The Liberals need to reform themselves. I think I know how.
Last month I attended an event hosted by the Conservative Party of Canada’s University of Calgary club that had Preston Manning come in and talk about democracy, coalition building, and his history with his involvement in the conservative movement. As per usual I was the lone Liberal there. There might be an ideological divide but there is something of substance that he talks about: parties are not parties unto themselves.
We have to ditch the assumption of the 20th century that a party is what gets someone into government. It isn’t. It’s far from it.
Harper was trained by conservative groups, national lobby organization ply their cause, internships for youth brought in new blood, professors at universities started groups like the Fraser Institute or created programs that develop mindsets prone to conservatism. This Conservative Party of Canada that is now in its first majority is a fresh creature that has been built by more than just party stalwarts. A whole portion of society has been dedicated to its rise.
Manning developed a key metaphor for this phenomena. All parties and movements are icebergs–with 90% of what went about being beneath the ocean and 10% being above. The 10% is the party, the leader, the ads, the riding associations, and candidates. Below the water level are numerous things: ideologies, church groups, cities, ethnicities, alma maters, and other pieces of society.
In this we can see a ready issue. We can see that the Conservatives have fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, constitutional conservatives, and so many other groups. The NDP shares the unions with the Liberals, and the NDP have several ideologies on the far left on their side.
What do the Liberals have? Civil servants are one group, but that’s more because of the Liberals being in government for so long and gathering competence that can be relied on–and this support wanes with time as a party doesn’t make it into government. Aside from this one group, however.. what do the Liberals have?
I fear the Liberals have become icecubes–a party for a party’s sake, and an accumulation of people interested in being in a party and implementing a party’s vision… rather than implementing a vision brought about by a piece of society. I feel that the Liberals have become disconnected from those who elect them and the constituency groups. A party without a base of support, that is.
People can argue that Liberals are centrists and must appeal to those who don’t really fit into a ‘camp.’ This is bollocks because it misses the point entirely of what a party is. Fundamentally, the concept of the center is a tool to juxtapose left and right options along a continuum that would be perceived by the electorate. It’s relative, not fixed, and requires ideas to be put up in the first place. To put it bluntly: being centrist doesn’t get you support but rather being centrist allows you to pull in voters during a period where there’s a competition between ideas in an open, free framework. Therefor arguing the Liberals are a centrist party doesn’t even conceive of the backbone and base that is required for a functioning party. Every party in the last election ran straight for moderate, centrist voters. Layton (successfully) turned to the center, Harper did (successfully), and so did the Bloc (who failed). It’s the backbones and those bases who built up those parties and made things happen, encouraged those centrist voters s to vote for them, and won.
The Bloc had their separatist and anti-federalist base erode over the last decade. This finished them, seeing that it was with this party that they relied on for their 90%, beneath the sea, backbone.
Being solely ‘centrist’ will not get the Liberals anywhere.
What the Liberals have the do in the next two years is find that coalition, find that group of supporters, and find those factions that have been unclaimed by other groups. Or, grow those groups. Or steal them back, in the case of the federalists in Quebec. The Liberals need to grow from their ice cube and push for a creation of a base of support that rivals the Conservatives and then would ultimately defeat it. This will take years, however. The Progressive Conservatives never did it and were about to dissolve forever until Reform/Alliance, a party that had grown up from several groups banding together, brought together several disparate groups over twenty years. This twenty year process ultimately culminated in 2011 with the election of Stephen Harper as majority Prime Minister in Ottawa.
We Liberals need to take a hard look at ourselves and find where we can build our strength and grow our base. This requires a coalition mindset, a willingness to build with other communities of interests, and to join together factions that others haven’t even thought of before. It requires vision and leadership. The challenge for the next six months (until our convention) is whether or not we will find it.
30 Responses to “The Liberals need to reform themselves. I think I know how.”
Leave a Reply
Nominated - Best Political Weblog
Nominated - Best Media & Journalism Weblog
Nominated - Best Political Blog
Nominated - Best Political Weblog
I would disagree the Liberals share unions with the NDP. At least not here in BC. It’s NDP here.
The Liberals in Alberta are fairly well connected with the building trade unions, though. And in Ontario there is quite a good relationship. I believe Quebec has some good relations as well.
The BC landscape, of course, is quite different from the rest of the country.
I’m conservative but I’ll say that is the best analysis of what’s wrong with the Liberals I’ve read so far. My dad and his dad were Liberal voters up until the 60s. The Liberals lost them with Trudeau. As I grew up I watched the Liberals toss large chunks of their base in the West and then in Quebec. They have nothing left.
One error: the Fraser Institute is not started, run, or principally funded by academics.
Really interesting analysis. I think I can see exactly your point in the drifting nature of the Liberal Party in the past several elections, in particular. Nobody seems to have any idea what the Liberal Party represents other than itself. That’s quite different than the Reform-Conservative Party and the NDP — like them or hate them, each has definite core constituencies.
I think Manning may be over-selling the relationship between the Tories and the conservative base, though. An intelligent fiscal conservative has to be looking askance at a government with record deficits. Social conservatives have to be feeling a little betrayed by the steady erosion of their policy demands in the Conservative platform. Constitutional conservatives… well, “rule of law” and “Harper Government” are not exactly synonymous.
The one commitment that the government has consistently been true to is corporate influence — the same source that fuels the think tanks you refer to.
You miss the boat on being centrist entirely. Many people like myself are Liberal because we like and dislike policies from both sides of the spectrum. Many of non-card carrying public like a center party because they appreciate good government and are non partisan. Unfortunately I think this electoral disaster will be used by many as an excuse to argue for a more left leaning ideology (IE merger talks) is the only way for the Liberal party to gain any traction with the electorate again. That IMO is pure bullocks.
This party doesn’t cater to groups, we don’t need to cater to groups, We win by outlining a clear vision for Canada, something that we have not been able to do. We need a 21st Century vision for Canada and no one has given it a chance.
Well, I think I agree with most of your analysis, with perhaps one question.
Do parties seek a base, or does a base create a party in its image? I suppose both. The progressive conservatives vanished because they were no longer required. What had been their base created a new party because no party reflected their aspirations. I understand an existing, strong party looking to add to its base, but it seems odd to create one from thin air. If the liberal party has no base, why should it exist at all?
This kind of reflection is good for the party and its rebuilding process.
I believe the Liberals can effectively portray themselves as the party that is socially progressive and fiscally responsible. Policies should focus on 21st century issues and solutions.
Liberals should not despair too much – the NDP surge could very well be a one-election phenomenon. For this reason any talks of merger with the NDP should be deferred.
@Chris/Jack: they feed into each other. You need a base to start a portion of a party and then that party apparatus organizes parts of the base. It’s supposed to grow on top of each other. That’s at least what I see happening.
This feeds into Jack Cox’s thought on the matter, too. Jack, I agree that we shouldn’t cater. We should represent those groups and we should present a Canadian vision. But it has to be connected to those groups within Canada. Note the differentiation I have made here: rather than pure political haberdashery and ‘buying votes’ the focus is on touching groups to give them the best representation possible with the best vision possible.
@Dean: I agree merger is pure bollocks. For one thing, the NDP don’t want us. Secondly, if we did merge we’d be in the wilderness longer and with what fragments of what we did have most likely jumping to the Conservatives. That’d be bad.
Also, Dean, it’s very hard for the general public to see the Liberals as non-partisan. It is equally hard for people to feel passion for a party that happens to find the time to (a) dislike both NDP and Conservatives and then (b) think of the Liberals to vote for. These issues combined makes it a very, very hard campaign to fund raise for, fight in, and then win.
The general public isn’t like us. We’re on political blogs and watching CBC politics at least once or twice a week. Our understandings are different from theirs, and the quicker we understand that and humanize our approach I think the better we will prepare for the next election.
@Sixth: Academics do run and fundraise for the Fraser Institute. It was also founded by academics.
@the_rat: Liberals still have me. And a party. And a lot of irate feminists (one ran in a neighboring riding). Liberals also have the best candidates across the country. The Liberals still have a lot going for it, just not everything it needs.
Good points. We do need to “re-locate” the “base”. Women/feminists, the intelligentsia/professionals, and immigrants. That’s where we need to go. That is also where we came from. Also, these “groups” also blend with “urban” issues, and realistically Canada is 80% urban (I include large towns and small cities). Our rebuild has to get down to REAL issues with these groups, and represent them well – in a fiscally responsible framework.
It can be done. And I WILL be here for it. So will all my Liberal friends across Canada – who have already stated it. Don’t pay mind to the “anon” comments on some blogs pretending to be Liberals (in a feeble hope that we will join their party).
We are a party of moderates who value fiscal responsibility along with a strong social conscience. We are a UNIQUE animal on the Canadian landscape, and so we WILL survive, and indeed thrive.
Let’s get to work, and put our ideas on the table. Let’s truly reach out to the people…
Dean, it’s you who missed the point. The author states that there is no center to be hung up on.
The author argues, correctly IMO, that “not them, not American, not religious, not socialist, not seperatist…etcetera ad naseum” isn’t a foundation for a party. Those things may be a reason to not vote for a party but they aren’t reasons to vote for a party.
Are there policy areas that the NDP or CPC haven’t taken from the Liberals? I would argue quite a few.
A previous commentator mentioned fiscal conservatives (of which I’m one and no I am not enamored of the debt and deficit), but facing the CPC plans compared to the Liberal’s National Daycare + Free University + Home care + Drug Plan guess where my vote went?
Don’t think of an arbitrary line, lines have no context although they do have centers.
Want some more ‘centrist’ policies?
What about abortion? I’m agnostic on the issue but I’d argue that, outside of the health of the mother, last trimester or partial birth abortions be looked at without the hysteria from both camps.
I think everyone understands that the behemoth called Health Care needs some attention and the answer, Romanow aside, isn’t throwing more money at it. Nor is pushing into Provincial responsibilities. They are the experts, give them the room to move within the current budgets.
Individual liberties versus group rights. It is sad that the “Liberals” who stood so strong on individual liberties stand stronger on HRT’s. See what Saskatchewan is doing. Steal it shamelessly.
There are a tonne of things out there that make a party that no one is addressing.
@LibVin,
My point was not that the public sees us as non-partisan but the bulk of the public is non-partisan.
You misread my comment about liking and disliking both the Conservatives and NDP, the feelings are not for the parties but the policies. The Liberals embrace market forces in the same manner as the right wing, yet believe that there is a place for government ownership (IE Medicare, CPP etc) in the same manner as the Left. Being in the center also means that there are limits to how vigorously you will apply funding for a social program or cuts when they happen to be required. The real key to being in the center is understanding balance.
I do agree that with you that the average Joe is not as politically in tune as we are but you discount them too much. The public does fear the extreme left or right and this is repeatedly shown by election results.
Lance, to say that there is no center to hang on is ridiculous, over half the population carries no deep ideology, that would be centrist. We are not where we are because we stand for the wrong things, we are where we are because we were outmanoeuvred in one campaign. I am not saying that some of our legacy issues have not got us here, but this campaign was a difference between 20 & 30% popular vote. It is also our legacy that will bring us back, we are proven.
There is a lot of arrogance and yet some truth that the Liberals are the natural governing party. We have to go sit in the penalty box for at least 8 more years to rebuild but that is the nature of rebuilding after such a performance. There are many examples of parties that have been reduced below our level that have bounced back.
This is a fantastic article! Even if it’s not right, (but it could be), it has made me think differently about parties.
I think Dean, you need to let you brain think about this how Calgary Liberal explains it, even if it doesn’t make sense at first, just to see where your mind takes you.
Here’s where mine went:
The NDP are associated with unions, and the Conservatives are associated with corporations, churches, colonies (sometimes), and Israeli institutions. The Liberals are associated with the civil service, corporations, and First Nations (sometimes). The Greens are associated with no large institutions, just scatterings of environmentalists, some co-operatives, and the Sierra Club. The Bloc, I don’t know?
And if you look at the organizations that are likely to train minds into voting in a particular way, you see that is why the Liberals’ support has fallen away, as has the Bloc’s, and the Greens can’t get much traction either. Unions have had a possible upswing with the WI labour uprising, and the NDP got a bit of a bump from it this time. If unions are allowed to exist in 5 years, maybe the NDP will do as well again, but possibly not. The Liberals will continue to lose support in the civil service as their base there retires as baby boomers, and the new generation is either Green, NDP, or Conservative as they are seen as the up and coming potential power brokers to please.
Maybe the reason I have a soft spot for the Greens and the Liberals to some extent isn’t my Liberal parents, but rather they are each parties with vision (and lacking an obvious base of support). Both the NDP and the Conservatives, who are beholden to unions and corporations respectively, set me on edge as I feel they won’t stay true to their ideals and vision to satisfy their bases. The unfortunate thing is that without a base, a political party becomes as impotent as the 1993 PCs, the 2011 Greens and Bloc, and 2004-2011 Liberals.
You can’t waltz into a town in Northern Ontario, or rural Saskatchewan and set up a Liberal or Green office, announce you’re going to enact every desirable centrist policy for the area, and just expect voters to choose the candidate in the party with the best centrist platform or record. You have to build a base of support indirectly first (or at the same time) by creating green collar jobs, or starting a co-operative, or running a community centre or worship centre. From those bases, minds are silently changed to the outlook of the organizers’, and then the political party can “change minds”. The actual mind changing took place before the politician even knocks on the door.
Centrist, rational policies aren’t winning votes, because voters don’t think the way partisan bloggers do. Their minds are made up by their personal experiences with government interaction which is limited to paying taxes, driving on roads and taking kids to schools and daycare, trying to avoid hospitals and jails, and watching propaganda on TV. A party has to be willing to accept terrible compromises to its vision, accept the founded criticism, and roll on to a majority so it can get its real vision passed into law. It worked for the Conservatives, and it can work for the Liberals, Greens, or whoever beats them to it! Build value into a community, and the community will value the builders.
I did give it a chance and I just plainly disagree,
My fundemental disagreement is not only springing out of this blog, but the general flavour of the last two days. The fact of the matter is CAMPAIGNS MATTER and the last 2 times out were not successes for the party. It is 90% irrelevant to ideology or what anybodies given base is when your campaign goes bad (DION) or someone else hits the home run (Layton). Additionally it is not about the party machinery, there was no NDP machinery in Quebec.
A lot of my political perception comes from growing up in Roy Romano NDP Sask. after the Devine Era. Left or Right most people recognise that the NDP were sound administrators of the province, hence they were successful for a long time in the exact manner that Chretien was federally. Both governments were also strongly centrist. At that time federally the province was 1/3 NDP, 1/3 Liberal and 1/3 reform. Eventually though governments get tired and defeat themselves as was the case for both of them.
Liberal fortunes are riding on what the other parties choose to do. If Harper wants to come in and govern like Chretien or similarly Layton, in an attempt to rub us out, I still consider that a win in both cases because that is the government I want to see, but we all know that will not happen. I have read a lot of commentary that if we choose this leader or we adopt this ideology or we merge with this party…. Its all garbage, we are not coming back in 4 years, we have to sit in the penalty box and wait for those other parties to defeat themselves and slowly creep our seat count back up and into contender range. This is best accomplished being the big red tent in the center, we need to find a way to get back to that 1/3 range of the seats in the west and all regions. Our failures have been borne by straying to far from the Center.
I am not saying that there are not faults in the organisation or other things we have done, clearly there is no magic pill to swallow that puts us back on top in 4 years.
Can the Liberals beat a Conservative party that gets additional funding in the form of propaganda from the NCC, CTF, CFIB, Fraser Institute, and the swath of right wing organizations that serve no other purpose than to advocate whenever the CPC needs to keep its hands off of advertising?
As much as Ignatieff kept pointing to the previous successes of the Liberal brand, Liberals have to realize that their brand has been heavily tarnished across the country. The Liberal brand has been abandoned in Quebec due to the callous assumption made by Liberals and their cronies that federalist loyalties could be bought. This assumption was rendered completely falsified once the sponsorship scandal hit and the party was abandoned in Quebec by all but the most fervent zealots. Similarly, the only real outpost of west of the Red River is in British Columbia, and rightfully so, the federal intrusion into provincial responsibilities spearheaded by the Liberal party reached its limit once the Liberals felt they had the right to nationalize the products of Alberta’a oil industry. The Albertan people, and the west in general have punished the Liberals for their arrogance by locking them out of the province, save for a few remote and distant outposts around the University of Alberta in Edmonton, for obvious reasons. Although the Liberals may feel that they have some room for renewal, it appears at this point that the centrist vision lauded upon by Liberal supports may have reached its final conclusion. At present, the Liberals have no real natural base of support they can point to. Yes, they have support in the Atlantic provinces, however this popularity is unlikely to translate into electoral gains as the Atlantic provinces simply lack the seats necessary to make a real impact in Canadian politics, similarly, their Quebec base, as previously discussed is gone, and their base in Ontario is beginning to cleave between the New Democrats and the Conservatives. Although the Liberals have attempted to pick and choose between the various policies of the left and right, this vision can no longer be clung to. The electorate appears to be fractioning, why vote for a party that claims to have the fiscal balance of the conservatives and the social policies of the NDP? These two values are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot have low taxes and a strong economy while also maintaining a well-funded welfare state. This is unsustainable spending at its best. As iterated during the Liberal vision of the 90′s, such economic planning inevitably leads to a deficit, and although the Liberals like to claim that they eventually tamed it, this appears to be a case of an arsonist wanting to be declared a hero after putting out a fire they started. It is clear that Liberal values are not Quebec values, nor are they Ontario values, nor are they western values (especially in Alberta, the sin of the NEP will not soon be forgotten, Alberta will never again be forced to surrender its provincial prosperity for the sake of Ontario’s productivity), and in the regionalized landscape that is Canadian Politics, a party must posses a dependable regional base which they can expand upon. Lacking such a base a party will be relegated to third-party status. Really at the end of the day the only Liberal constituencies that remain are University students and highly-paid Liberal bureaucrats, neither of which represent a viable future for a party that has tried to reinvent itself three times in five years. In short the Liberal vision for Canada is finished for the time being, and perhaps rightfully so. The sheer arrogance and sense of entitlement displayed by the party during the recent campaign has alienated the party from voters, and in the end the Liberals have been their own worst enemy. The Liberals did not lose because of attack ads or because of weak leadership, the lost because at present their current vision for Canada has expired and is fundamentally wrong for the current political climate. Ignatieff was a dud and anyone who fails to see how inept and woefully unprepared for the position of PM that man was is nothing short of delusional. The Liberals have played the politics of division for too long, and finally, mercifully, the Canadian electorate has told the party to take a hike.
The libs need to go back to pull marketing vs push marketing.
I think this article and some comments hit the screw right on the head. The base has been eroded and telling people why they shouldn’t vote for someone else might stop them from voting for A, but in a multi-party system it doesn’t mean they will vote for B…it might mean C, D or E, all of which are slanted to a similar side of the spectrum.
Liberals need to foster a new base. In Quebec there will shortly be some NDP ridings that will suddenly realize the don’t speak the same language as their MP. In Ontario there will be ridings that will in no way want either the conservative or NDP option being put forward but will have to begrudgingly be silent. We can’t let the next 2 years slide by into the foggy memories of Canadians. This will have to be a 4 year exercise in renewal and listening to people. The Liberal Party got away from listening to people and was more into preaching.
“This party doesn’t cater to groups, we don’t need to cater to groups, We win by outlining a clear vision for Canada, something that we have not been able to do. We need a 21st Century vision for Canada and no one has given it a chance.”
^Absolutely. Please see my open letter to the LPC: http://rdnaidoo.com/2011/05/04/an-open-letter-to-the-liberal-party-of-canada-2/
I appreciate the sentiment of the post, but disagree with the conclusion. The LPC is at its best when it captures the attention of “groups” like women, parents, minorities, middle-class families, youth, seniors, rural Canadians, urban Canadians, First Nations and small business owners with smart and focused initiatives. Think the Millennium Scholarships, Team Canada trade missions and the infrastructure renewal program of 94-96.
The LPC is at its worst when it panders to unions, corporations, and the media. Think everything Paul Martin did. Moreover, the LPC establishment has spent the last 10 years looking for a Messiah figure to lead it to the promised land of lollipops on a golden chariot driven by unicorns.
If the LPC lets itself be captured by special interests like the NDP, or ideologically driven groupthinkers who see the world in “us vs. them” terms, like the CPC, then its fate will be sealed, and it will be richly deserved.
@Dean: Firstly, no one fears Jack Layton and no one fears Harper. Nobody fears their ideologies, their people, or their programs. Aside from Liberal partisans and a few other groups, of course. We can’t rely on fear anymore to buoy the Liberal Party. Just as Lance effectively states before—we need to stand up on our own policies and our own vision rather than simply being a reaction, or a “balancing”, of two extremes.
Secondly, Dean, the center exists but not in a way that it can be effectively used to build a party. You’re confusing party building and voters, well, voting. We can’t build a party based solely on center voters who are non-ideological. We need passionate, engaged people who are involved in organizing, engagement, and, of course, being tied to things, to build up the party. We can still appeal to the silent majority during election time, and I think we still should, but these centrists who don’t volunteer for political groups, don’t volunteer for parties, and don’t read political blogs don’t build parties. And we need the folks that do.
@Steve: The Liberals have never abandoned Quebec. Strong fiscal discipline and strong social services are not contradictory. And I think Ignatieff was the best Prime Minister we could have.
@Blake: All parties “preach.” I think it’s key that we listen more, but we’ll still need to preach.
@Loky: Women are not one group. Parents are not one group. Corporations are not one group. These generalizations of bigger groups will not get us anywhere when looking for people to help us rebuild the Liberals. We can appeal to them for support during an election but, in all seriousness, the over generalized ‘super groups’ will not get us anywhere.
And pandering will get us nowhere. I couldn’t agree more here. We need to included people and groups—and this is the exact opposite of pandering. What I’m advocating here isn’t a one-off buying off of a group of people—it’s bringing them into leadership positions in the party, backbones of fundraising, volunteers, and candidates.
I agree we need to turf the messiah-complex.
LibVin, “Firstly, no one fears Jack Layton and no one fears Harper. Nobody fears their ideologies, their people, or their programs.” Clearly millions of dollars spent on negative advertising by all parties was just flushed down the toilet and we will never see negative advertising again.
Clearly my point was not understood. There are only 3 options on the table, you go right, you go left or you stay center, its a simple as that. Clearly this is the most subjective decision in politics and as such no choice can be wrong. Many will, and are using this defeat to push for their choice in this arena, but I think most will be advocating a push left honestly. Why would anyone vote for a loser when they can vote for a winner in the NDP??? because they have all the momentum right now. My analysis is not that we hold the wrong ground, only that the wind shifted, we were out campaigned, the public is tired of us, we made some strategic and tactical errors in the campaign, whatever localised in time label you want to put on it applies.
I hear your argument about building the machine, but nobody votes based on who has the best machine, votes are cast based on the local candidates, the party leaders, the party platforms and the current polling trends. Besides we have a machine, it may not be perfect but it does exist, we are not the Green Party.
Abandon the center and someone else will move in to fill the void.
[...] Back Off Government notes, one Liberal blogger sees the bigger picture: …What the Liberals have the do in the next two years is find that [...]
Dean: Campaigns matter, but come on. The Liberals have been bleeding votes and seats going all the way back through the last decade. There’s just no way that you can chalk that up to bad campaigning, especially considering that Chretien and his people were damned good campaigners.
And, no, you’re wrong. There are more than three options, because “left”, “right”, and “center” don’t actually mean anything. They’re just abstractions. They don’t guide policy, they don’t demonstrate morals, and they don’t reflect values. They’re an analogy based on the seating arrangement of a long-ago French legislature. That’s it.
The idea is to sort out and advocate for a 21st-century version of the liberal tradition of thought, not to dash about on an invisible line. All that’ll do is ensure that Jack ‘n Steve are the only games in town by the end of the decade.
The Liberal party may call itself a party of the centre, but it’s inherently a brokerage party that mastered creating policies that could slice up portions of left and right voters, in addition to different communities: immigrants, Quebec federalists, urban professionals, single women, surburban Ontario, etc.
Now that Liberals are in a third party position, we won’t be getting that strategic vote automatically. It will come ONLY after we rebuild our competitiveness and bases within ridings.
Political party’s exist as coalitions of interests and groups, be they regional or cosmopolitan. The graveyard of Canadian politics is full of parties that lost bases of support and stopped existing: Social Credit, Bloc Quebecois, Progressive Conservatives…
The NDP ran many centrist-style campaigns readying themselves to replace the Liberals under Jack Layton (that no one seriously paid attention to)–but their campaigns didn’t work for such a long time as they were the third party and not the default option for left wing voters scared of Tory governments. The NDP’s surge in this election particularly in Quebec, and then to the BC and Ontario, came after years of disciplined and focused coalition building–particularly in Quebec.
We’re going to need a similar breakthrough to come back, and it will take years of similar campaign and coalition building discipline. I’m frankly not sure if Liberals really understand how much work (and partially luck) they will need to not end up becoming the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
[...] fantastic article has made me think differently about parties. I’d call it an epiphany, but someone said that if you had too many of those, it means you [...]
[...] blog post, the “Calgary Liberal” opined sadly that the Libs had become a “party for a party’s sake,” lacking any natural base of support. We’ve become, he said, “an accumulation of [...]
[...] Delacourt of the Toronto Star has quoted my blog post. What is a political party [...]
[...] a lot of rather angry emails and notes speaking in opposition to my thoughts written about in my blog post last week on the Liberal Party of Canada. It has to do with the issue of centrism in Canadian politics and I do not believe I have been that [...]
[...] Calgary Liberal gives an ice cube analogy [...]