Cdn Party Names & History vis a vis "Liberal & Conservative" values

A reply to a friend - who sent me a link to a USA-based discussion on "Liberal" vs "Conservative" (appended to very end)

Dear I',

This US-based overview is quite good as an introduction

-esp the media bias (university professor bias) part

In Canada we enjoy/suffer Party Names that are (now)identical to these two main ideological categories, and therefore recommend that the categories need examination before application to any Party Name (i.e. define your terms)

FIRST the TWO CATEGORIES, then the CDN PARTY NAMES (w commentary) , then some issues that might need discussion-at-elections re: "conserving" or "liberalizing"

1) CATEGORIES

Conservative - conserve what? perserve what?

-The Status Quo? or a return to the essence of the original principles that Canada was founded upon?

Liberal - liberate/free-up what? re-form what?

2) PARTY NAMES & Parties

Now a word or two on our Parties

Conservative Party (nee Reform Party)

-a western, agrarian & oil/gas extraction +smallish town protest party based in BC & Alta

-the organisers wanted more clout (ie beyond their pop or economic contribution level) than they had had - capitalized on the innate hatred/envy of centralized power in Ontario/Quebec

-The original slogan (born in mid-80's when things were booming out there) "The west wants In ....or else"  NB they dropped the last part when they crossed the Man/Ont border.

-wanted electoral reform (House and Senate) and reform of equalization/subsidization formulae and ..... at least as much coddling as was going to Quebec

-in mid 1990's there was a merger of the Reform Party (with seats in the west but no national credibility) with the PC party (which had national credibility, but few seats)  which itself was a merger (1930's) of the Conservative/Tory/Status Quo Party and the Progressives (a western agrarian protest party)

Stephen Harper is a Leaside-born, Etobicoke-raised and transplanted-to-Calgary, thin-skinned, proud-of-himself-as-overachiever who hopes nobody finds out he's much-less than everybody thinks he is (much like you and me). He's university educated as an economist and never-really applied that knowledge, because the pap they were teaching then was so inimical to what he himself thought.

Stevie quit Reform, he merged the two parties (achievement), he proposed a coalition to replace a fallen Paul Martin Jr in 2004, he 'gave up' governing in 2008 and bamboozled the GG into giving him a new election (about 30 days before Lehman Bros blew-up - I guess he didn't want to try to get elected {under his own 2007 rules on fixed election dates} in 2009)

He overstepped with his post-2008 Economic Statement and had to a) back down in 5 seconds and then bamboozle the GG to prorogue Parliament to avoid falling into the identical 'coalition" trap that he himself advised/promoted in 2004.

THEN just before the Olympics he bamboozled the GG (dear sweet thing probably thought she'd get a term-extension out of the deal) into another (2nd annual?) prorogation ON THE PHONE, to avoid unpleasant questions while the world was watching Canada Own The Podium.

Now he's spent the last six months undermining/knifing Iggy on TV and on the internet and esrtwhile formulating an election-style "budget" that he'll never have to implement per se. This cream-puff "Budget" predicts revenue will go up 40+% in 5 yrs while programs go up a meagre 9.8% in same timeframe and as a result of faulty premises #1 &#2 ends up "balanced" a few yrs out - PREPOSTEROUS!

Oh yes and then he was surprised when the Lib's et al "forced" an election that he didn't want. Poor baby. Chess player ... maybe ... but the moves are too obvious.

Liberal Party

Since the modern era post WW2 this party is a mess/mass/morass of "wherever the wind blows" policy.

The Liberal Party of Canada stands for nothing permanently, but anything if you'll vote for it. Accompanied by a fingers-crossed probability to NOT fulfill any policy pledge if not ABSOLUTELY forced to do so, to stay in office.
Stand up for "something" or you'll Fall for anything. - Libertarian Hill Cox circa 1993
The Liberal Party stands for "nothing" ..... except Election.

After Wm L M King (who KNEW what he wanted for Canada) passed the torch to Louis St. Laurent they lost focus - while indeed they did very well in electoral popularity in 1950's (boom time), 1960's (albeit in in minority parliaments most of the time) 1970's (spending borrowed public money on vote-getting programs that stood no actuarial hope (post baby-boom) of ever being able to repay it)

They got complacent/arrogant in office and blew up in 1957 (Pipeline Scandal) 1979 (everyone was sick and tired of Trudeau by then) and then again in 2004-06 when the great-new leader Mr P Martin Jr turned out to have feet-of-clay and a ditherer (this is why Chretien held on so long ... he knew Martin was incompetent).

It is to be remembered that the unaffordable (once the Baby Boom ended) pay-as-you-go Great Cdn Cradle-to-Grave Social Safety Net programs (Universal Health, Can Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Unemployment Insurance) were CCF/UFA/UnioNDP policies that were pushed thru Minority Liberal Parliaments to placate the 3rd party and garner their support for the Liberal Minority.

Trudeau (1965-1968) enthralled the country with his flair, youth, decisiveness and sense of purpose (actually it was the predictable ego & hubris of a nouveaux-riche "rich-man's" son who felt himself unbound by natural laws)

His 'modern' thinking (rooted in Fabian-Socialism and the ?noblesse-oblige? of the Rationalist-intelligentsia towards the great unwashed) changed Canada.

He however recognised that post-baby boom, Canada needed more people; that the USA was our neighbour but NOT our trust-able friend; that the Constitutional History & Law of Canada was always going to side with the Aboriginal Peoples; that Keynes was right only if a war came along to kick-start production AND curtail consumption WHILE changing the public attitude towards higher taxation ..... and .... if a war didn't come along, that  the inflation/currency devaluation was the only way "out" of the debt; that placating the domestic public and enduring the House of Commoners games (particularly in minority) was boring and better suited to underlings.
Further he saw that with control of the PCO (thanks to Wm L M King's 1940 emergency, temporary usurpation of the Privy Council) he could centralize all decision making to his inner circle .... and delegate everything mundane to political operators who would get future votes in exchange for "little favours" doled out along the way.

Chretien was an old-school patronage pro (Trudeau was his school, but Chretien skipped "elan" classes). A no holds barred street-fighter you had to admire for his sheer chutzpah but hate for his objectives, strategies, tactics and bald-faced glibness.

Paul Martin Jr, is the son of a successful and respected parliamentarian (it's just too bad that the dad was a social-engineering, central-interventionist). Mentored (some say bought) by Paul Desmarais (the only job Jr ever had) and 'given' the no-money down opportunity to re-organize (under Liberian et al flags) Canada Steamship Lines  - from which Jr made some money to entitle himself to join the country-club set (I can only guess whether or not PowerCorp / Desmarais ever asked any favours of Jr in return)

Iggy - was fooled into thinking he could become CDN PM in a yr or two. Currently being hustled off the stage by Bob Rae (sorry not til after this disastrous defeat) with Trudeau Jr nipping at Rae's heels (a son of a nouveau-riche, well-loved parliamentarian  ... sheesh - I'm sure this kid's being "tutored" by someone a la Obama ... just wish I knew who)

Next Lib leader Bob Rae. Then merger of Lib's and NDP under first Layton succeeded by Rae, then by Justin-baby.

unioNDP

-the New (Democratic) Party grew out of the CCF UFA and the Unions - then industrial/agrarian unions NOW civil service unions AND THEIR pension funds (which must soon be broken up into manageable competitors and not mono-lithic "pay-too-much' realty/bond monopolies

-Party stands firmly for Social Democratic "transformation" like Obama (i.e gov't control of the "means of production" and property" etc etc based on Marx's ideas for the proud, tenacious and energetic people of GERMANY, but instead applied to Russia and China instead)

This phrase Social Democracy is code for socialism but slowly and step by step (ie by gradually penetrating the mindset of the proletarian idiot/drone/workers, election by election) The People's Democratic Republic of ....fill in the blank ... - a top-down, military-enforced, police-state, bureaucracy of party insiders + mostly poor illiterate people)

- this was the gradual approach of the Mensheviks(minority) - but the Bolsheviks (majority) 'victory at-any-cost' approach prevailed in Russia

-UNION dues (and of course the Quarterly Electoral subsidy) finances their operations and Unions dominate the control of the party (again, once industrial/agrarian, now civil service, unions)

-stand for EXACTLY the same thing as the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois -sans sovereignty-association/separation of the Belle Province

-NDP success in Quebec (if polls are to be believed) indicates that Quebec leans heavily socialist (France, Europe etc) but sees less hope/desire/applicability/practicality in separating from Canada - Hooray!

-as above, soon to merge with the Liberals (just as Reform merged with the PC's)

Green Party

-Former Leader, Jim Harris, figured out that by running a paper (no campaign, just on paper) candidate in every riding, they'll get enough votes (from none-of-the-above & protest voters, tree-hugger, animal-rights, pollution, Carbon DiOxide, Carbon MonOxide folks ...  heck we'll take a vote for any reason) that they'll qualify for permanent electoral financing .... now nearly $1.9million/yr to run the office and pay the top leaders a good salary .... even if they NEVER get elected.

Elizabeth May ran to the head of this gravy-train

3) Issues to Conserve/Liberalize?

Examples:

-Continue pillaging the land and forests and waters for immediate employment and tax revenue? or a 'cost-of replenishment' system of licensing, stumpage fees and production royalties that will allow the ultimate owner (the Crown on behalf of the populace) to share in the immediate harvest(non renewables) and permit the replenishment of renewables.

-Continue to have no law on whether "the state" can sanction the "taking of a life"? or realize that the next step from legalized abortion is legalized euthanasia.

-Continue making backroom purchases and acquisitions without true tender (or for future consideration) or be open about who's getting what contract, why and for what reason & based on what criteria?

-Continue not-following the as-written BNA/Constitution re: the Executive Power of Canadian governance or return to the original power-sharing hierarchy (checks and balance within Legislative & Executive power-sharing)?

-Continue to allow helter-shelter immigration (and family reunification) without enforcing any means-test or sponsorship-pledges? or risk offending multi-cult constituencies by 'changing the rules' in the middle of 'the game' THEY are playing with gov't against the middle-class?

-Continue allowing the existing trade/professional guilds to deny/decide on whose credentials THEY will accept? or establish certification tests/exams/practicums that can be passed BEFORE arriving?

Link to about 17 more Election issues you'll never hear about:

36 Days leading to your 55 seconds of Power ( ~time from receiving to returning your ballot)

Elections are much more than the "Leader's Tour" and slogan book

-but who'da thunk it?

 rce

FROM my friend 'I'

Now the election time is coming, and I found very interesting information

about the beliefs of two main parties the conservatives and liberals.
I would like to send this site to U; please read it.

After reading that important information I have no doubt that

Christians should vote for conservatives.

Please pay your attention to section "Religion and Government","Same sex marriages"and

"War on Terror". I always was for conservatives, but I did not have written facts to protect my believe in that party. Now I have these strong arguments and I bravely can say that conservatives are for God and liberals are going against God.

---

Dear friends,

Please read it.http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/