The Problem with the Liberal Party of Canada

jdobbin · October 8, 2007

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?

I'm sorry, I don't think I was trying to criticize you. From your first response, I thought you sounded disappointed and that you only voted Tory because there was no other choice. It is why I asked if you had considered running yourself.

I don't think I modified my position on principles. I wrote that an independent candidate would have to be guided by their own personal principles. It would be the most important characteristic for them in running.

I can't recall saying you are selling out your principles. I asked if you believed you were settling because of a perceived lack of choice. If I misread your support for the Tories, I apologize. It's just the I've run into a few Tory voters here who are angry/dissatisfied with the party and have stated they can't vote for any of them or any of the parties. They have said they feel they have to settle for the least worst party when they vote.

For people who know the give and take of party politics and agree with the principles of the party in general, being part of a party is right for them.

sharkman · October 8, 2007

Typical liberal responses:

"I don't think I was trying to..."

"I don't think I modified my position..."

"I can't recall saying..."

Dobbin, you really were/are a politician! :rolleyes:

jdobbin · October 8, 2007

Typical liberal responses:
"I don't think I was trying to..."

"I don't think I modified my position..."

"I can't recall saying..."

Dobbin, you really were/are a politician!

I was being polite in answering without resorting to personal attacks.

If you go back and read what I wrote, you'll see what I mean.

Michael Bluth · October 8, 2007

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?

There is no practicality to 'purism'.

Bravo to you for pointing out the hypocrisy and defending yourself from this rabid attack.

Argus · October 8, 2007

For people who know the give and take of party politics and agree with the principles of the party in general, being part of a party is right for them.

Unless of course it's the Liberal Party - where principles are an alien concept.

Michael Bluth · October 8, 2007

Unless of course it's the Liberal Party - where principles are an alien concept.

While the give is to party members and the take is from the pockets of the taxpayers. :lol:

jdobbin · October 10, 2007

Dion re-shuffles shadow cabinet.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

iberal Leader Stephane Dion shuffled his shadow cabinet Tuesday, replacing Ujjal Dosanjh with former Ontario premier Bob Rae as the party's foreign affairs critic.
"The current Parliament needs to get to work and produce useful legislation, and this is why I'm adjusting my team by appointing new critics," Dion told reporters.

Rae does not currently have a seat in Parliament, so Bryon Wilfert, the associate foreign affairs critic, will speak for him in the House of Commons.

"He has full responsibility for doing the work in the House, and I have full responsibilities overall as critic," Rae told CTV's Mike Duffy Live.

Rae added that both he and Dion found the idea "a little unorthodox" but they still thought they could "make it work."

In other moves announced Tuesday:

* Dominic LeBlanc is now the intergovernmental affairs critic

* Sue Barnes will chair the newly-formed Caucus Committee on Justice

* Garth Turner, a former Conservative, has been named Dion's special advisor for riding and constituency outreach

* Paul Szabo will chair the Standing Committee on Access to Information and Privacy

Here is the full list:

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/071009_Shufflebkgrndr_en.pdf

It looks some more Quebecers have been moved up but it looks like they are trying to get Bob Rae out front and center.

capricorn · October 10, 2007

Dion re-shuffles shadow cabinet.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Here is the full list:

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/071009_Shufflebkgrndr_en.pdf

It looks some more Quebecers have been moved up but it looks like they are trying to get Bob Rae out front and center.

I saw Rae on Mike Duffy live tonight and he gave a good interview. A clip was played of Dion's earlier press conference. The difference in communication skills was glaring.

Coincidently, my spouse and I were talking about the leadership problems in detail last night. I said the party would have been better off if Rae had been selected. I bet him $50. Rae would be the next Liberal leader. With today's announcement of Rae's increased profile, I might just collect on that.

August1991 · October 10, 2007

Dion re-shuffles shadow cabinet.

Isn't that like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic?

jdobbin · October 10, 2007

Isn't that like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic?

That's what people said when Harper shuffled his shadow cabinet in 2005.

August1991 · October 10, 2007

That's what people said when Harper shuffled his shadow cabinet in 2005.

That was Harper against Martin. This is now Dion against Harper.

Guess what's similar about these pictures.

jdobbin · October 10, 2007

I saw Rae on Mike Duffy live tonight and he gave a good interview. A clip was played of Dion's earlier press conference. The difference in communication skills was glaring.
Coincidently, my spouse and I were talking about the leadership problems in detail last night. I said the party would have been better off if Rae had been selected. I bet him $50. Rae would be the next Liberal leader. With today's announcement of Rae's increased profile, I might just collect on that.

Rae was highly effective as an MP in the House of Commons. More consistent performers on the front bench would help the party in general. Since that isn't going to happen in the next weeks, this about the best alternative.

The big question: Is Rae healthy enough to go hard in the political arena?

jdobbin · October 10, 2007

That was Harper against Martin. This is now Dion against Harper.
Guess what's similar about these pictures.

So you think Harper is going to get his strong majority?

Michael Bluth · October 10, 2007

Isn't that like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic?

It totally is.

Interesting in how the Liberals who used to whine about Conservatives saying "we aren't as bad as the Liberals" vainly try and point to Harper's term as OLO whenever Dion's inadequacies are pointed out.

Michael Bluth · October 10, 2007

Isn't that like shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic?

It totally is.

Interesting in how the Liberals who used to whine about Conservatives saying "we aren't as bad as the Liberals" vainly try and point to Harper's term as OLO whenever Dion's inadequacies are pointed out.

M.Dancer · October 10, 2007

You can say that again......

Michael Bluth · October 10, 2007

You can say that again......

OK.

Interesting in how the Liberals who used to whine about Conservatives saying "we aren't as bad as the Liberals" vainly try and point to Harper's term as OLO whenever Dion's inadequacies are pointed out.

:lol:

sharkman · October 13, 2007

In all reality, the problem at the top of the list for the LPC is Dion. He just can't cut it. He's not a leader and he is certainly not memorable and I'm quite surprised the LPC seems content to let him do increasing damage to the party. However, when I read liberal supporter comments on this forum, their usual strategy is to attack Harper and ignore the elephant in the room. I hope they keep on ignoring.

Fortunata · October 13, 2007

The main problem is that the Libs have little idea how to be an opposition party. It's been awhile. Dion could be effective given enough time I think. He is not a stupid person. He also doesn't have a cruel streak that may make him seem weak. His problem is that he will not be given enough time to connect to the public and show them politics doesn't have to be dishonest and dirty. Too many voters like gladiator style politics (which Steve gives them) and too many want instant gratification and will vote for whomever gives them the first toonie in their pocket regardless of what other policies there may be to go with that. If the Libs want to win they need a leader who will go for the throat in a messy, bloody, classless way to match the man they are up against.

August1991 · October 13, 2007

If the Libs want to win they need a leader who will go for the throat in a messy, bloody, classless way to match the man they are up against.

When it comes to going for the throat, no politician can match a certain Jean Chretien.

By and large, Harper has been honest and straightforward as PM. This government is a refreshing change from the shenanigans of our two previous PMs.

Fortunata, you state that the Liberals don't know how to be an opposition. That's the basic problem. The Liberals can only conceive of themselves in power. They want the perks and the self-importance. The Liberals are the Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith of Canadian politics. No substance, no talent, just sheer celebrity. Power for power's sake.

ScottSA · October 13, 2007

The Liberals are the Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith of Canadian politics.

:lol: :lol: I love it!

Fortunata · October 13, 2007

Steve is not straight forward or honest. He wants power for power sake more than any political leader that I've seen. Why else would he cast aside his long held beliefs and convictions for what he, on the surface, stands for now? To gain power.

Chretien didn't stoop to be as classless as Steve in, for example, international forums wherein he mocks and constantly brings up his opposition and the "former" government derogatorily . Steve is without class. His mother did not teach him very well.

sharkman · October 13, 2007

Oh goodness, all of a sudden Chretien is a saint and Harper a devil! We know who you will vote for, but a reasonable perspective will not find Harper as you have.

Keepitsimple · October 13, 2007

Steve is not straight forward or honest. He wants power for power sake more than any political leader that I've seen. Why else would he cast aside his long held beliefs and convictions for what he, on the surface, stands for now? To gain power.
Chretien didn't stoop to be as classless as Steve in, for example, international forums wherein he mocks and constantly brings up his opposition and the "former" government derogatorily . Steve is without class. His mother did not teach him very well.

Fortunata....you should read Harper's Biography by William Johnson. It is a biography that was not approved by Harper so is pretty well non-partisan - especially since Mr. Johnson is mainly associated with the Globe & Mail. In the book, you would find that Harper never really planned to be a leader of anything - he was a behind-the-scenes policy guy who, by a set of circumstances, had leadership thrust upon him. He does not come from a rich or influential background, nor does he have any family political roots. He's pretty well an ordinary Canadian from an ordinary Canadian family who grew up in Toronto and went to University in Calgary......so to say he personally has a thirst for power is laughable. He certainly has a thirst for politics and policy but rightly or wrongly (or should that be rightly or leftly), he is trying to accomplish many of the things that he felt would benefit Canada and in time, form a stronger, united Canada. Read the book - it's pretty inexpensive and can be ordered through amazon.com if you can't find it in your bookstore. If you truly care about politics and your country, it's best you find out a bit more about Harper before you bash him - which of course, is always your right....but it's more appropriate when it's an informed bashing.

Fortunata · October 18, 2007

Fortunata....you should read Harper's Biography by William Johnson. It is a biography that was not approved by Harper so is pretty well non-partisan - especially since Mr. Johnson is mainly associated with the Globe & Mail. In the book, you would find that Harper never really planned to be a leader of anything - he was a behind-the-scenes policy guy who, by a set of circumstances, had leadership thrust upon him. He does not come from a rich or influential background, nor does he have any family political roots. He's pretty well an ordinary Canadian from an ordinary Canadian family who grew up in Toronto and went to University in Calgary......so to say he personally has a thirst for power is laughable. He certainly has a thirst for politics and policy but rightly or wrongly (or should that be rightly or leftly), he is trying to accomplish many of the things that he felt would benefit Canada and in time, form a stronger, united Canada. Read the book - it's pretty inexpensive and can be ordered through amazon.com if you can't find it in your bookstore. If you truly care about politics and your country, it's best you find out a bit more about Harper before you bash him - which of course, is always your right....but it's more appropriate when it's an informed bashing.

I appreciate what you say but it is immaterial in the here and now. If you say that Steve is just trying to do what is right for the country he would be listening to the two thirds of the country that didn't vote for him. He would be trying to work with those two thirds through the Libs and NDP. He would not be dictating that it's either with him or against him and if it is against him he'll take the country through yet another election. It is a thirst for power whether you want to admit it or not. No-one without that thirst plays as dirty as he does. Yes Steve may be a great tactician but, imo, he is a small person and not someone who should be a leader of a country. Actions speak louder than words (especially someone else's words) and his actions are not pretty.