The Problem with the Liberal Party of Canada

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

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.
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?

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!

I don't think I mentioned anything about the Tories going into deficit. Which Liberals were mentioning about a possible deficit?

As for the rest of your comments, I haven't suggested that the Tories are about to be turfed. I have said many times that I expect them to be re-elected but I have seen no evidence that they are near the numbers they need for a majority.

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

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.

There is no such thing as a philosophical centrist. The very suggestion presupposes and therefore depends upon the existence and solid definition of where the extreme poles lie. In Pol Pot's Cambodia, a "centrist" position would be advocating hard labour instead of summary execution for the crime of being educated, and in early Victorian England for advocating workhouses for orphans instead of death by starvation.

In Canada today, the problem of defining goalposts is so obscured by ideological rhetoric that it's impossible to determine a viable label for the term "centrist." Witness the oft-used lable "far right" to describe a Harper government that lies far to the left of the allegedly leftist Democrats in the US. What you call "centrist", I see as at best left leaning and at worst full blown socialism. The Liberal Party is not "centrist," it's best described as "pragmatic."

At least it was pragmatic before Dion came along and tried to yank it into headcaseland by riding one of the periodic "environmental" fads. Now he's stuck in a rut on the left and forced almost certainly to fight the election on a platform of "the environment"...a fad that carried some marginal currency when everyone believed the apocalyptic snakeoil coming out of Gore and Suzuki's corner, but which carries very little today. So there he sits in a puddle of embarrassment, bereft of a viable platform and damned near bereft of a party, getting outmaneuvered at every turn by Harper and hemorrhaging support right, left, and center. The Liberal prospects, unless something changes real fast, look like a thousand miles of bad road.

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

At least it was pragmatic before Dion came along and tried to yank it into headcaseland by riding one of the periodic "environmental" fads. Now he's stuck in a rut on the left and forced almost certainly to fight the election on a platform of "the environment"...a fad that carried some marginal currency when everyone believed the apocalyptic snakeoil coming out of Gore and Suzuki's corner, but which carries very little today. So there he sits in a puddle of embarrassment, bereft of a viable platform and damned near bereft of a party, getting outmaneuvered at every turn by Harper and hemorrhaging support right, left, and center. The Liberal prospects, unless something changes real fast, look like a thousand miles of bad road.

The support seems stuck at around 31%, a couple of points below the Tories who are stuck at 33%.

I doubt the election will be fought solely on the environment but for people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming, the Tory conversion to the idea much seem like a sell out of principles.

Michael Bluth · October 7, 2007

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

Are you saying you would leave the Liberals if it merged with the NDP? Very interesting.

I'd definitely leave the Conservatives if they merged with the NDP, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon.

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

The support seems stuck at around 31%, a couple of points below the Tories who are stuck at 33%.
I doubt the election will be fought solely on the environment but for people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming, the Tory conversion to the idea much seem like a sell out of principles.

You are quite a spinmeister, aren't you? We all know the figures you're refering to are votes parked a couple years ago and forgotten. You know it too, and you also know that they bear no relationship to the polls on election day. You surely must know where they're going to trend unless the heavens split asunder and Yahweh descends to perch at the right hand of Dion, who will probably denounce him anyway for the effect of his entrance on the ozone layer.

As for feeling betrayed by Harper for his position on the environment, hell no...it's good marketing. No one in Salem, circa 1695 or so, ever got elected by pointing out that witches don't exist, so why should Harper do it? And the subject is so obscured by misunderstandings of terminology that it's a minefield he might as well avoid. As someone whose vote will probably always be conservative of some variation, who else am I supposed to vote for if I were "feeling betrayed?" The NDP? The Liberals? The Greens? Are they likely to be closer to my view of GW? Hardly. And after the visitation of Shavluk as a representative of the Green Party, I'd be more likely to vote for the Bedlam Party on the grounds that it's saner.

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

You are quite a spinmeister, aren't you? We all know the figures you're refering to are votes parked a couple years ago and forgotten. You know it too, and you also know that they bear no relationship to the polls on election day. You surely must know where they're going to trend unless the heavens split asunder and Yahweh descends to perch at the right hand of Dion, who will probably denounce him anyway for the effect of his entrance on the ozone layer.
As for feeling betrayed by Harper for his position on the environment, hell no...it's good marketing. No one in Salem, circa 1695 or so, ever got elected by pointing out that witches don't exist, so why should Harper do it? And the subject is so obscured by misunderstandings of terminology that it's a minefield he might as well avoid. As someone whose vote will probably always be conservative of some variation, who else am I supposed to vote for if I were "feeling betrayed?" The NDP? The Liberals? The Greens? Are they likely to be closer to my view of GW? Hardly. And after the visitation of Shavluk as a representative of the Green Party, I'd be more likely to vote for the Bedlam Party on the grounds that it's saner.

I keep hearing about how the Tories are actually trending upwards to majority territory but still haven't seen any indication of it.

As for voting elsewhere, I think there is always room for a new right wing party. You could start one rather than ask: who else could I vote for?

Michael Bluth · October 7, 2007

As for voting elsewhere, I think there is always room for a new right wing party. You could start one rather than ask: who else could I vote for?

And guarantee another decade long stretch of Liberal rule?

Not thank you.

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

Dion's shadow cabinet discussing foreign affairs:

http://videomail.shaw.ca/view/10355926742-1191640338-84318/

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

As for voting elsewhere, I think there is always room for a new right wing party. You could start one rather than ask: who else could I vote for?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love another vote splitting party. Surely you mean "you" rhetorically, though. Mine would be a "racist" party hardly likely to sweep downtown TO. Shocking.

Michael Bluth · October 7, 2007

Dion's shadow cabinet discussing foreign affairs:
http://videomail.shaw.ca/view/10355926742-1191640338-84318/

Brilliant!

Throw in a little in-your-face American and/or CPC bashing and it could be any of a number of Newsworld shows. :lol:

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love another vote splitting party. Surely you mean "you" rhetorically, though. Mine would be a "racist" party hardly likely to sweep downtown TO. Shocking.

I have no idea what type of party you would be comfortable with.

As for vote splitting, what does it matter if you are sticking with principles? Is power the only reason for supporting the Conservatives?

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

I have no idea what type of party you would be comfortable with.
As for vote splitting, what does it matter if you are sticking with principles? Is power the only reason for supporting the Conservatives?

How am I going to gain power by supporting the Conservatives?

Michael Bluth · October 7, 2007

Yeah, I'm sure you'd love another vote splitting party. Surely you mean "you" rhetorically, though. Mine would be a "racist" party hardly likely to sweep downtown TO. Shocking.

Come on Scott did you really need to ask the question?

Of course it's in the Liberals best interest to have vote splitting. And of course you are a racist. Because labelling Conservative Party of Canada supporters as racists is just *scary* *scary* *scary* by another name. All's fair for some people on this board.

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

How am I going to gain power by supporting the Conservatives?

None unless you are looking for a job for them.

However, you did seem to indicate that you didn't have a choice when you said: "Who else would I vote for?" Indeed, who else? One that was in keeping with your views, I would think.

Michael Bluth · October 7, 2007

How am I going to gain power by supporting the Conservatives?

If you really want power from joining a political party join the Liberals.

As long as you make the right friends and are willing to stick around for a decade or so you'll have plenty of access to power and/or taxpayer money. Definitley the taxpayer money if past behaviour is any indication.... :lol:

ScottSA · October 7, 2007

None unless you are looking for a job for them.
However, you did seem to indicate that you didn't have a choice when you said: "Who else would I vote for?" Indeed, who else? One that was in keeping with your views, I would think.

Which is why I vote Conservative, because in the absence of 30,000,000 individual parties to suit each iota of what I'd like to see, I have to make do with the party that comes closest. As for adding parties into a political spectrum, how's it feel to have the left split between left, lefter, and ridiculous?

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

Which is why I vote Conservative, because in the absence of 30,000,000 individual parties to suit each iota of what I'd like to see, I have to make do with the party that comes closest. As for adding parties into a political spectrum, how's it feel to have the left split between left, lefter, and ridiculous?

I certainly wouldn't want to have the NDP as part of the Liberal party. Neither do most Canadians it seems since the Liberals have been able to win for years despite the presence of that party. I wouldn't be part of a combined party ever.

I don't know why you have to settle for something that comes closest. Why not run yourself as an independent? I ask this of a number of people who feel they have to settle when voting. I ran and have no regrets about it.

Argus · October 7, 2007

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

Did that include all the money needed for a military mission you guys set up but didn't bother to equip the soldiers for?

jdobbin · October 7, 2007

Did that include all the money needed for a military mission you guys set up but didn't bother to equip the soldiers for?

No, it doesn't. That money and money for First Nations has been excluded from the Tory promise to cap spending at the rate of inflation. They have gone over on all their other spending.

ScottSA · October 8, 2007

I don't know why you have to settle for something that comes closest. Why not run yourself as an independent? I ask this of a number of people who feel they have to settle when voting. I ran and have no regrets about it.

Because running and winning are too different things. When running as an unknown independent, they are virtually mutually exclusive things, resulting in nothing more than a throwaway vote, lost time, and tons of money.

Tell me, does the Liberal Party represent your views to exactitude with each and every policy? Do your views change in lockstep to the periodic changes in their policy?

jdobbin · October 8, 2007

Because running and winning are too different things. When running as an unknown independent, they are virtually mutually exclusive things, resulting in nothing more than a throwaway vote, lost time, and tons of money.
Tell me, does the Liberal Party represent your views to exactitude with each and every policy? Do your views change in lockstep to the periodic changes in their policy?

Is winning the only object of running as a candidate? Winning may be the booby prize because you end up being a single MP in a large legislative body. It seems to me that if you run as an independent, you are running on your own personal principles. I think that is what matters most.

The Liberals don't represent my views on a number of things. However where they don't, I have either tried to change the policy or have voted against it.

Edited October 8, 2007 by jdobbin

ScottSA · October 8, 2007

Is winning the only object of running as a candidate? Winning may be the booby prize because you end up being a single MP in a large legislative body. It seems to me that if you run as an independent, you are running on your own personal principles. I think is what matters most.
The Liberals don't represent my views on a number of things. However where they don't, I have either tried to change the policy or have voted against it.

Running on one's own personal principles in a representative democracy may matter most, but it's a Phyrric victory at best, which is why you don't run as an independent in every election. If principles were the Holy Grail of politics, you would, right? It's pointless, and whatever "principle" you are trying to illustrate has 15 seconds of fame and then disappears. I may want to change canada in any number of ways, but if I go around town pasting manifestos to telephone poles, the only effect it's going to have is having city workers take them down and quite possibly raise my taxes to pay for it. Running as an independent has about the same effect.

Your second para seems to contradict the first. In the first you claim that 'principle' is the overriding factor, and in the second that you vote Liberal in spite of Liberal principles which may not be in accord with your own. By your rationale in the first para, you should always and everywhere run as an independent, given that Liberal principles will not always reflect yours, and according to the second, you should sometimes run as an independent and the rest of the time "vote to change" policies you don't like, yet vote for the Liberals in spite of the lack of change (I assume that the Liberal party doesn't always adopt the changes you vote for). There's some real dissonance here. It's almost as if you once ran as an independent on 'principle,' and now are resting on those laurels while negotiating those same principles.

Edited October 8, 2007 by ScottSA

Michael Bluth · October 8, 2007

Your second para seems to contradict the first. In the first you claim that 'principle' is the overriding factor, and in the second that you vote Liberal in spite of Liberal principles which may not be in accord with your own. By your rationale in the first para, you should always and everywhere run as an independent, given that Liberal principles will not always reflect yours, and according to the second, you should sometimes run as an independent and the rest of the time "vote to change" policies you don't like, yet vote for the Liberals in spite of the lack of change (I assume that the Liberal party doesn't always adopt the changes you vote for). There's some real dissonance here. It's almost as if you once ran as an independent on 'principle,' and now are resting on those laurels while negotiating those same principles.

There is very little use to principle in politics.

In the past 40 years there have been two examples of conservative politicians standing on principle and subjecting us to Liberal majorities as a result.

1. Joe Clark not compromising on moving the Cdn embassy in Israel and/or the gas tax. Pass the budget and Trudeau would have been gone.

2. Preston Manning not going after Chretien for calling an early election in 1997 when there were serious floods in Manitoba. Forcing the issue could have cost the Liberals five seats, their majority and Chretien would have been forced out much earlier.

jdobbin · October 8, 2007

Running on one's own personal principles in a representative democracy may matter most, but it's a Phyrric victory at best, which is why you don't run as an independent in every election. If principles were the Holy Grail of politics, you would, right? It's pointless, and whatever "principle" you are trying to illustrate has 15 seconds of fame and then disappears. I may want to change canada in any number of ways, but if I go around town pasting manifestos to telephone poles, the only effect it's going to have is having city workers take them down and quite possibly raise my taxes to pay for it. Running as an independent has about the same effect.
Your second para seems to contradict the first. In the first you claim that 'principle' is the overriding factor, and in the second that you vote Liberal in spite of Liberal principles which may not be in accord with your own. By your rationale in the first para, you should always and everywhere run as an independent, given that Liberal principles will not always reflect yours, and according to the second, you should sometimes run as an independent and the rest of the time "vote to change" policies you don't like, yet vote for the Liberals in spite of the lack of change (I assume that the Liberal party doesn't always adopt the changes you vote for). There's some real dissonance here. It's almost as if you once ran as an independent on 'principle,' and now are resting on those laurels while negotiating those same principles.

If no parties are satisfactory, an independent candidacy is a viable alternative. I disagree that it is pointless.

I never suggested that I'd want to run for office as an independent nor have I run as an independent. I indicated that if someone was dissatisfied with political parties they could run based on their own personal principles.

On the whole, I agree with Liberal principles. I've disagreed with certain policies from time to time and have either tried to change those policies or voted against them. In some cases I've accepted what the will of the party is. In the end, the disagreement was not enough for me to look to another party. I guess you could say that one principle of anyone in party politics is compromise. If you can't do that, then being in a party is probably not right for you.

I suppose if you are willing to compromise then voting Tory is probably right for for you.

Edited October 8, 2007 by jdobbin

ScottSA · October 8, 2007

On the whole, I agree with Liberal principles. I've disagreed with certain policies from time to time and have either tried to change those policies or voted against them. In some cases I've accepted what the will of the party is. In the end, the disagreement was not enough for me to look to another party. I guess you could say that one principle of anyone in party politics is compromise. If you can't do that, then being in a party is probably not right for you.
I suppose if you are willing to compromise then voting Tory is probably right for for you.

Ok, so you've modified your position of uncompromising purism "on principle" to an admission that "on the whole" you agree with the Liberal Party and you can live with such differences as you may have with it. Great. But then you launch into a thinly veiled criticism of me for compromising in exactly the same way with the Cons. I can live with the disagreements I have with the Cons, just as you can live with your disagreements with the Liberals. If I am selling out my prinicples, then you are selling out yours too? Right? If I am simply compromising, then so are you. Right? So tell me again why I should have to start my own party, or run as an independent, on principle, while you shouldn't have to?