babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Liberal leadership race

1043 replies [Last post]

Comments

Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Caissa wrote:

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?

Yes. Does that mean people who don't believe in all NDP policies are not allowed to comment?

Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

PoliSciStudent wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

Take a deep breath. :)

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Arthur Cramer wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

Take a deep breath. :)

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

Yes I have heard of the golden rule, so I'll ignor your comments and hopefully you'll ignor mine.

adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

Boom Boom wrote:

Heh. I recall the days when everyone said the progressive vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, allowing the  Progressive Conservatives (now just Conservative) to win. Laughing

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

Yet the irony is that upon close inspection, the outcome of that election had little to do with the "split left" per se--indeed, a lot of which motivated voters to vote "anti-free-trade" that year was not unlike what led many of the same voters to opt for ReformAllianceConservative after 1993.  If anything, 1988 marked the last gasp of a certain "Clear Grit populism" within the federal Liberal party (even if the actual c19 Clear Grits were pro-free trade)--that seats as unlikely as Leeds-Grenville went Liberal that year had little to do with raw "leftiness"...


addictedtomyipod
Offline
Joined: Jan 18 2012

I'll gladly ignore you PSS.  You are so full of yourself that you must eat yourself for breaky, lunch and dinner.  Go and learn how to care about man, woman and country then come back here and debate.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
adma wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Heh. I recall the days when everyone said the progressive vote is split between the Liberals and the NDP, allowing the  Progressive Conservatives (now just Conservative) to win. Laughing

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

Yet the irony is that upon close inspection, the outcome of that election had little to do with the "split left" per se--indeed, a lot of which motivated voters to vote "anti-free-trade" that year was not unlike what led many of the same voters to opt for ReformAllianceConservative after 1993.  If anything, 1988 marked the last gasp of a certain "Clear Grit populism" within the federal Liberal party (even if the actual c19 Clear Grits were pro-free trade)--that seats as unlikely as Leeds-Grenville went Liberal that year had little to do with raw "leftiness"...

It is to bad we don't know what would have happened if the Liberals were pro free trade in 1988. Would the NDP have surged ahead with the support of the anti free traders or would more people have not been so uneasy about free trade if both the LPC and PC were supporting it. It's a shame we can't change history.

clambake
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2011

Caissa wrote:

Has anyone explained to you poliscistudent that this is a left-wing site?

I enjoy this forum and everything, but some posters here are a little too hostile to posters that don't necessarily tout the NDP line (which is surprising, being a progressive website and all). poliscistudent isn't trolling or anything - his or her points have warranted discussion


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

adma wrote:

Well, that was the big argument re the 1988 Free Trade Election--an election which, arguably, gave birth to the Strategic Voting Era As We Know It Today.

It actually goes back much further than that...in 1974 the folk wisdom is that there was stampede of NDP voters shifting to the Liberals to stop Stanfield and his plan to bring in wage and price controls.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

clambake wrote:
I enjoy this forum and everything, but some posters here are a little too hostile to posters that don't necessarily tout the NDP line

 

Touting the NDP line is certainly not left-wing.




Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

PoliSciStudent wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, I don't feel like a hypocrite. The Libs will ALWAYS say one thing and do something else. That is what is so bad about them. If they disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear. As to beating Harper, I already explained the difference. Your response indicates that you either don't get it, or you disagree with it, or frankly, based on the tone of your writing, probably simply have disdain for it.

Don't go around calling me a hypocrite, and don't try to teach me something son/miss. I have NOTHING to learn from you.

 

Take a deep breath. :)

You know you are being patronizing, right? There is another guy who posts here but usually only when he wants to gloat about how well the Libs are doing in the polls. I don't think he is really interested in having a discussion about anything but what is wrong with the beliefs and ideas of the majority of posters on this website. Frankly, you strike me as exactly the same. I don't mind debate but I mind being discounted and I mind being patronized.

Now here is what sounds like a rant. I spent 20 plus years in the Navy as a Ship's Officer and dealt with plenty of stress equal to or more likely much greater then anything you have experienced in your life. So don't come back and tell me to calm down. What you really are telling me is I am too emotional and not being rational. While the disciiplined side of myself says I should just ignore because you aren't worth interaction, my other side says no one, inlcuding me has to take the garbage you are handing out. I don't recall saying or otherwise implying the same where you are concerned. Watch the tone of your commentary, be polite and respectful. I have done this with you and I expect the same. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

Yes I have heard of the golden rule, so I'll ignor your comments and hopefully you'll ignor mine.

Cute, very cute. Well, so much for respect.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Marc Garneau is trying to find a "dream team" to run his leadership bid. An interesting candidate, though not really the new generation many Liberals have said they wanted. Garneau has said via twitter he wants the party smack dab in the centre. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1242238--marc-garnea...

Michael Moriarity
Offline
Joined: Jul 27 2001

In my opinion, Garneau is the type of very smart but boring technocrat who could have been an effective Liberal leader when they were still the "natural governing party" of Canada (sort of a smarter and less corrupt Paul Martin). Now that they are a poor third, both in Parliament and in public opinion, he is completely the wrong type of person to bring them back to prominence. If they choose him, I think they will have no chance at all of major gains in the next election.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Michael Moriarity wrote:

In my opinion, Garneau is the type of very smart but boring technocrat who could have been an effective Liberal leader when they were still the "natural governing party" of Canada (sort of a smarter and less corrupt Paul Martin). Now that they are a poor third, both in Parliament and in public opinion, he is completely the wrong type of person to bring them back to prominence. If they choose him, I think they will have no chance at all of major gains in the next election.

Polling has shown he could improve their numbers but I agree with you. Maybe he could turn his dullness around during the leadership? If he could figure out how to make himself 10 years younger it would likely be a boost to his campaign.

adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

I can see Garneau-as-leader somehow not making it as far as the next election--a kind of Canadian Manzies Campbell, or something...


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012
I think Garneau has more integrity than the average Liberal. But even if they weren't the third party now, there lies the problem in being a party "of the center" as they define it. Where is the center on the defining issues of our time? What's the center between being for marriage equality versus being against it? What's the center between factoring in the real costs of tar sands, versus rolling along with Harper's plan to become a failed oil state? What's the center between reforming the electoral system, or not? What's the center between austerity, or not? In the end, the Liberal party will have to take positions already staked out by Conservatives and New Democrats. Maybe they can find their idea of the "center" by adopting a mix. But either the Harper policies are benefiting you, or they aren't. A mix isn't really effective, and I doubt it's especially popular.

PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
I think Garneau has more integrity than the average Liberal. But even if they weren't the third party now, there lies the problem in being a party "of the center" as they define it. Where is the center on the defining issues of our time? What's the center between being for marriage equality versus being against it? What's the center between factoring in the real costs of tar sands, versus rolling along with Harper's plan to become a failed oil state? What's the center between reforming the electoral system, or not? What's the center between austerity, or not? In the end, the Liberal party will have to take positions already staked out by Conservatives and New Democrats. Maybe they can find their idea of the "center" by adopting a mix. But either the Harper policies are benefiting you, or they aren't. A mix isn't really effective, and I doubt it's especially popular.
Andrew Coyne had an interesting piece a while ago about how the party should be more conservative then the Conservstives on some issues and more to the left on some issues then the NDP. I think there are also ways to find a balance between austerity or not, and as for reforming the electoral system they already adopted a plan at their convention (though that doesn't mean much). It was also mentioned in articles I read last month saying that Bob Rae had found the middle ground with regards to the oil sands. I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

PoliSciStudent wrote:
I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.

I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Stockholm wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
I think the idea of legalizing marijuana was a smart policy for them. No other party supports it, despite its popularity. I don't know of that's a left wing policy or a right wing policy though. The stupid thing Liberals do though is not always move forward with policies supported by the grassroots.

I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.

Well their current idea seems to be legalize, regulate and tax it.

janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Stockholm wrote:
I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.

I thought the Libs were the "party of doctors and dentists" Laughing


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

As far as Marijuana is concerned, I wouldn't be so quick to bet the farm on this if I were a Lip. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-mp-balks-at-pot-legalization-137404538.html. This is Kevin Lamoureux's position on this. I don't think Canadians should be so quck to assume that just because a party claims it is in favour of something means it will happen. Daycare, LPC Red Book 1993 for example, how did that turn out? I think it is really very imporatnt that NDP go after the Libs early and often and not allow it to try and frame itself as being in some kind of mushy middle.

Polisci student, I would like to know more about these articles claiming Rae has found the middle. From the Huff Post:

"

He applauds some oil companies for promising to restore the land back to its original state.

"I think if you look at the commitments that some of the companies are making to environmental reclamation, it's impressive, but everyone has to recognize that that reclamation process of getting that land back to a state close to where it was at the beginning, also requires strong regulation."

This is a tired old industry sop statement. As people like Bill McKibbon and Bob Kincade have pointed out, this is not possible. There is no pre-existing state to which these areas can be "returned". The link to this article is http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/10/bob-rae-oilsands-alberta_n_1663556.html. He wants more regulation, well so do I but again as McKibbon and Kincade have both observed, regulation does nothing to deal with the emissions created in this process. What are you referring to PoliSci Student.

Despite my instincts that you are hoping for a LPC resurgence, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. So, what are the articles to which you are referring and what do you think the NDP needs to do to prevent themselves being co-opted by the LPC?

I think the real key here is for the NDP to start framing all this Middle of the road stuff now, and identifying what it really is, just the LPC trying once again to repackage itself in the hope it can fool people again. As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the people some of the time. I guess the Libs still think we are in the "some of the time" stage still.

And, seeing that we are framing this in the context of convention resolutions"

"http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/06/21/NDP-Convention-Denounces-Drug-War.

It is clear that the NDP is ahead on this issue by a mile, this being 2011. Just because the leader has a different view, doesn't mean it is any more likely the party will adapt the convetion resolution postion as its own come the election as it is the LPC will listen to Kevin Lamoureux and continue to research the hell out of it.

Again, I say if anything PoliSciStudent, your post shows just how much work the NDP needs to start doing now if they are to avoid being boxed in by the Libs, Suffice it to say, knowing the MSM here in this country, the NDP has got a severe up hill battle ahead of them.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

The funny thing about the Liberal party is they can always beat the "strawman" version of the NDP.

The "strawman" of the NDP hates all trade, hates all oilsands development, and wants to just throw endless money into health care.

But the actual NDP wants *fair* trade, *sustainable* oilsands development that has to factor the real price of carbon into their decisions, and promote "home care" for seniors to simultaneously improve healthcare and find savings.

After years of the Liberal party beating up on the "strawman" version of the NDP, the ACTUAL NDP beat the actual Liberal party last election.

As an aside, I suppose there IS a middle ground between Conservative austerity and anti-austerity. If the Conservatives want to raise the retirement age to 67, the Liberals will promise to raise the retirement age to 66. Or maybe they'll promise to repeal it, and then go ahead and keep with the Conservative policies. That's the kind of centricism that Jean Chretien used on the GST.

The "center" has always been empty branding for the Liberal party. It's a strategy based on making the other parties sound more extreme than they are, and then adopting their policies anyway. Or it's based on campaigning one way and then governing the other.

That's why more and more people roll their eyes when they hear the Liberals say they're "moderate" or "in the center" or what not. It never meant anything. And now the middle class is shrinking, thanks to years of "moderate" policies that gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and slashed the social safety net more than any Conservative government ever did.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The funny thing about the Liberal party is they can always beat the "strawman" version of the NDP.

The "strawman" of the NDP hates all trade, hates all oilsands development, and wants to just throw endless money into health care.

But the actual NDP wants *fair* trade, *sustainable* oilsands development that has to factor the real price of carbon into their decisions, and promote "home care" for seniors to simultaneously improve healthcare and find savings.

After years of the Liberal party beating up on the "strawman" version of the NDP, the ACTUAL NDP beat the actual Liberal party last election.

As an aside, I suppose there IS a middle ground between Conservative austerity and anti-austerity. If the Conservatives want to raise the retirement age to 67, the Liberals will promise to raise the retirement age to 66. Or maybe they'll promise to repeal it, and then go ahead and keep with the Conservative policies. That's the kind of centricism that Jean Chretien used on the GST.

The "center" has always been empty branding for the Liberal party. It's a strategy based on making the other parties sound more extreme than they are, and then adopting their policies anyway. Or it's based on campaigning one way and then governing the other.

That's why more and more people roll their eyes when they hear the Liberals say they're "moderate" or "in the center" or what not. It never meant anything. And now the middle class is shrinking, thanks to years of "moderate" policies that gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and slashed the social safety net more than any Conservative government ever did.



SD, you nailed it! And, the NDP needs to start reminding people of how the LPC acts now rather then waiting until later.


blairz
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2008

Adma, I admit my tone was snide, but hardly cheap. I don't think close hard fought losses from behind make someone a good candidate for leader. I do appreciate that she is a more capable polititian than I might have thought she was.

 


janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

PoliSciStudent wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

 

Last time I checked the NDP is a democratic organization and not so top down and driven by "the leader".


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

blairz wrote:

Adma, I admit my tone was snide, but hardly cheap. I don't think close hard fought losses from behind make someone a good candidate for leader. I do appreciate that she is a more capable polititian than I might have thought she was. 

Well, then, look at Jack Layton's '93 and '97 federal runs before *he* became leader.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

Jan, you hit it on the head. This is what it is going to be like fighting the Libs. Any idea about how to start framing issues now? I think the NDP should already be all over this.


Left Turn
Offline
Joined: Mar 28 2005

The Liberals would do well to position themselves as a party that would:

  1. maintain non-discretionary program funding
  2. severely cut discretionary program funding
  3. plow most of the savings into defecit and debt reduction
  4. undo the most controversial of the Harper government's spending cuts once the budget is balanced
  5. ubdo the most controversial legislative and regulatory changes of the Harper government that are easy to undo
  6. stop cutting corporate taxes

So on the one hand, no more capital projects with the possibility of massive cost overruns such as the F35s, no discretionary 'infrastructure' projects like the ones in Tony Clement's riding, no more international leaders meetings with $billon security budgets, no using search and rescue helicopters to transport government ministers, no more international junkets with luxury hotels and $16 orange juice, ect.

At the same time, the recognition that vital services such as Newfoundland's Search and Rescue services and the Kits Point Coast Guard station, among other targeted programs and services, should never have been cut, and should be reinstated.

There is a constituency of voters out there, concentrated most highly in the 905, that would go for this kind of a party. The constituency of voters who get riled up about government spending scandals because they've cut their discretionary income to the bone in order to be able to afford monthly mortgage payments and other 'monthly' expenses.

Thing is, I have no idea who the Liberals have who could orient the party in this direction.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments