Talk:Liberal Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. ^{[View this template]}
Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[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 Formeruser-83 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

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060201/cabinet_outs_060201/20060201?hub=TopStories

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)

[edit] Louis St. Laurent

NOTE: You forget to mention Mr Louis St-Laurent who was Prime Minister from November 15, 1948 to June 21 1957.

Please see your special page, about this Great Prime Minister, with your own Web Page as follow:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_St-Laurent

Thank you very much for the correction!

J.-Louis Girard 216-3111 ave des hôels Sainte-Foy (Québec) CANADA G1W 4W7

[edit] Trudeau Era

Someone take a look at the Trudeau era paragraphs. They're really slanted and biased-seeming. I don't know enough about Canadian history to write it myself, but someone with the info should clean it up.

I'm not really sure which part you object to. The only thing that seems out of place is perhaps the lack of criticism. But I think that belongs more in the Trudeau article than it does here. --JGGardiner 08:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've removed the paras the anon was referring to. The Tom 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau's section seems to contradict NPOV. It seems as though his presidency caused the rising debts. The oil crises of '73 and '75 that put most Western countries in debt has not been given due mention in that course. can someone work on that?Farazars 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre-left?

The article now describes the Party as "centre-left". It is probably hard to pin down the Liberals anyway because of their large coalition. They have four former conservative party leadership contenders in their caucus now (Martin, Stronach, Turner and Brison) and are likely to have two ex-NDP premiers in their next on (Dosanjh and Rae). I think much of the Left considers the Liberals right-wing and much of the Right sees them as Left. Chretien used to say this is how he knew he was on the right course or something like that. In the last election they even elected a member who was a Buddhist and above partisan politics. =) I prefer the old version which says something about being clustered around the centre. But I'll await consensus rather than revert the IP who's changed it. I'm sure that someone else will anyway. --JGGardiner 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too I really doubt about that especially since Chretien and Martin were in power and they have certainly not implemented left-leaned politics especially economically and socially. The source that the IP used is from the University of Alberta which is obviously in Conservative-friendly territory, so that gives an impression of bias. Second thing, too is that the IP (unless it is a shared IP) had vandalism warnings in the past.

The IP had also changed the position of the NPD as left (while it is centre-left, and probabily center if he is willing to work with Harper) while the Tories are now described as centre-right, which obviously is false concerning that it contains a wack load of ex-Reform Party/Alliance members that some have consider it as radical right-wing. Although, I don't think the Conservatives are on the far-right (just yet!).

In my view and from many experts the NDP is centre-left, the Liberals, center-right and the Tories, right--JForget 21:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't even make use of the term "centre-left". The closest is a line from Bob Rae that they should "unite the Left". I don't think that I need to go into the problems of the source. I am going to revert it and assume that is line with consensus. --JGGardiner 09:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To be more fair, I've added that some were/are more left-leaned and others more right-leaned. I hope that will end the dispute.--JForget 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[1]

This has been the latest reference put by Habs4Ever/74.56.185.191. who is continuing the flip-flopping. While it's not a blog, this article looks more like a Conservative partisan or Anti-Liberal website - so the source looks like POV. I will wait on the input of the others, but still I doubt about the Liberals seeing as centre-left.--JForget 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"S/he has used the economist source as "evidence" again. Obviously it is not. I could easily find many sources which describe the party as centrist, centre-right or even right-wing. One source doesn't constitute "evidence" in my opinion. But I would like to hear other thoughts as well. --JGGardiner 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So centre-left is still there with that biased source? I'm suggesting that the source should be removed and tagged it with citation needed or better source until a more reliable source is put. This is an editorial source thus not NPOV at all.--JForget 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the economist is hardly a reliable source regarding the orientation of the party.Obvious 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

An IP did the work, but I've removed the reference of the Economist which contradicts the info and since it was purely editorial. Unless there is a non-editorial source that proves it and satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, it shouldn't be mentionned centre-left on the text.--JForget 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As a resident of England, I have no idea where Canadians draw the line between left and right (though looking at the "Vision" page, they seem close to centre by British standards). I see someone had now edited to right-of-centre! Why not just say "close to the centre". I'll leave it to a Canadian to make the edit. Dbfirs (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can accept centre for the Liberals even though they are more correctly right of centre. They are between the left of centre NDP and the Conservatives. The Alliance were far right and they would like people to believe that they moved closer to the centre when they took over the PCs. Some of it is for political reasons so that the Conservatives can present themselves as more mainstream by not being too far away from the middle by moving everyone a bit more to the left. There is also the confusion based on the old adage that Liberals run like NDPers and rule like Conservatives (ie PCs). - Vaudree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never bought the idea of placing the Liberals in the centre-right; centre-right seems to me to suggest a party that is moderate but with a conservative bent, and that certainly isn't the Liberals. Centre-right would have described the PCs well. There are certainly centre-right (and centre-left) members of the Liberals, but overall seeing them as Liberal centrists is the best option, I think. (Though if someone could make a REALLY good argument for centre-left I'd be willing to consider changing what has been the consensus so far. And I mean ARGUMENT here on the talk page, not this ridiculous anonymous edits we've been getting). Enigma00 (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still support some sort of centre phrasing. I quite liked the "loosely clustered around the centre" kind of thing that we had before. I don't think that we'll ever get any better than that. I normally wouldn't weigh in again but I want to establish a consensus since we can expect a deluge soon, if there is an election. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lib90s.PNG

Image:Lib90s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lib80s.PNG

Image:Lib80s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lib70s.PNG

Image:Lib70s.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Liberal 60's.jpg

Image:Liberal 60's.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Liberal 88.jpg

Image:Liberal 88.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 17:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure and workings

Where can I find information about how the party is structured and in particular how leadership conventions work? Slac speak up! 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Each leadership convention is conducted a different way, you would have to look at the page for each convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadmen (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruling Party of Canada

Either quote the entire statement in full context or don’t include it in the article at all. This isn’t anything I’ve ever heard form anyone outside the liberal party or their admirers (which includes the CBC for that matter.) Removing until it gets corrected as obviously you guys don’t want to full quote included in the article. Macutty (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

sigh* How sad is it that a glib insulting term that Allan Fotheringham came up with to describe a political party would be imagined as one of their own? If you've never heard Fotheringham say it, you can't have followed politics very closely or for very long. And he is no partisan Liberal.

Although I must say that besides "the Foth" I've mostly heard it from conservative types. It can serve as an excuse that the Liberals have won most elections because of an institutional advantage. The alternative is that the conservative parties are either less popular, less palatable or less trusted by Canadians to form governments. And that's a hard pill to swallow if you support one of them. It is much easier to imagine that the Liberals built a coalition that lets them win by default. Preston Manning used to say it all the time. In fact he still does. Here's one of his articles published a few months ago in the Globe (from the Manning Centre): [2]. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on the Iraq War

Today, I provided Wikipedia readers with some information on the above topic. Less than five hours later the entire section was deleted without any explanation for the deletion. Nor were there any tags used to help me understand the nature of the disagreement. The protocol in Wikipedia is to use the discussion page to explain why edits are made. I graciously invite all editors to do so. Perhaps we can work something out that we can both agree on. This will prevent an endless and unproductive series of edits and counter edits. Thank you for listening and have a good day. Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, only half an hour later the entire section again deleted with no discussion, nor tags to help me understand the nature of the disagreement. This is not the protocol of Wikipedia. Please specify the complaint and then perhaps we can work out our disagreement. Thank you.Boyd Reimer (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, what you're adding isn't a neutral summary of the issue. It's a slanted POV screed about one particular war deserter, and for no immediately obvious reason you're using it to tar the official opposition instead of the party that is actually in government, and actually held the power to have done anything about it. Not that it would be appropriate content in Conservative Party of Canada either, mind you — but the writing tone of your addition, and your interestingly slanted choice of articles in which to insert it, betray an interesting WP:NPOV problem. And it's not that I even fundamentally disagree with you on the principle of your edits, either — but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy website, and as such we have different rules about this kind of thing than Rabble or The Tyee. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)