follow both PCers.

Bob Rae is not as reviled as Mike Harris. Regardless I doubt if Bob Rae could win his seat against a Serious Conservative or NDP Candidate in a riding they hold in Ontario.

Mulroney image hasn't yet faded in Ontario. He is still reviled.

The Liberals selection of Candidates were more oriented towards the NDP policies, whereas they should have been looking for someone with a fiscally responsible record and without the ties to the parties criminal past.