Talk:Liberal Party of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| A | This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
[edit] "Speculation" on next election
We cannot state that an election will be won or lost due to the sponsorship scandal, it slightly violates NPOV
Tawker 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe this has been remedied.
Dharh 18:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Correction of list of Liberal leaders
We cannot correctly list Jean Chrétien as leader until 2004, because events may overtake his planned exit date, whether that be him being pushed out by the party or dying.
If somebody feels it important to add that he plans to resign in 2004, they are welcome to it, but I don't think it's necessary to include in an article on this topic.- Cafemusique 23:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
There are parts of this article that really sound like they were written by an embittered Liberal opponent of Martin. While I understand that there remains a lot of rancour in the party, is an encyclopedia the place to air these grievances? Especially when readers end up getting the impression that Martin is some kind of tyrant who doesn't have the support of his party? I don't think that this is the case. I've taken a first run at NPOVing it, but I think some material will have to be removed, or text about Martin's successes added in order to give balance. Kevintoronto 19:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, there are many parts where the wording is such that it reads more like a Conservative Party pamphlet than a legitimate encyclopedia article. Including zingers like: "The Liberals have often been accused of, or credited with, simply advancing whatever policies would get them elected." --65.92.200.65 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree as well.. The focus is quite obviously on being slight of neutral. It is a document about the liberal party of Canada..the "who"and "what" can be omitted. Especially in regards to the purity of the document and this site...the history of the Progressive Conservatives (and any name changing they may have done) can be chronicled, as they should be, under their own category and or definition.
The following is a more accurate re-arrangement.
The Liberal Party has been in power in Canada for a greater number of elected terms, during the past century, than any other political party. It is one of only two parties that have alternately governed Canadas Federal Government, since Confederation. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has been the other elected party to govern the federal level of government.
Maybe even leave out the last sentence eh? It really has nothing to do with the Liberal Party.
The following line would be more suited to a history of the "Progressive Conservatives", regardless of the content itself and or the validity there of.
"Conversely, the Progressive Conservatives often chose leaders without Cabinet experience."
Agent F
[edit] Conservative Party is not Progressive Conservative Party
"It is one of only two parties that have alternately governed Canada since Confederation, the other being the various preceding incarnations of the Conservative Party of Canada." This is not entirely accurate. It's inaccurate to describe the Progressive Conservative Party as a historical incarnation of the modern Conservative Party of Canada. Though it did change its name several times, those were merely name changes. In 2004 the party dissolved itself and its members joined an entirely new party, the current Conservative Party, which has never governed Canada. "the other being the now-defunct Progressive Conservative Party of Canada" would be more appropriate.
As a bit of a compromise, I added a small bit that noted that the PC Party was one of the two ancestors of the CPC. --Volrath50 11:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Trudeau POV
However, Trudeau's campaign for this "just society" also resulted in huge debt spending, and thanks to Trudeau, as well as Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney, Canada's debt had reached a level greater than $525 billion, or over $17,500 per capita. Only under the reign of Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Finance Minister Paul Martin from 1993-2004, would the debt slowly begin to evaporate. But at the current rate of repayments, it will be over 30 years until we pay for Trudeau's legacy. This debt would eventually put a huge burden on the Canadian dollar, which would eventually slump from par with the U.S. Dollar to 63 cents, before rebounding in the wake of America's own huge defecits under George Bush.
An anon added this earlier, and while it is somewhat factually true, it is horribly POV. I removed it until which time it is rewritten. - Lucky13pjn 02:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good call. HistoryBA 04:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but two quasi-corrections. Most of the Trudeau-era debt problems were from a stagnant economy and even worse, extremely high interest rates. The government pays something near the going rate on its debts too. No policies could have been surplus-making back then. Also, the debt doesn't have to be paid down. Inflation will largely take care of it. Eg people who bought houses 25 years ago can probably pay off their mortgages with loose change today. 2% inflation plus even 2% of real econ. growth over 25 years would reduce the relative significance of the debt to a little over 1/3 of today even if we never spent a penny paying it down.
[edit] What do they stand for?
Here we have several pages on a political party, and there's no mention what the party stands for. Are they leftist (in the sense of the world "liberal" as used in the U.S.) or pro-business (as the "liberals" in European politics)? AxelBoldt 04:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As much as I hate to paraphrase what the article said, "Anything to get them elected", I would say the following:
The Liberals are a party that do not have core unwavering fundamental values, but instead have the belief that society is best served by making decisions as they are necessary based on the best interest of society, and the constructs of society (eg corporations, government, etc).
One can interpret this as being left, right, center, pro-business, etc. It all depends on the situation and what is best for society. Of course the argument can made that the liberals are not ideologues. I suppose with respect to European politics it can best be compared with Swiss politics. Sometimes they are left, sometimes right, and sometimes you just scratch your head and think, "No where did that come from".
--ChristianHGross 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then if they offer whatever platitudes and policies are in vogue at the time, then how about a run-down of which platitudes and policies each Administration undertook?
- MSTCrow 18:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely we can say more about the Liberal historic positions. For example they have been socially liberal since at least the time of Trudeau - bilingualism, repeal of sex laws etc. We can't say that their only defining characteristic has been pragmatism. DJ Clayworth 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd call them centrist or slightly left of centre. --Sonjaaa 07:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Policies"
I've tried to take some of the "pot shots" out of the historical section and tried to make a section on party policy. It's bare bones, but I'd love some help.Habsfannova 17:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Added a section on the party's policy. Comments/editing would be greatly appreciated. Ikh (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historical section
We really need to develop the historical part of the article, particularly origins of the party and other pre WWII stuff Andylehrer 05:23, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Picture of the Emperor
Who the hell put the picture of the Emperor from Star Wars that states Jean Chrétien in the underline? That's a clear shot of vandalism
Ogryx - Dec. 4 2005 6:33
Ha ha ha. Only a man with the wit of Voltaire could conceive of such an amazing way to vandalize an article. Either that, or a childish and over-zealously partisan buffoon. --DonQuixote87
[edit] Neutrality Warning
I think it would be more effective to have the neutrality warning placed at the start of the sections where neutrality is disputed. Benw 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Resignation immediate?
I thought Paul Martin was staying on as Liberal Leader until, the Party chooses a new leader. GoodDay 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what he effectively implied. He said that he "will not lead the party into the next election" and that he will start organizing a leadership convention soon. I never actually heard him say that he was resigning. So I'm pretty sure he's still the leader. Ikh (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Graham is just the interim parliamentary leader (and Leader of the Opposition); that merits a mention in the list, but it should be specified that he isn't a full interim leader.
[edit] Party Infighting
Is it really necessary to have such (relatively) detailed and long section about party infighting? It doesn't seem particularly NPOVish to go on about that - it definitely helps to create negative impression. Plus, most of it is no longer relevant, and I'm sure that after trimming some fat all of it can be merged into the History section (since that's what it is now). Anyone objects to doing that? Ikh (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. -Joshuapaquin 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, now since dion is the leader we should delete the party infighting sectionObvious 02:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Martin still leader
he's going to pull a trudeau IMO
Hi, please sign your comments using the four tildas. Also, unless you are proposing some change to the article here this type of comment is best suited to a blog. Cheers, --FNV 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chretien - Iraq 2003
The previous version quoted one poll showing a plurality in favour of supporting the invasion "if it took place" - the poll was from feb 2003. Problem is the text claimed Chretien's decision was mixed. If you search the polls, the vast majority of them in a variety of ways show Canadians were opposed to the Iraq invasion as it took place (without formal/explicit UN approval). I've quoted a poll released a month after the decision showing strong support for it - the war was still going quite well at that point too, so even then, with the invasion going smoothly Canadians did approve of Chretien's decision. Later polls show that margin of support grew even further. Quoted as well.
The last bit in that paragraph about the Liberal majority meaning they can do what they want wasn't encyclopedic anyway.--FNV 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Box listing Liberal leaders
Does anyone else feel that those who have served on an interim basis should be included? I think it's relevant as should Parliament be dissolved during their tenure, would they not by default be expected to lead the Liberals in an election? If the writ were to be dropped tomorrow, Bill Graham would be expected to lead the Liberals as Paul Martin has not only resigned as Liberal leader within the House but in all capacities. Vanillagorillas 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NEP?
I think there deserves to be a serious discussion on parts of Liberal policy that were less popular, especially the National Energy Program. 74.12.80.25 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
