The Problem with the Liberal Party of Canada

[Michael Bluth]

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.

Small person? Really?

Have you ever stepped out from behind your screen and stood for office? Volunteered for a party at election time? Worked for an elected official? Isn't a truly small person one who just sits on the sidelines and lobs insults without getting into the trenches themselves? I would continue this thought but the board has rules against personal insults.

Everything you ascribe to Harper applies to Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau. The only three successful PMs of the past 25 years.

None of them were ever elected with a plurality of the votes cast (save Mulroney's bare majority at 50.03% in 1984).

We get the fact that you hate Harper with such vengeance you can't show the respect of using the first name he prefers (but hey two can play at that game.)

All three fostered an us vs. them mentality. All three did what they thought was best for Canada.

Harper has managed his minority well enough that he is in majority territory at the moment. Why else would Steph Dion abandon all principles to avoid an election. To use your definition of a small person, Steph must be the smallest of the small.

[Fortunata]

To use your definition of a small person, Steph must be the smallest of the small.

LOL, is that the best you can do? Steph(ie) and Steve(ie) - now that's a pairing.

This is about Steve and his dictatorial edits; his flip-flops, his selling out his "principled" stance of a few very short years ago. People say politics is dirty, which it seems to be but some just make it dirtier than others. Being a country's Prime Minister is about the people; listening to and trying to do what's best for ALL the people, not just the people that voted for him and that he wants to vote for him in the future and his own political power. And there is a difference between standing firm and being dictatorial. Steve is looking for an election but, through his dictates he is ensuring he gets one, but like a "principled" person, he doesn't want to be the one to call it, he wants it to look like either someone else did or he didn't have a choice. Now that's principle!

There is a price to pay for votes. I guess he'll find that out once he stands under that street lamp long enough.

Isn't a truly small person one who just sits on the sidelines and lobs insults without getting into the trenches themselves?

Oh, I get it. If you don't work for a party, parrot a party, idolize a leader you are a small person if you criticize. And here I thought it was only if you didn't vote you were not allowed to criticize. See, learn something new every day. So most of us on here that don't belong to a party and don't like the leader of a party are all small people? Or were you just personally insulting me? Hmmmmmmm.

[g_bambino]

People say politics is dirty, which it seems to be but some just make it dirtier than others. Being a country's Prime Minister is about the people; listening to and trying to do what's best for ALL the people, not just the people that voted for him and that he wants to vote for him in the future and his own political power.

In practical reality a politician cannot do what's best for all the people; by their very nature politicians must pander to those that voted for them and to those whom they want to vote for them in the future. I suppose there are moments when national interest trumps partisan politics, but even in the aftermath of such a situation there will be those dissatisfied with the Prime Minister's actions. Hence, uniting and watching out for all the people is the job primarily left to the apolitical sovereign, and the controversial and divisive choices are left to his or her ministers.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh, I get it. If you don't work for a party, parrot a party, idolize a leader you are a small person if you criticize. And here I thought it was only if you didn't vote you were not allowed to criticize. See, learn something new every day. So most of us on here that don't belong to a party and don't like the leader of a party are all small people? Or were you just personally insulting me? Hmmmmmmm.

A small person is somebody who does nothing positive and only criticizes.

You clearly don't have any problems with the Liberal party of Canada and you have parroted their attacks on Harper ad nauseum.

Why are you trying to bring other people on to your side? I didn't see anybody else call Harper a small man?

You are the one who choose to introduce the concept of a small person into the debate. At least Harper has done something positive in the eyes of millions of Canadians.

There are a number of positive things that can be done without direct involvement with a party. I'm sure you would have mentioned your involvement with any of those.

bambino said it best about "all the people". It's a pretty short list of how many PM's have pleased all the people all the time .... zero. But Paul Martin tried. We saw how successful that one was.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Shakeyhands]

Harper will enjoy his 15 minutes, the Liberals are in a disarray but we all know that when they get their act together it will be the end of Harper.

And Bluth, the man does act like an angry, vindictive little man most of the time. Look at the control issues he's had and the fits he's pitched when someone says or does something he doesn't like. You have to call a spade a spade.

[kengs333]

Harper will enjoy his 15 minutes, the Liberals are in a disarray but we all know that when they get their act together it will be the end of Harper.

And Bluth, the man does act like an angry, vindictive little man most of the time. Look at the control issues he's had and the fits he's pitched when someone says or does something he doesn't like. You have to call a spade a spade.

There seems to be a sort of a pattern to governance in Canada in the post-war era. A lengthy stint by the Liberals, during which they become increasingly complacent and detached from the electorate; an enthusiastic jump to the Conservatives, who eventually become mired in controversy and only hang on for 8-9 years; then back to the Liberals for longer than necessary. It would seem that Harper is set for the time being. Nobody really wants and election, and so he can go about acting like he has a majority government; in two or three more years, people will start getting sick of the arrogance, and the party will begin to slide into oblivion again. I can see the underlying issue in the the party's decline being Harper's excessive control of his MPs--we've already seen a couple jump ship. The only thing that may cause him to buck the trend is his vocal support for the military and the war in Afghanistan; so there's obviously a political side to his wanting to extend the mission, sadly. I find this most unfortunate since he claims to be a Christian; when Canada finally gets a Protestant PM again, he turns out to be a war-monger.

[sharkman]

Harper will enjoy his 15 minutes, the Liberals are in a disarray but we all know that when they get their act together it will be the end of Harper.

And Bluth, the man does act like an angry, vindictive little man most of the time. Look at the control issues he's had and the fits he's pitched when someone says or does something he doesn't like. You have to call a spade a spade.

So funny. In Chretien's new book, he whines about just about everybody and reveals without meaning to that he is the greatest control freak of all time. He admits he stayed in office longer than he would have otherwise just to keep Martin out longer. This, and the civil war in the Liberal party that ensued are primarily responsible for today's disarray in the Liberal party.

But there is also no one on the horizon who could bring the party back into respectibility, only time will do that, if they can quit the infighting and resignations long enough. In the meantime, the NDP and the Tories are both attracting former liberal voters and will continue to do so.

And kens, there are plenty of people who want an election, just not liberal supporters. And you speak of 2 or 3 more years of Tory minority rule which would smash the old record of a minority government, which is HIGHLY unlikely. And if you really want to observe arrogence, read Chretien's book or just watch the Liberal party who still do not care for acting like an official opposition. Even Quebec is tired of the act, as the latest by-elections there show.

Harper is playing this just about right, and since the Liberals are so weak, Harper should be able to either get much legislation passed or have an election called. But like I've said before, if Canadians need a while longer to be weaned from Liberal Dependancy Syndrome, so be it.

[Fortunata]

A small person is somebody who does nothing positive and only criticizes.

You clearly don't have any problems with the Liberal party of Canada and you have parroted their attacks on Harper ad nauseum.

Why are you trying to bring other people on to your side? I didn't see anybody else call Harper a small man?

You are the one who choose to introduce the concept of a small person into the debate. At least Harper has done something positive in the eyes of millions of Canadians.

There are a number of positive things that can be done without direct involvement with a party. I'm sure you would have mentioned your involvement with any of those.

bambino said it best about "all the people". It's a pretty short list of how many PM's have pleased all the people all the time .... zero. But Paul Martin tried. We saw how successful that one was.

You've just got so many things wrong here.

Your definition of a small person is quite insulting to a lot of people on here as a lot of people do not hold party membership. You're one of two people that say we are not allowed to criticize, the other being betsy. Some of us aren't so easy to please as you I guess MB, or not so easily brainwashed perhaps. I haven't found a party that I would embrace wholeheartedly as I see problems with all of them, however I do donate to one which I think should have a chance. Which brings me nicely to the Liberal comment. I can't even start with all the problems I see in the Liberals, but Steve is the one that will do this country in if he has a majority imo. I have more of a problem with roll-over-to-get-votes Steve and not knowing what direction he will decide to go next since he doesn't seem to hold onto his principles very well. You can't count on him. Steve did a lot in the eyes of millions and he didn't do what he said he would do in the eyes of millions. See how that balances out? Can you see how we all don't think the same? I think you could see if you wanted to. But with you you see the glass half full for the Cons and the glass half empty for the rest. You are very partisan so you will not see anything but the good in Steve no matter how he flip flops, changes his mind and breaks promises. Lets see if he brings the taxes down Liberal style because since he took office mine went up.

[kengs333]

And kens, there are plenty of people who want an election, just not liberal supporters. And you speak of 2 or 3 more years of Tory minority rule which would smash the old record of a minority government, which is HIGHLY unlikely. And if you really want to observe arrogence, read Chretien's book or just watch the Liberal party who still do not care for acting like an official opposition. Even Quebec is tired of the act, as the latest by-elections there show.

Harper is playing this just about right, and since the Liberals are so weak, Harper should be able to either get much legislation passed or have an election called. But like I've said before, if Canadians need a while longer to be weaned from Liberal Dependancy Syndrome, so be it.

I could see this minority government going on for awhile, but I hope not. I want an election because I think the Greens will finally get elected, although it remains to be seen if I will vote for them. The Liberals are no more arrogant than the Conservatives--I think Mulroney and his new book trumps anything Chretien can dictate. As weak as the Liberals are, anything can happen in an election.

[Michael Bluth]

Your definition of a small person is quite insulting to a lot of people on here as a lot of people do not hold party membership.

Again with the 'us vs them' mentaility? I haven't seen any 'people on here' jump to your side so maybe you shouldn't speak for anybody but yourself.

You are very partisan so you will not see anything but the good in Steve no matter how he flip flops, changes his mind and breaks promises. Lets see if he brings the taxes down Liberal style because since he took office mine went up.

As opposed to how you will never see anything but bad in Stephen Harper no matter what. Is that because you are very partisan as well?

Your taxes have gone up since Stephen Harper took office? In total? Including your GST paid?

Three possible explanations.

1. Your income has gone up.

2. You need to hire a professional tax preparer.

3. You aren't presenting the facts accurately.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[ScottSA]

Lets see if he brings the taxes down Liberal style because since he took office mine went up.

No they didn't. Not your federal taxes.

[Rue]

The problem with the Liberal party is that it was run as a dictatorship by Chretiens who stayed in too long. This then forced Martin's hand at ousting him, and divided the party. Asdd to that staying in power too long corupted the LIberals and under Chretien's years of dictatorship, they became a pathetic third world patronage system unaccountable and out of touch.

The party still has not acknowledged its coruption and lack of morality. The party still continues its feud between Chretien and Martin camps. Add to the equation is an arrogant ego maniac called Michael Ignatieff who will not stop until Dion is out of his way and he takes what he sees as his.

Dion was simply a compromise candidate. He ended up being selected for only two reasons-no one wanted Rae or Ignatieff and he was the only other one available. Everyone knew Gerard Kennedy was a lightweight.

Dion's failure as a leader is simple. He is an academic. He has no people skills. He is a prickly, stiff, academic. Ignatieff is no different. To run a party one needs more then an academic.

People feel Trudeau was an academic but he was far more then that, he was someone who understood people and knew how to ignite peoples' passions. He knew how to work a crowd and use his charisma. He was not just an academic. He was a player of people.

Lester Pearson again to many was just a civil servant and an academic, but he was not just that. He knew how to appeal to people's feelings.

Academics like Ignatieff and Dion are all about repressing feeling and showing everyone how logical and erudite they are. Rae has the same problem.

So that is what is missing, is someone with a common touch, a vision people can feel.

Dion can not capture anyone's imagination and neither will Ignatieff with his oevrwhelming narcissism and need to play with himself in public.

The Liberal Party is undergoing a second Chretien-Martin feud only now Dion and Ignatieff are the proxies and Rae sits in the wings hoping to sneak up the middle. None of those three are inspiring.

The LIberals are destined to the wilderness while some unknown leader of the next generation no one even knows of is years away from his or her destiny.

What ails the LIberals is having no natural leader, and a party still full of morally delinquent corupt nasties who haven't found jobs elsewhere yet.

[Michael Bluth]

The problem with the Liberal party is that it was run as a dictatorship by Chretiens who stayed in too long. This then forced Martin's hand at ousting him, and divided the party. Asdd to that staying in power too long corupted the LIberals and under Chretien's years of dictatorship, they became a pathetic third world patronage system unaccountable and out of touch.

Granted Chretien stayed too long, but does that really mean they forced Martin's hand? Chretien would not have lead the party into the 2004 election. Martin had a big role to play in the feud.

The party still has not acknowledged its coruption and lack of morality. The party still continues its feud between Chretien and Martin camps.

A fuller acknowledgment of Adscam as the travesty it was would have gone a long way in making Paul Martin look like a strong leader.

Dion's failure as a leader is simple. He is an academic. He has no people skills. He is a prickly, stiff, academic. Ignatieff is no different. To run a party one needs more then an academic.

Dion cannot present himself well to English speaking Canadians. So many of his mistakes are when he tries to say something perfectly rather than just get his point across.

So that is what is missing, is someone with a common touch, a vision people can feel.

Dion's 'vision' is to talk about dealing with poverty in Canada??? Clearly a swing to the left, but is this an issue centrist Canadians consider important?

What ails the LIberals is having no natural leader, and a party still full of morally delinquent corupt nasties who haven't found jobs elsewhere yet.

Plus the still lingering belief in the Canada's Natural Governing Party fiction. If Harper can successful pass the torch to a new leader it should put that myth to rest.

[August1991]

The party still has not acknowledged its coruption and lack of morality. The party still continues its feud between Chretien and Martin camps. Add to the equation is an arrogant ego maniac called Michael Ignatieff who will not stop until Dion is out of his way and he takes what he sees as his.

True, but this is just an offshoot of the Liberals' more basic problem - they only stand for power.

Here's what the Toronto Star had to say about Liberal "Principles":

Since the throne speech two weeks ago, Canadians have gotten a clearer picture of what Harper's government stands for and what it does not. His mini-budget champions only big tax cuts. But it does nothing to help the federal government build the caring, compassionate, inclusive society that most Canadians want for their country.

Caring, compassionate, inclusive. Such is the kitsch, Hallmark card political philosophy that now passes for intelligent thought in Liberal circles. Is there anyone left in Canada who believes this Liberal nonsense?

More accurately perhaps, here's James Travers on Dion:

A single truth runs through the Liberal conundrum: The defining purpose of a party trying to regain power is not to defeat the government in Parliament but to win the most seats in an election. Delaying that election at all costs makes practical sense as long as it doesn't make winning that election impossible.

There we get to the true Liberal principle: Get power. Travers is the usual, arrogant Liberal self since he's willing to state this Liberal principle in his column.

----

The Liberals are seriously mistaken if they think that changing their leader will change their problem. The Parti Québécois made the same mistake.