The Problem with the Liberal Party of Canada

[Michael Bluth]

In any event, if an election is going to be called this fall/winter, there will be policy platform presented by the Liberals and it will be up to the electorate to judge and compare them to whatever the Tories are offering.

It is possible that the Liberal campaign will implode and Dion and the party will wilt under the pressure and not present any worthwhile ideas or simply muddle through. I'm sure that is what Harper is hoping for. But what if that doesn't happen? What if a minority is the best that Harper can hope for? Will the need for majority power push him to make a deal with the NDP or BQ?

The Liberals *might* release a platform? They didn't release anything coherent in 2006. What was it? 57 priorities?

Dion wilt under pressure? But he has performed admirably as OLO.

I love how the NDP is approaching this.

Brad Lavigne, the director of communications for NDP Leader Jack Layton, said “it is up to the Liberals whether or not the Throne Speech passes.”

Mr. Lavigne said the NDP will now play the role of official opposition as the Liberals are in crisis. “Our caucus is united and our caucus is focused and knows what it believes,” he said.

[sharkman]

What you want is the "ideas" of the the Liberal party,those that remain in the Liberal "idea" policy paper for years and never get implemented because the Liberals are too busy being in power.

Where is the new policy platform? Like a true Liberal,even you are ready to support them without knowing what they are.

First we must get the power.

Sorry, but August hit the nail on the head,Liberals are only there for the power.

They are still stuck with an entitlement attitude towards the reins of power in Canada. In reading comments from Liberal supporters here, it becomes all to apparent. The thirst for power prevents them from even seeing what trouble their party is in.

[Michael Bluth]

They are still stuck with an entitlement attitude towards the reins of power in Canada. In reading comments from Liberal supporters here, it becomes all to apparent. The thirst for power prevents them from even seeing what trouble their party is in.

That's an interesting point.

The Liberals never did re-imagine themselves after the disaster of 1984.

Chretien just hung around, played it safe and mopped the floor with Kim Campbell. Then it was scary, scary, scary for a couple elections before Paul Martin's twin debacles for elections.

Can anybody point to a time when the Liberals ever really did have an over-arching raison d'etre?

[geoffrey]

I recall someone on these forums stating that "Moral victories are for wimps." and he wasn't a Liberal supporter either. So it becomes very apparant that some people would be content that Canada has a one-party system.

Canada has a one party system? Or you just have bad grammar?

I think you might have a good point here, but somehow it was lost along the way.

I don't personally care how many parties exist, one to one thousand, as long as the results improve my life. Your response is typically Liberal. It's all in the rhetoric and design and nothing about the actually results.

Number of parties means nothing. Names of parties mean nothing. What matters is how much your life is improved/harmed by the government in power. That's it, that's all.

[August1991]

Stéphane Dion has been advised by party officials not to defeat the Conservative government's Throne Speech and pick his battles with each bill that is subsequently tabled as the Liberals plot a way out of the election trap set by Stephen Harper.

The strategy, supported by Mr. Dion's newly appointed principal secretary Johanne Sénécal, is aimed at helping to buy the Liberal Leader more time while painting the Prime Minister as an autocrat who cannot tolerate checks on his power.

G & M

This strategy isn't going to work because it will just remind Canadians that the Liberal Party stands for nothing and has no principles - except the principle of expediency and what works.

Dion has talked about the troika of social justice, wealth and the environment. But to the people now in control of the Liberal Party, Dion's troika is just greeting card kitsch. They'll get rid of it if it means a risk of not getting power.

For example, Dion has stated that he wants C-30 - his revised version of the environmental bill - to be re-introduced in the House. How can Dion say that he has principles if he compromises on one of his major themes?

The "party officials" quoted in this G & M article don't seem to understand that they can no longer spin the wheels the way they used to do.

This was the point of Harper's comment about "fishing or cutting bait". Either the Liberal Party stands for something and is willing to defend it or else the Liberal Party stands for nothing except victory and power.

Of course the Liberals want power. Unlike the national NDP and BQ who seem content on being permanent forces in opposition, the Liberals don't want to forever remain a protest party. They are determined to be either the government or the government in waiting.

It's not merely that the Liberals want power. They are prepared to say or do anything to get it. All of the discussions seem to gravitate around this all consuming question.

Trudeau wanted power to but he would not compromise on certain basic principles. This current crew will compromise on anything.

-----

There's a back beat here. With the collapse of the PQ/BQ vote in Quebec, the one principle of National Unity no longer provides a cover for the federal Liberal Party.

Edited October 6, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

As they discussed tonight on CBC's political panel, the Liberals still are a brand that people gravitate to.

An assertion and its own discrediting all in the same sentence!

[jdobbin]

An assertion and its own discrediting all in the same sentence!

Is your issue the CBC?

[Moxie]

My entire street are Liberal supporters, I often recommend left leaning forums for them to read. It amazes me how out of touch the voting public is with the current liberal party and it's policies or lack of them. Classical Liberals are not impressed with the liberal party of Canada anymore and most will vote Conservative in the next election. Who could of guessed that the liberal party of Canada would go to the hardleft in such a short time. Socialist Party of Canada is more applicable than Liberal.

[jdobbin]

This was the point of Harper's comment about "fishing or cutting bait". Either the Liberal Party stands for something and is willing to defend it or else the Liberal Party stands for nothing except victory and power.

It's not merely that the Liberals want power. They are prepared to say or do anything to get it. All of the discussions seem to gravitate around this all consuming question.

This, of course, is all your opinion. If it helps you place a vote with the Tories next election, then so be it.

[jdobbin]

My entire street are Liberal supporters, I often recommend left leaning forums for them to read. It amazes me how out of touch the voting public is with the current liberal party and it's policies or lack of them. Classical Liberals are not impressed with the liberal party of Canada anymore and most will vote Conservative in the next election. Who could of guessed that the liberal party of Canada would go to the hardleft in such a short time. Socialist Party of Canada is more applicable than Liberal.

What exactly is a classical Liberal in Canada?

Edited October 6, 2007 by jdobbin

[August1991]

This, of course, is all your opinion. If it helps you place a vote with the Tories next election, then so be it.

I guess an election calls out the partisan voodoo spirits.

Here are two more quotes that I like:

Toronto Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, also a former leadership contender, said her caucus would have to see what is in the Throne Speech before deciding its next move.

“The Prime Minister is just continuing to demonstrate that he is a bully and doesn't understand that the people of Canada elected a minority Parliament so that his policies would be moderated,” Ms. Bennett said.

Carolyn Bennett (indeed any Liberal) calling Harper a bully is comical.

Or how about this one from Hervieux-Payette:

Hervieux-Payette dismissed suggestions the sniping may have been orchestrated or condoned by Ignatieff, the deputy leader who has publicly appealed to Liberals to unite behind Dion.

She said some of his erstwhile supporters are attention-seekers looking for their "one hour of glory" and others are simply inexperienced and easily spooked.

She suggested they need to gain some perspective and realize that the party's problems in Quebec started well before Dion assumed the leadership.

"It started with the leadership of Mr. (Paul) Martin and we have a very weak party in Quebec right now . . . If we had 30, 40 members of Parliament you wouldn't probably see that (sniping). But, you know, we have a very small crowd, they get nervous."

CP

So, trying to calm the waters, she insults the Martinites.

The Liberals are like chickens without heads. Drug addicts obsessed with power looking for a fix. Sad.

Is your issue the CBC?

When I listened to the CBC conversation linked in the OP, I was surprised at how sympathetic and collegial the discussion was. Anna-Marie Tremonte. Geesh.

Contrast that with the glee the CBC reported on the dissension within Conservative/Reform ranks.

Reading the Globe and Mail and listening to the CBC, I have the impression that I'm listening to a psychiatrist/psychologist help a patient through a rough patch.

Edited October 6, 2007 by August1991

[ScottSA]

I think one of the real problems facing the Liberals is the Parties inability to treat canadians as thinking human beings. I know it's common marketing currency to dumb things down to the lowest denominator, and that's just peachy, but we're not talking here about underarm deodorant, we're talking about the future direction of a country.

When the Reform Party swept into office in 93, I swept into Ottawa as a hangeron with them, and I'll always remember the sheer arrogance of the Liberal mentality. Then I watched for years as they produced a series of "red books" which were promptly discarded the minute they got the next mandate, and quite cynically discarded at that. I remember watching Reg Alcock defending the Liberal's utter disregard of red book policies with an appeal to "complexity"; why didn't the Liberals abolish the GST as they promised? "Things are more complex than simply doing away with it" was his paraphrased reply. Why didn't the Liberals protect healthcare as promised? "Because experiential nocturnals ifn blithe bafflegab eta. It's complex." No one thought to ask him why these complexities weren't apparent when the red book was being platituded into existence, but it didn't really matter, because the Liberals were by that time being openly talked about as the only "national" party.

I suppose there will always be people like geoffrey, who, if I interpret his comments correctly, simply wants the government to take care of him, but those people are becoming fewer and fewer. That attitude is a distinctly Liberal/NDP attitude...the nanny state thesis...and if the electorate were still stuck in that rut, the Liberals would hold power well nigh until the end of time. To give credit where credit is due, the Liberals have cynically drifted right as the winds blow that way, but even that highlights more the lack of any steel in its backbone. Good grief, when we have to get permission from the UN to go to war, things are bad in the backbone department...but that's another story.

The Liberal Party's real stumbling block, aside from the immediate spike belt of Dion, is its inability to see the Canadian electorate as thinking adults instead of sheep. Look at this statement from the article above: "'The Prime Minister is just continuing to demonstrate that he is a bully and doesn't understand that the people of Canada elected a minority Parliament so that his policies would be moderated,' Ms. Bennett said." WTF? That's the kind of language you use on the playground when two kids are fighting. And what about the thesis being suggested; that Canadians went out and elected a minority government to curb the Tories...no they didn't. Many voted for the Tories and some didn't. No one voted for a "minority government." That's just silly.

The Liberals will be in trouble until they stop pitching to a kindergarten class and start treating Canadians like thinking adults.

Edited October 6, 2007 by ScottSA

[jdobbin]

I guess an election calls out the partisan voodoo spirits.

Here are two more quotes that I like:Carolyn Bennett (indeed any Liberal) calling Harper a bully is comical.

The Liberals are like chickens without heads. Drug addicts obsessed with power looking for a fix. Sad.

When I listened to the CBC conversation linked in the OP, I was surprised at how sympathetic and collegial the discussion was. Anna-Marie Tremonte. Geesh.

Contrast that with the glee the CBC reported on the dissension within Conservative/Reform ranks.

Reading the Globe and Mail and listening to the CBC, I have the impression that I'm listening to a psychiatrist/psychologist help a patient through a rough patch.

So you are saying your opinion of the Liberals is partisan?

It is obvious that you are not happy with the Liberals. You show me quotes but basically give me an opinion of what you think it means.

And now you are blaming the media for not seeing what you want them to see.

As I said, if it helps you justify a vote for the Tories next election then that is good.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals will be in trouble until they stop pitching to a kindergarten class and start treating Canadians like thinking adults.

I agree. And the Tories will stay in the low 30s in the polls until they realize that people are not sold on their policy platform.

[Michael Bluth]

I suppose there will always be people like geoffrey, who, if I interpret his comments correctly, simply wants the government to take care of him, but those people are becoming fewer and fewer.

The Liberal Party's real stumbling block, aside from the immediate spike belt of Dion, is its inability to see the Canadian electorate as thinking adults instead of sheep. Look at this statement from the article above: "'The Prime Minister is just continuing to demonstrate that he is a bully and doesn't understand that the people of Canada elected a minority Parliament so that his policies would be moderated,' Ms. Bennett said." WTF? That's the kind of language you use on the playground when two kids are fighting. And what about the thesis being suggested; that Canadians went out and elected a minority government to curb the Tories...no they didn't. Many voted for the Tories and some didn't. No one voted for a "minority government." That's just silly.

The Liberals will be in trouble until they stop pitching to a kindergarten class and start treating Canadians like thinking adults.

I think you have totally and utterly misread Geoffrey's posts. He is far, far, far from the NDP/social democratic approach you ascribe to him.

Of course Bennett's comments are silly.

Look at your local Liberal cheerleader jdobbin. Every comment, every post comes back to the Conservatives standings in the polls and the worst possible inerpretation of those standings. He's a failed Liberal candidate who 'left politics' to go teach in Japan. wtf?

In his most recent post jd talks about people not being 'sold' on the Conservatives policy platform. That's the whole reason for a new Speech from the Throne to release a new policy vision for the Government. Yet he, symbolically of the out-of-touch Liberals, has written it off before the document has been released.

Natural governing party is an equally out-of-date concept.

In the last 23 years we have had Tory PMs for 10 years, 279 days and Liberal PMs for 12 years and 94 days. A pretty even split with the gap narrowing every day Harper stays in office.

The problem with the Liberals is they are so blinded by the Warren Kinsella always on the offensive mentality they haven't taken the time to look at their own issues and correct their own house.

[ScottSA]

I think you have totally and utterly misread Geoffrey's posts. He is far, far, far from the NDP/social democratic approach you ascribe to him.

If I have misread his post, then I apologize. I tend to stay away from the canadian politics forum, so i'm not familiar with the ideologies of regular posters.

[Argus]

What's the status of Justin Tredeau right now?

I've been out of the loop. Last I heard he was given a riding.

Why would you care? He's about ten years old with no political experience. He's naive and has silly ideas.

[August1991]

I think one of the real problems facing the Liberals is the Parties inability to treat canadians as thinking human beings. I know it's common marketing currency to dumb things down to the lowest denominator, and that's just peachy, but we're not talking here about underarm deodorant, we're talking about the future direction of a country.

I disagree.

The Liberals have always been very smart at getting votes. If they have to aim high to get votes, the Liberals will aim high. If they have to dumb down, they'll dumb down. The Liberals are like a good marketing department. They know how to get the message out in a way that will attract voters.

The problem with the Liberal Party now is that they are a marketing department and that's all. They have nothing to sell. They are a team who say: "Put us in power and we will do whatever you want us to do."

In the past, the Liberal Party had a claim to one principle: Canadian Unity. The Liberals were the party that could cross Canada's linguistic divide. Under Trudeau, the Liberals also became the party of a Strong Central Government.

The Liberals have lost even these principles now and hence they have nothing. The marketing department has taken over the business and no one worries about production.

Remember when Dion's supporters all wore green hats and green scarves at the convention? The new Liberal sign colours (at least in Outremont) combine red and green. The Liberals care about the environment? Really? Look at how quickly "Liberal strategists" are urging Dion to compromise on environmental legislation rather than confront Harper and possibly provoke an election.

So you are saying your opinion of the Liberals is partisan?

It is obvious that you are not happy with the Liberals. You show me quotes but basically give me an opinion of what you think it means.

And now you are blaming the media for not seeing what you want them to see.

As I said, if it helps you justify a vote for the Tories next election then that is good.

Dobbin, I can be partisan and I can also be (or attempt to be) objective.

I think that it's wrong to say that I'm not happy with the Liberals. I'm seeing a slow downward trend of the federal Liberals and in particular, a collapse of their vote in French Quebec. Moreover, I started this thread because of a CBC interview with Sheila Copps. In fact, I was impressed with her analysis of the current political situation and the ongoing sniping in the Liberal Party. On reflection though, I realized that her sophisticated and intelligent analysis was bereft of any substance. Her sole concern was how to get power.

Above in this thread, a poster said that "Moral victories are for wimps".

True, to lead, one has to win and winning requires many compromises. But a good leader, in Canada today anyway, must not compromise some basic principles.

In the last few days, I have not seen Liberals discussing any principle at all. Indeed, I see Liberals willing to accept anything if it means increasing their chance to get back into power.

-----

On this forum, both Geoffrey and I have criticized the Harper government because it spends too much. Many Conservative supporters are upset that the government has not cut taxes and revised its income trust policy. These represent principles.

The Liberal Party has none or at least, none that are not expendable.

Edited October 6, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, I can be partisan and I can also be (or attempt to be) objective.

I think that it's wrong to say that I'm not happy with the Liberals. I'm seeing a slow downward trend of the federal Liberals and in particular, a collapse of their vote in French Quebec. Moreover, I started this thread because of a CBC interview with Sheila Copps. In fact, I was impressed with her analysis of the current political situation and the ongoing sniping in the Liberal Party. On reflection though, I realized that her sophisticated and intelligent analysis was bereft of any substance. Her sole concern was how to get power.

Above in this thread, a poster said that "Moral victories are for wimps".

True, to lead, one has to win and winning requires many compromises. But a good leader, in Canada today anyway, must not compromise some basic principles.

In the last few days, I have not seen Liberals discussing any principle at all. Indeed, I see Liberals willing to accept anything if it means increasing their chance to get back into power.

-----

On this forum, both Geoffrey and I have criticized the Harper government because it spends too much. Many Conservative supporters are upset that the government has not cut taxes and revised its income trust policy. These represent principles.

The Liberal Party has none or at least, none that are not expendable.

I can't say that I've ever been very impressed with Sheila Copps after meeting her in 1984-85. I'm not surprised that you were not impressed with her. She didn't have the patience for policy back when I knew her and she doesn't have the patience for policy now. It is probably why her ministry was devoid of ideas except giving flags away.

Are you saying that some Conservative forum members have principles and the government does not? I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't know that you can really assess if the Liberals have any principles while sitting in the catbird seat. The media is only focused on who's in and who's out. If you are looking for policy, it is a thing that rarely comes from the Opposition because the government can adopt if it proves popular.

Find out where Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy are and that is where the discussion on principles and policy is likely happening.

I can tell you one thing: if the federal Liberals were to collapse tomorrow, they'd have to be invented again the following day by someone. The reason is that people in Canada are philosophically centrists and this is the ground that the Liberals have always tried to occupy.

[August1991]

I can tell you one thing: if the federal Liberals were to collapse tomorrow, they'd have to be invented again the following day by someone. The reason is that people in Canada are philosophically centrists and this is the ground that the Liberals have always tried to occupy.

Dobbin, you made the same point earlier in this thread and I have thought about it since. Heck, I may have made the same point myself elsewhere. Predicting the demise of the federal Liberal Party is highly speculative.

Harper's win of 10 seats in Quebec in 2006 reflected a change in Quebec politics. It is the first time that a WASP leader won seats in Quebec on his own merits. Mulroney made this possible for Harper. The ghost of Louis Riel no longer haunts the Conservatives.

Canada may be on the brink of having a functioning two party democracy wherein two parties vie for seats across Canada, and on both sides of the linguistic divide. We haven't had this since the 19th century.

What does this mean for the federal Liberal Party? Well, it will no longer be able to rely solely on its credentials as a national party. Indeed, the sponsorship scandal (and Chretien) have made the Liberal Party an anglo party in Quebec.

In the US, the Democrats have a radical wing but the Left is largely united as it is in the UK too. In France, the Socialists and (now largely defunct) Communists always united. I don't see the NDP and Liberals even tacitly joining any time soon but who knows.

Trudeau used to describe Liberals as occupying the "radical middle". Trudeau could say something like that because he had 74 of 75 Quebec seats. Dion (or whoever leads the Liberals in the future) cannot say that.

[Argus]

This conversations keeps coming back to the Liberals. After the five priorities, the Tories ran out of ideas

I would say they have lots of ideas, but they're limited in what they can get through Parliament, esp a parliament composed of parties which, for example, want to embrace criminals rather than punish them, and which embrace a failed health care program they all admit isn't working, with no idea how to change it.

What they have done all summer is spend like the Liberals they used to complain about as well as run surpluses on par with the most excessive the Liberals had.

Funny how you're complaining about that. It seems to me that last election you and your party were claiming that the Tories and their platform would, without any doubt whatsoever, lead the country back into deficit spending. Seems like you guys were lying, eh?

Where are the new ideas of the Tories? It seems the ones that he does have are not entirely embraced by the public.

What new idea is entirely embraced by the public? What Liberal idea has ever been entirely embraced by the public - not that you guys ever gave a damned what the public said when you had a big majority and no election in sight. In any event, the tories appear to be governing capably. What reason are you giving the people to turf them and bring your guys back? Your policies? Bwahahahahaha!

[Argus]

I don't know that you can really assess if the Liberals have any principles while sitting in the catbird seat.

Well, we know they have no principles while in power.

[Michael Bluth]

What new idea is entirely embraced by the public? What Liberal idea has ever been entirely embraced by the public - not that you guys ever gave a damned what the public said when you had a big majority and no election in sight. In any event, the tories appear to be governing capably. What reason are you giving the people to turf them and bring your guys back? Your policies? Bwahahahahaha!

This thread has seen some odd behaviour by certain Liberal posters. Complaining about the conversation always coming back to the Liberals on a thread titled The Problem with the LPC. Seems like a perfect place to discuss the Liberals.

Then we also heard a complaint about an opposition party not bringing out alternative policy ideas pre-writ. Isn't the role of the Official Opposition to provide an alternate vision of government?

My guess is the dearth of policy announcements by the Liberals is probably related to them having nothing to announce.

The Liberals seem to be stuck in the Warren Kinsella pit bull mindset. That didn't work for them in 2006 and it doesn't look like it will work for them now.

[jdobbin]

Well, we know they have no principles while in power.

Just as the Tories have none now as they spend above their promise to keep the rate at inflation plus population?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you made the same point earlier in this thread and I have thought about it since. Heck, I may have made the same point myself elsewhere. Predicting the demise of the federal Liberal Party is highly speculative.

Harper's win of 10 seats in Quebec in 2006 reflected a change in Quebec politics. It is the first time that a WASP leader won seats in Quebec on his own merits. Mulroney made this possible for Harper. The ghost of Louis Riel no longer haunts the Conservatives.

Canada may be on the brink of having a functioning two party democracy wherein two parties vie for seats across Canada, and on both sides of the linguistic divide. We haven't had this since the 19th century.

What does this mean for the federal Liberal Party? Well, it will no longer be able to rely solely on its credentials as a national party. Indeed, the sponsorship scandal (and Chretien) have made the Liberal Party an anglo party in Quebec.

In the US, the Democrats have a radical wing but the Left is largely united as it is in the UK too. In France, the Socialists and (now largely defunct) Communists always united. I don't see the NDP and Liberals even tacitly joining any time soon but who knows.

Trudeau used to describe Liberals as occupying the "radical middle". Trudeau could say something like that because he had 74 of 75 Quebec seats. Dion (or whoever leads the Liberals in the future) cannot say that.

I'd much prefer Conservatives in Quebec than the BQ.

The Liberals are going to have to find some Francophones who bring new ideas to the table and who believe in Canada. Quebec is where the problems are for the federal party. Quebec is where they will have to find the solutions.

One thing is certain. I'd rather be in a party with no seats than one that was a combination with the NDP.