Canada Kicks Ass
A Liberal Party Is A Liberal Party...


ridenrain @ Wed May 13, 2009 9:40 pm

An interesting post and a desperate cry from a Liberal blogger.
An interesting perspective but it denies the very real difference between the BC liberal party and the federal Liberal party. In the last federal election, the Libs lost seats and there's no indication the'll reverse that, reguardless of leader.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Liberal Party Is A Liberal Party...
I'm not talking about busted hospitality suites from the Vancouver Convention either...

Been hearing from a few Liberals friends that they don't think the BC Liberals are a "true liberal" party. The criticism ranges from actual differences to the results of personal slights, to full-on bitterness regarding past events.

To make a long story short, some tumultuous events on the political front - several years ago - led to the dissolution of the Conservative Social Credit Party. Many lost Socreds searched for a new home. Some (of the extremely angry Reform Party types) founded the BC Reform Party, and ended up in the BC Conservative Party (yes, there is one). The rest of the more progressively conservative opportunists scurried over to the Liberal juggernaut (bringing some of their further right friends with them). Many in the Liberal Party (BC) welcomed these visitors (and believe me, they are most likely visitors - if/when the LP-BC takes a nose-dive and a more conservative movement arises, these "PCs" will jump ship again). Many others did not. Some chose to bow out of politics rather than share a stage with the near right - and people they had been fighting with, tooth and nail, for years. Others chose to silently (or not-so-silently) support the NDP.

In our support for this Liberal Party (BC) we have often been questioned on our stand. Why BC Liberal? Well, for one, this party is still THE Liberal Party of BC. While the big umbrella may have opened up a little wider to take in a few more folks, it certainly didn't become "Reform-light" (or you would never have seen things like the "carbon tax"). Certainly some of the more fiscally conservative ideas have come to the forefront - but don't think those ideas don't exist in a Liberal Party. My own definition of Liberal (L) - more accurately "centrist" - is one who is fiscally responsible, while still being socially progressive and aware.

My own "outsiders view" of the BC Liberals (I've been watching BC politics from Sask. and AB.) has been one untainted by local events. Being more objective, one can see that there is room under the big tent. Sure, there are some federal Conservatives involved in the BC Liberal Party - mostly in Rural areas, but joining a group of Liberals (like last night's victory party) quickly shows one that there are life-long "red Liberals" in the party, and even some former NDPers. Did I mention politics is "strange" out here? Some of the Reformers were not with that (Reform) party for it's policies, but rather for a single issue (perhaps taxes), or were simply opportunists, or supporting friend/family member, etc. Now - out of political "need" - they find themselves within the Liberal Party. After 1993, many Federal PCs helped Liberals win seats. Many more who joined the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have also stepped over to the big Liberal Tent (Belinda Stronach, Keith Martin, Scott Brison, etc.). This is how political coalitions are made. This is how parties grow, and take on new ideas.

An objective view would characterize the BC Liberals as a broad "coalition", with room for more. Many will disagree with that view. I challenge them to join up and change the party from within - IF you really see a big difference. If you're a Liberal, then you're not an NDPer, you're not a Reformer, or a Green. You're a Liberal. A true "party person" will not turn away, but stand and fight for the principles they believe in...

We worked for, and voted for the BC Liberals this past election, and will continue to do so - bringing to the table centrist ideas worth discussing in a Liberal forum...


ridenrain @ Tue May 19, 2009 7:28 pm

Another Liberal questions what it is to be a Liberal and why Iggy leads them..

Yeats, Dion, Iggy &...Liberals?
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Observing fellow Liberals furiously contradict themselves on Iggy is dispiriting. When I read this, Spector's & Gardner's insightful comments made me think of another piece, I (Dion) am more Liberal than you and Dion's point: "Ignatieff didn't just support George W. Bush's adventures; on more than one occasion, "He was pushing Bush in the back."" Were I to be bothered to review Liberal blogs & commentary from the majority who neither supported Iggy for the 2006 leadership nor he & his supporters' subsequent machinations, I wonder whether I might find they consistently made many of the same points as the Cons are now? Poser la question, c'est y répondre, non?

Moral: this is what happens when Liberals renounce liberalism and have a "coup de chefferie tranquille", installing a leader whose core positions, in his field of supposed expertise, are contrary to established Liberal (& liberal) traditions.

Burried in that piece is a link to coverage of the leadership election wich has this little segment burried at the bottom:

As he rose to deliver his concluding argument, Dion heard himself speaking. His beautiful prepared ode to harmony wasn't what was coming out of his mouth.
The little scrapper was winging it again. Rae was a disastrous premier, he was saying. Why shouldn't he be able to say that? Rae supporters were booing him. Dion pressed on. Ignatieff didn't just support George W. Bush's adventures; on more than one occasion, "He was pushing Bush in the back." Dion started reading an old Ignatieff article from 2002, calling for an American-enforced military solution in Palestine. Now Ignatieff supporters were booing him. So Dion lectured the hecklers. "You're not being very Liberal." The debate concluded in something like chaos. ... 209_138209