Talk:Liberal Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Politicians (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
 
WikiProject Politics / Liberalism / Political parties (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Liberalism task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (marked as High-importance).
 

Ignatieff's pending resignation[edit]

Michael Ignatieff has not resigned as Liberal leader today. He'll resign when the party has chosen his successor & not before. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob Rae interim leader[edit]

update please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.166 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

With what? It currently reads "Bob Rae was chosen interim leader on May 25, 2011." 117Avenue (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The internal ideological factions within the Liberal Party should be included: i.e. classical liberalism and social liberalism[edit]

The Liberal Party has long had two internal liberal ideological factions:

--R-41 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are references for the factions of classical liberalism and "reform liberalism" - referring to social liberalism that advocates social welfare: M. O. Dickerson, Thomas Flanagan, Brenda O'Neill. An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Pp. 129.

I think we should be careful labelling LPC MPs as classical liberals, seeing as classical liberalism advocates a more radical sort of laissez-faire, more along US Libertarian lines.--Autospark (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all, listing factions in the infobox makes it seem like there are two clearly distinct camps, which is not the case. Furthermore, It seems like an exploration of factions within Canadian Liberalism would be a better fit in the Liberalism in Canada article. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Paul Martin as Minister of Finance of the Liberal government in the 1990s pursued the deepest spending cuts in Canadian history at the time, privatized a number of previously state-owned enterprises - including Air Canada, focused on cutting taxes, and the Liberal government expanded free trade by adopting NAFTA. It has been generally recognized that there has been a split in the Liberal Party between liberals who support significant social welfare on the principle of social justice - these are social liberals such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Sheila Copps; and another group that emphasizes limited government and fiscal responsibility such as John Turner and Paul Martin who can either be called classical liberal or neoliberal.--R-41 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty clear that the ideology and position fields were for the party presently. Because in the course of a party's history, one can move from the left to the right, and even back again. 117Avenue (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

R-41 definitely has a point, but I don't think it's appropriate to add competing factions in the ideology line of the infobox (it only serves to confuse unversed readers). The distinctions can definitely be made somewhere in the article. Liberalism is wide enough a concept to englobe both the neoliberals and the leftists, and that's the generalist term that should be used in the infobox, I think. By the way, it's incredibly misleading to put "Canadian" in the ideology section, even though it links to Liberalism in Canada, the way the link appears implies that the Liberals adhere to a 'Canadian' ideology. That's certainly how they see themselves, but that's a very partisan view. The whole thing could just be simplified to... Ideology : 'Liberalism in Canada|Liberalism'. My two cents — CharlieEchoTango — 04:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It is important that the ideology section link to liberalism itself as well as liberalism in Canada. The ideology of liberalism itself is important to the party, it is linked to an international liberal organization, the Liberal International, so having a link to Liberalism is useful and necessary. Plus having the infobox say "Liberalism: Canadian" declares that it supports liberalism as well as the unique qualities of the Canadian variant of liberalism and links to them. It is very straightforward, I posted a similar infobox section on the Conservative Party of Canada article and that has so far been accepted.--R-41 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think it's appropriate to put "Canadian" as is, people don't necessary follow links and print versions don't show what's behind the link, therefore it's kind of misleading. I get why Liberalism could be included. I tried "Liberalism
Liberalism in Canada", is that sensible? I'll do the same on CPC. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
It unnecessarily repeats the term "liberalism", "Liberalism: Canadian" says that it advocates liberalism, and particularly the Canadian variant of liberalism - and it takes up far less space in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I really don't think it's right, because no links appear in print versions, mirrors, etc; I also think the Liberalism link is redundant and the ideology of the LPC is well covered in Liberalism in Canada... I changed it to Liberalism (Liberalism in Canada|Canadian), which I think is at least more clear with the parentheses. Any third opinions? — CharlieEchoTango — 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I know that the ideology of the party is liberal in the international sense, liberal as the Canadians know it, or even liberal at all? Do we have some neutral third party sources backing up these claims? 117Avenue (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It does involve liberalism in the international sense because the Liberal Party of Canada is part of the Liberal International an international liberal organization of liberal parties.--R-41 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Got a source? The infobox is the only mention of Liberal International on the article, and the linked article is poorly sourced. 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Liberalism: Canadian" or "Liberalism (Canadian)", would work, it says they are liberal in the international sense, and the Canadian sense, for both readers of printed text, and those who follow links. 117Avenue (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't see the point in mentioning both; Liberalism in Canada is what the LPC identifies to and de facto implies some level of adherence to international liberalism, and the nuances are best defined in... wait for it... Liberalism in Canada. It's misleading to say the LPC follows an international definition of liberalism, which they don't necessarily do (in many countries liberalism is conservatism). I know I'm repeating myself, but I really don't see the point in linking both Liberalism in Canada and Liberalism. — CharlieEchoTango — 06:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
We are talking about the ideology line in the infobox, and Ideology links to List of political ideologies. An international reader will expect a term from the list. As it is relatable, and identifiable, Liberalism in Canada goes into the specifics. 117Avenue (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The hyperlink for the ideology of the liberal party is to classical european liberalism, which is essentially the direct opposite of the parties idea. Should be edited to social liberalism and social democracy instead. march 15 2012

Party systems and realignment model[edit]

Is this section really needed in this article? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The section probably belongs in a general article on Canadian politics somewhere, but I fail to see how it's directly relevant to the LPC. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
many recent commentators have used the realignment model for it explains the dramatic changes in national politics that relegated the Liberals to third place. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand that. The section also discusses other parties, it seems like it would be better suited in Politics of Canada. The mention of how Canadian politics might be realigning could be mentioned but a multi-paragraph section that is poorly written doesn't seem right in the article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It would, in my opinion, be very hard to understand the LPC without knowing about the other major parties. They are all part of a complex interacting system, as the political scientists say. For example, the parties always run against each other--they define themselves in terms of what they reject in the opponents. People uninterested in the larger picture can skip right over this short section. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well someone needs to re-write and source the section then because it's not wrote very well and most points are not cited. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Liberals[edit]

This article [1] states, when referring to the Ontario and federal Liberal parties, that “the two Liberal parties are organizationally distinct and membership in one does not carry with it membership in the other.” Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to know when this happened, so that the years could be added to Template:Liberal Party of Canada, like the other provinces. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if i can find anything, as well the Manitoba Liberals also aren't associated with the federal party, according to think I used in the article. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal party is on the centre of the Canadian political spectrum not centre-centre-left!

Throughout its history its policies have fluctuated between centre-right and centre-left: Current party policy incorporates centre-right ideology; support for the monarchy, Senate, personal income tax cuts and centre-left policies such as; Kyoto protocol, medicare, millenium scholarship program et cetera.

To cal the Liberals centre-centre-left is either intentional bias or a misinterpretation of historical facts and current party policy. They Liberal party is a centrist party. Centrist parties generally by their very nature incorporate both centre-right and centre-left tendencies.

Regards,204.191.89.72 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada article[edit]

The Liberal party is on the centre of the Canadian political spectrum not centre-centre-left!

Throughout its history its policies have fluctuated between centre-right and centre-left: Current party policy incorporates centre-right ideology; support for the monarchy, Senate, personal income tax cuts and centre-left policies such as; Kyoto protocol, medicare, millenium scholarship program et cetera.

To cal the Liberals centre-centre-left is either intentional bias or a misinterpretation of historical facts and current party policy. The Liberal party is a centrist party. Centrist parties generally by their very nature incorporate both centre-right and centre-left tendencies.

Regards204.191.89.72 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a hard one because they have been described as both left of centre and centralist over the years. I will have to agree with the IP on this one when it comes to real position as the Liberals are the centrist party in Canada. BUT.. th current wording in the lead is just fine and reflects the historical trends of the partyMoxy (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Lance W. Roberts (15 August 2005). Recent social trends in Canada, 1960-2000. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. pp. 428–. ISBN 978-0-7735-2955-7. 
Stephen Clarkson (2005). The Big Red Machine: How the Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics. UBC Press. pp. 284–. ISBN 978-0-7748-5165-7. 
The Liberals have been more centre-left recently and many leadership candidates ran on them becoming centre-left in 2006. Currently the ideology is cited, if you disagree find some sources that state they aren't centre-left and post them here. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment - but the current ref in the lead refers to them as "Liberal party is a ‘coalition of the centre’". In fact states they need to be the centre party to attract voters from both sides. As I said its a hard one, but the current ref does not support the current wording.Moxy (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are similar arguments across articles about political parties and the issue is essentially not about what the ideology of the party is, but where that ideology belongs in the political spectrum. "Center-left" is a poorly defined concept. My approach would be to remove the description as unhelpful and unclear. TFD (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I second that, which means there's 4 against the "centre-left" ref, 1 for, and 1 undefined, which leads to the removal of that ref. As a side note, the sources clearly state about a "coalition of the centre", which means, all the centre, not just centre-left, which is also the historical place of the party. The discussion started a year ago, which is quite enough to express different views. In absence of any other meaningful elements, I will remove that reference.--lxndr (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I don't really care but you should have commented here before going and making the change. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regional Liberal parties[edit]

Seeing the vast majority of the information is not sourced, and some just seems like speculation, can we delete most of it? I've tried to find some of the information that is here but have not been able to. While it won't be very long I think all this section needs is the first few sentences which tell what provincial parties are associated with the federal party and then the list of leaders. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I do not think it is necessary to show the leaders. What about listing all the parties indicating whether they are affiliated or when they left? TFD (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't find the dates for all the parties. I thought of creating a chart for the affiliated parties, similar to the one on the NDPs page. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Senators[edit]

An editor has set the number of senators to nil. That follows the leader's statement that "As of this morning, only elected Members of the House of Commons will serve as members of the Liberal Caucus."[2] But while they will not caucus with MPs, they will caucus with other Liberal senators. That is the same system as the U.S. where Democratic and Republican representatives caucus separately from their counterparts in the senate. So I see no reason to say there are no Liberal senators, unless the Liberal senators abandon their party status and sit as independents, which so far they have indicated they will not do. TFD (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Political_parties_and_politicians_in_Canada. TDL (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is about the Liberal Part of Canada; these senators are no longer a part of it. They can caucus, but they can't caucus under the LPC, which by having a seat count on the LPC page suggests that. Similar to how supreme court justices may have similar views to a particular party, they do not count as part of that official party. This is like saying that the B.C. Liberals are the same as the federal Liberals; you just can't do it. Not only that, but whoever cited the National Post as their source did not include the correct title, but rather made up something else misleading to help support their point. The answer to the question "How many senators are there in the Liberal Caucus?" is zero, and the article clearly states that, as should the page on the LPC here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.129.214 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Leader vs president of the Liberal Party[edit]

What is the difference between the leader and the president of the Liberal Party of Canada? Thanks! --200.37.75.50 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

They are separate offices. The leader leads the party in parliament, while the president is an administrative office. TFD (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Party Systems[edit]

The whole "realignment model" section is dedicated to enunciating a theory about the party's decline, which seems rather outdated given that they just won a majority government. It seems to me that the parts of it dealing with post-2011 speculations about the LPC's future should be moved into the section dealing with the aftermath of the 2011 election, and the rest discarded.CaptainCanada (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the section says that there have been realignments and then says the 2011 election may herald a new party system. It seems wrong though to say the Conservatives have replaced the Liberals as the natural governing party, but equally it seems that the Liberals can no longer be seen that way. The Harper government was the longest period the Liberals have been out of office since the 19th century, and their current vote may be the lowest where they won a majority. TFD (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Policies[edit]

I have twice reverted an addition to the policies section [3] as I am not sure it is a policy per se. It seems a bit WP:POINTy as well. Perhaps others could weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liberal Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


Provincial governments[edit]

An unregistered editor is trying to add bars to indicate that this federal political party controls four provinicial governments. This will be confusing to readers as seven provinces have Liberal governments. What the graphic doesn't explain is that the Liberal parties in BC, Quebec and Ontario do not have organizational ties to the federal party. Without that explanation, which wouldn't fit in the graphic, it will confuse rather than inform. The article is about the federal party, so there is no need for stuff about provincial governments. Free to discuss, but let's leave it out unless there is a consensus here to add it. Ground Zero | t 22:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Federal parties in Canada are not fully integrated in provincial politics, with the exception of the NDP. The conservatives have no provincial affiliates; while the liberals don't have one in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and the NWT. Canada is not like the US where the GOP and democrats run from the white house to every state legislature. -- Kndimov (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed as well. There's definitely room for it in the article, with proper explanation, but should be kept out of the infobox and probably the lead as well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Political position: "Centre" or "Centre to Centre-Left"[edit]

In the interest of avoiding a further edit war, not sure why this wasn't done earlier, beginning a new section to help form a consensus as to the political position.

Prior to recent edits, this article listed the subject as Centre to Centre-Left, with corresponding sources:

Additionally, a cursory search of the subjects political position lists sources that describe it as being both a centrist party and as a centre-left party. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm no Liberal granted; however, I would argue that there is a substantial centre-right tradition with the modern Liberal Party of Canada that has been at the very least as influential as the centre-left tradition. In addition, I and many others, have found it very difficult to label many of Trudeau's policies (increasing the Conservative child tax benefit instead of just subsidising childcare spaces, the so-called middle class tax cut whose primary recipients do not fit most definitions of "middle class," or continued subsidies for the Tar Sands and ignoring the issue of tax avoidance) very "left-leaning".

This is also a party that introduced the largest cuts to the welfare state in Canadian history (even though they later increased healthcare funding) and later introduced the steepest corporate tax cuts in Canadian history (otherwise known as trickle-down economics). Might not "centrist but with centre-left and centre-right traditions or factions," be a wee bit more accurate? I think it's problematic to label the Liberals as a "left"-anything party. Remember, there are genuine progressives in the Liberal Party and particularly during minority parliaments, the Liberals have introduced progressive policies (old age pensions, Medicare, student loans, etc) but couldn't the same be said about the Progressive Conservative Party of yore (John Diefenbaker, Bill Davis, etc)? Were they "centre-left" too?

To reiterate, I believe that the Liberals would be better defined as either purely "centrist," or "centrist with internal centre-left and centre-right traditions, currents, factions, whatever".

Perhaps for the sake of simplicity "centre-right" to "centre-left" would be more accurate? It would capture the diversity of Liberal ideology throughout the late 20th and early 21st century.

Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Richard Oliver Collin; Pamela L. Martin (2012). An Introduction to World Politics: Conflict and Consensus on a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 138–. ISBN 978-1-4422-1803-1. .....best to read about the basics.--Moxy (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liberal Party of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)