Liberal or Conservative... Whatès the differnece.

[KAI]

When listening to people talk politics, I often notice that when it comes to Canada, Canadians often end up either bashing the conservatives or the Liberals. Liberal supporters will critisize past and present conservative policies and initiatives, instead of explaining what their party will do. And Conservative backers will do the same thing.

The two parties are so close together on the political spectrum that i really donèt think either would do all that much different than the other. IMO Canadian politics is like tring to guess which Twin will be born first...it doesnèt really mater.

[jolinar of malkshor]

There is a history in Canadian Politics for the opposition to always support the opposite of what the partyin power is doing. Eg...free trade and GST as the more recent ones.

[Thor]

Them being somewhat similar I think is a good thing, shows that we don't have such a dramatic divide between republicans/democrats as is in the USA.

Throw in NDP and you get interesting minority governments with the Bloq adding its spin to everything.

But I do agree we liberals/conservatives share a lot of commanalities, we just simply focus on what we don't agree on.

I am very glad we don't have religion as such a big part of our government, seperation of church/state is a wonderful thing.

[jharp]

The Conservatives try and get put policy through while in power but are forced to play politics by the nasty Liberal dogs....
Seriously though, I believe that there are still some conservatves in the Conservative Party. A few years of a Concervative majority would do wonders for this country as long as Harper was still the leader. People could see that he and his party are not 'scary' like the other parties try and promote. The country would continue to improve its economy, the country would be less divided and Harper might even convince me to watch a Leafs game, well maybe not a Leafs game.

As for American politics, I don't thnk they are as far apart as they might appear. I really don't follow them as much but from what I gather the Republicans are pretty far right and very religious and the Democrats are centre right and not religious. Back when Clinton was in Office the economic policies seemed to be centre based if not right wing bias. The difference appears to be on social matters mainly. In current terms it is very clouded because it seems like even the Republican Party can't agree and at the moment Bush is going for a record... worst approval of the modern polling era. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19947950/

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jharp

The Conservatives try and get put policy through while in power but are forced to play politics by the nasty Liberal dogs....
Seriously though, I believe that there are still some conservatves in the Conservative Party. A few years of a Concervative majority would do wonders for this country as long as Harper was still the leader. People could see that he and his party are not 'scary' like the other parties try and promote. The country would continue to improve its economy, the country would be less divided and Harper might even convince me to watch a Leafs game, well maybe not a Leafs game.

Wow, it took four posts before the first partisan one! This thread had an over/under of about 1.5.

[Cerebral]

Both parties are essentially pragmatic rather than staunchly based on ideological principles so it's getting more difficult to tell the two apart.

There are still a number of very obvious and key differences between the two parties but it's also apparent that both parties realize the key to them getting elected is to attract the votes from the centre (which requires them to essentially transform into "catch-all" parties).

[HOZ]

It all depends how long they have been in power. The last couple of Liberal gov't were sickeningly corrupt and in desperate need of replacement.

We will see how long the Conservatives last before the enevitable.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Thor

I am very glad we don't have religion as such a big part of our government, seperation of church/state is a wonderful thing.

###.

Living in the U.S. has really helped me to appreciate the great things about Canadian politics. Our system isn't perfect, but by and large our political arena is populated with well meaning pragmatists who are genuinely interested in the best civic government. The U.S. on the other hand is a cluster-you-know-what of ideologues and cynical politicos on both sides taking their cues from think tanks and lobby groups while lining their campaign coffers for their next run for office, which they know will cost millions.

[FlamesAddiction]

They both do pretty much whatever they think will prolong their rule or limit the others. The sleeze factor does not know party boundaries.

I always just try to vote for whoever seems to be most moderate at the time. From my experience, this has allowed me to vote Conservative only once, and Liberal a few times, and NDP zero times. Most recently I've gone Green though.

[jharp]

Originally Posted by icarus

Wow, it took four posts before the first partisan one! This thread had an over/under of about 1.5.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Cerebral

Both parties are essentially pragmatic rather than staunchly based on ideological principles so it's getting more difficult to tell the two apart.

You mean following polls rather than principles?

Which brings us to this little gem:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Living in the U.S. has really helped me to appreciate the great things about Canadian politics. Our system isn't perfect, but by and large our political arena is populated with well meaning pragmatists who are genuinely interested in the best civic government. The U.S. on the other hand is a cluster-you-know-what of ideologues and cynical politicos on both sides taking their cues from think tanks and lobby groups while lining their campaign coffers for their next run for office, which they know will cost millions

Well meaning pragmatists who are genuinely interested in the best civic government? You mean spineless sleazers who blindly follow the wishes of masses that change in spur of the moment? Any consistent and coherent ideological principles be damned? Yup, that sure has to lead to the best outcome possible...

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You mean spineless sleazers who blindly follow the wishes of masses that change in spur of the moment?

Well, you know, there is that democracy thing...the whole will of the people.

[worth]

Two sides of the same coin.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Well, you know, there is that democracy thing...the whole will of the people.

Correct, but politicians are elected to rule. Public opinion on an issue at a certain time shouldnt sway the politicians. If the same apathetic politicians were alive and running things in the 1930s and 1940s we would have way to many Neville Chamberlins and my right arm would be to tired to type because of all the "hailing".

This the the main problem I have with the Libs, they refuse the make the tough decisions and would rather the courts give them a path than to make their own and then possibly be over-ruled by the courts.

If the court determines the given path is illegal then so be it, but politicians initial judgements should never be directed by grossly overpaid judges.

MYK

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You mean following polls rather than principles?

Which brings us to this little gem:



Well meaning pragmatists who are genuinely interested in the best civic government? You mean spineless sleazers who blindly follow the wishes of masses that change in spur of the moment? Any consistent and coherent ideological principles be damned? Yup, that sure has to lead to the best outcome possible...

A small tip from the annals of winning friends and influencing people: this was a friendly discussion before you came along. Frankly, the whole "all politicians are sleazebags" thing I hear from twentysomething political know-it-alls all the time is just a cliche--a nice-sounding justification for not participating in a political process that needs your participation in order to work. But never mind--go back to your cynicism--I'm sure it's needed somewhere.

As for outcomes--I don't think anyone here has claimed that either party or either political system is perfect. There are sleazeballs everywhere, which is why a system that lends itself to pragmatic government, where government is drawn to the center and feels the need to respond to the will of the people is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.


It sounds like what you crave is a true ideologue--and to some extent I agree. Ideologues are necessary for advancing the political culture, for creating paradigm shifts and changing the conversation, and so forth. The last great ideologue in Canadian politics was probably Preston Manning, and one way or another he has had a deep impact on the political landscape. (can't stand the guy, but you have to give him props for that) Before that, Trudeau was an ideologue, and so was Tommy Douglas. Harper is a pragmatist, and so were Martin, Chretien (also a sleazebag), Campbell, Mulroney (also a sleazebag) and any number of Canadian PMs since confederation. That's why I commented that by and large the Canadian polity is pragmatic--and that living in the U.S. has taught me the value of practicality over ideology.

Glad you found it to be a "gem."

[icarus]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Correct, but politicians are elected to rule. Public opinion on an issue at a certain time shouldnt sway the politicians. If the same apathetic politicians were alive and running things in the 1930s and 1940s we would have way to many Neville Chamberlins and my right arm would be to tired to type because of all the "hailing".

Politicians are elected to represent their constituents. Hence, democracy. I enjoyed your illustration, but by the same token you perhaps did not consider that Hitler ruled without influence of public opinion, as you endorse. It seems to me once politicians fail to listen to public opinion you start to head toward corruption and dictatorship.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

This the the main problem I have with the Libs, they refuse the make the tough decisions and would rather the courts give them a path than to make their own and then possibly be over-ruled by the courts.

If the court determines the given path is illegal then so be it, but politicians initial judgements should never be directed by grossly overpaid judges.

This is interesting, do you have some examples in mind? Courts don't overrule legislation unless it is found to be unconstitutional. I for one am glad we have someone to protect the constitution in this country. Otherwise, courts do enforce the legislation that has been passed.

As for grossly overpaid judges, I don't know what kind of salary-range you have in mind, but judges are paid well so that they can be more resistant to bribery.

[MarchHare]

If politicians govern based on opinion polls, they are "spineless cowards who don't have any principles". Example: Canadian conservatives criticizing the Liberal Party when they were in power.

If politicians stick to their party's platform and don't change any policies because of public pressure, they're accused of "ignoring the will of the people". Example: Bush refusing to alter his Iraq strategy despite massive public discontent over it.

How are they supposed to win? No matter what they do, people who oppose their party will find a way to complain.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

Yeah....but in my mind, the "winner" is the one that does the most effective job at balancing the 2.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If politicians govern based on opinion polls, they are "spineless cowards who don't have any principles". Example: Canadian conservatives criticizing the Liberal Party when they were in power.

If politicians stick to their party's platform and don't change any policies because of public pressure, they're accused of "ignoring the will of the people". Example: Bush refusing to alter his Iraq strategy despite massive public discontent over it.

How are they supposed to win? No matter what they do, people who oppose their party will find a way to complain.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

The canadian political system is set up so that governments are accounable to their election promises. It is te job of the opposition to critisize the government when they screw up. The problem is that governments don't keep their promises, They have a 5 year mandate and in my opinon if they want to go back on election promises they should call an election.

[jonesy]

One party is enlightened, wise, benevolant and forward thinking.
The other party is backwards, dimwitted, greedy and inward looking.

The trick is deciding which one is which......