What do Liberals stand for?

[Canuck E Stan]

What do liberals stand for?-The Gazette

Experts say the Liberal brand also suffers from one of the most fundamental problems in marketing. While other parties have successfully defined their themselves in simple, easy to understand terms in tune with the current revolution in information technology and the nanosecond attention spans of channel-surfing voters, the Liberal identity appears to be adrift.

Ask Canadians what the Liberal Party stands for these days, how it distinguishes itself from its competitors, and many would have difficulty answering the question, says Harold Simpkins, a marketing professor at Concordia University's John Molson School of Business and co-author of a new book titled Marketing Yourself.

Brands should stand for something and should focus on one fundamental benefit the brand will bring consumers, Simpkins explained.

While the Conservatives have tied their brand to strong leadership, the Bloc Québécois to sovereignty and defending Quebec and the New Democrats to the environment and social justice, the Liberals under both Paul Martin and Stéphane Dion haven't really defined what their party stands for to Canadians, he said.

"The Liberals right now are trying to hold Jell-O that hasn't quite set in your hands."

Léger agrees the Liberals have to make it clearer to Canadians who are the key members of their team and what their brand represents.

Liberal civil war has officially started-Copps

With a fall election coming,the Liberals have little time to get their "team" together, and a lot of work to tell Canadians what they stand for.

What do they stand for anyway?

[Keepitsimple]

In my opinion, the Conservatives stand for something more than strong leadership. They stand for Open Federalism. As provinces have matured over the past 40 years or so, the Liberal Party has stubbornly clung to a paternalistic view of the provinces. This brought us to the brink of losing Quebec and increasing friction with Western provinces. The Conservatives have introduced a refreshing respect for Provincial juristiction. The Conservative approach has been so popular in Quebec that we are witnessing an acceptance of federalism that is nothing short of amazing. It goes beyond the rejection of Liberal corruption - it embraces a newly-found optimism for Conservative-style Federalism.

[Michael Bluth]

In my opinion, the Conservatives stand for something more than strong leadership. They stand for Open Federalism. As provinces have matured over the past 40 years or so, the Liberal Party has stubbornly clung to a paternalistic view of the provinces. This brought us to the brink of losing Quebec and increasing friction with Western provinces. The Conservatives have introduced a refreshing respect for Provincial juristiction. The Conservative approach has been so popular in Quebec that we are witnessing an acceptance of federalism that is nothing short of amazing. It goes beyond the rejection of Liberal corruption - it embraces a newly-found optimism for Conservative-style Federalism.

Very well said.

That statement could be the basis for the Conservative's platform in Quebec.

Would anyone have thoiught two short years ago that the most likely outcome in the next Federal election would be the Liberals with the third most number of seats?

[fellowtraveller]

What do they stand for anyway?

That is a question that cannot be answered by the Liberals until they do some polling. They'll pick whatever is popular at the moment, a particularly nasty habit that has finally been noticed by at least some of the electorate.

[sharkman]

And this position the Liberal party now finds itself in can be traced back to Jean Cretien, whose strong arming tactics and acts of small minded revenge on his enemies within the party drove away some who would have been good leaders, leaving only has beens, and intellectual flakes to contend for the party. The party was reduced to standing for Jean Chretien.

Edited September 24, 2007 by sharkman

[Topaz]

As a voter who has voted for two of the three parties at one time for another, I feel the NDP could be the "New Liberal" party to grab more of the votes as long as Dion is the leader and Harper is the Cons leader. I've listened in Question Period, I see Layton try do more for Canadians then the other two. So, perhaps if there is no election soon, the NDP will move forward and the Libs and the Cons will fall! Harper has two main issues he can't win, the environment and the war. The Libs have to have a new leader and until these two parties can correct their issues I think the voters will turn their attentions to Layton and see what he is saying.

[Michael Bluth]

Harper has two main issues he can't win, the environment and the war. The Libs have to have a new leader and until these two parties can correct their issues I think the voters will turn their attentions to Layton and see what he is saying.

The Conservtive's can't win over those voters who think they have to 'correct' themselves on the issues of Afghanistan and the environment. However, that doesn't mean they can't win the next election.

The NDP have staked out a very clear opposition to the Conservatives on both issues. Not an entirely realistic position, but that is the luxury a party that has never formed Government has.

People on the other side of the Conservatives on Afghanistan and the environment turning their attention to Layton is a good thing for the Conservatives. Everybody who does that takes another vote away from the Liberals.

[sharkman]

The NDP will never be able to attract sizable amounts from the voting middle period. And Layton is a poll chaser who loves to mug for the camera. Remember when he did his debit card/bank outrage, "because they're charging us to use our own money!" Until it was revealed that he used data to back up his claims from a U.S. study based in Fllorida and just figured it would be one size fits all.

[cynic43]

.

Would anyone have thoiught two short years ago that the most likely outcome in the next Federal election would be the Liberals with the third most number of seats?

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Libs are polling only 3-4 points behind the con(s) ( artists) so how do you come to the conclusion that

they will come in third in the coming election?

Wishful tninking won't make it so

[noahbody]

That many still associate themselves with the Liberal brand would suggest it's fairly strong on an emotional level. Others realized the product they bought for 13 years was unsatisfactory and not worth their loyalty.

[Michael Bluth]

That many still associate themselves with the Liberal brand would suggest it's fairly strong on an emotional level. Others realized the product they bought for 13 years was unsatisfactory and not worth their loyalty.

Those are the people who will hand the Liberals another loss and end Stephane Dion's political career.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Libs are polling only 3-4 points behind the con(s) ( artists) so how do you come to the conclusion that

they will come in third in the coming election?

Wishful tninking won't make it so

My sentence previous to the one you quoted, i.e. the one you didn't quote, referred to Quebec results. I was referring to the likelihood of the Liberals coming in third in Quebec in the next Federal election.

Alas you are correct on the national. Nationally the Liberals are looking like a solid place second place finisher in the next election.

[mikedavid00]

The Conservatives have introduced a refreshing respect for Provincial juristiction.

Really?

Please explain what fundamentally they have changed from the status quo of how we deal with our provinces.

I haven't seen any changes..

When it comes to environmental nonsense, I don't see the provinces left to make their own rules. I see the feds playing Daddy.

When it comes to grabbing taxes, then handing them back out to welfare provinces like Quebec, again, I see the feds playing Daddy and grabbing our money.

When it comes healthcare reform, I don't see the feds letting each province decide if it wants private of public, DESPITE the fact that the provinces manager their own healthcare systems. All I see the feds doing are giving out money to who they feel who need it most and playing Daddy.

When it came to marriages, the feds played football with this issue until 3rd quarter, but did not leave this as a provincial issue. I saw the feds making rules and playing Daddy to tell the provinces what they can and can't do.

So Plese explain how there has been any diffrences in how the provinces are treated.