A proposed change in tactics for Liberal strategists

March 7th, 2007 | email this | digg it
Leave your comment Posted by Scott Tribe
Published in Canadian Politics

There’s not a whole lot I can really argue about here in what Jonathan proposes Liberal strategists due to try and get renewed consideration for voters to vote for the Liberal Party.

I like this part:

Forget the tired approach of a big launch for a platform…Start bringing out policies that have a uniqueness to them - a national program to promote green technologies and products globally, for example - on a weekly basis. This is how you start to impact the national agenda.

(bolding mine)

I couldn’t agree more. You want uniqueness for a policy? I hate to beat a dead horse over and over again, but I’m going to again anyhow - you can find nothing more unique then proposing electoral reform and proportional representation as the form that electoral reform takes. For the Liberals, it would be downright attention grabbing if they were to propose such a bold reformist proposal (bold for them..er.. for us.. I keep forgetting I’m a LPC member now). It would blow Harper’s Senate half-reform proposal away for the vote getting sham that it is.

10 Responded To This Post

2320. Daniel said on March 7, 2007 at 4:53 pm

It would be a good idea, but the LPC would NEVER propose such a thing - the first-past-the-post system is what has kept the Liberals in majority rule for most of this country’s history, and I doubt they’d want to change that. We heard musings from Paul Martin a while back, but I’d chalk that up to “smoke and mirrors” to try and win over soft Dipper support. Since it’s been 23 years since a party won more than 50% of the popular vote, I doubt that the two parties who could actually implement reform (the LPC and CPC) would do so, considering that they benefit most from the way the system is now.

And judging by the cold reception that Harper’s rather mild senate reforms have garnered from the Liberals, it would be foolish to hold out hope for the LPC to propose something MORE transformational than that.

Reply - Quote
2322. Scott Tribe said on March 7, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I dont necessarily disagree, though I’ve already mentioned one such PR setup that would preserve the chances of getting a majority government and not necessarily have constant minority government all the time (although some of my PR purists dispute its actually MM-PR, but that’s beside the point). However, there are more Liberals at the grassroots and netroots level talking about PR, so perhaps there is hope yet for it.

To be honest.. I agree with the Liberals coldness toward the Senate reforms; my point is they need to counter it with a better electoral reform proposal then just pointing out the shortcomings of it and be charged with being a party who wishes to preserve the status quo.

Reply - Quote
2323. manitobaliberal said on March 7, 2007 at 6:06 pm

I really can’t see the Liberal Party pushing PR. Even if we are looking at 5-7 years of Harper Government, I think the Liberal elites in the party still expect that power will shift back to the Liberals and we benifit the most from first past the post, despite the once in a generation Conservative vicotry that rears its ugly head every so often (Dief, Mulrony, Harp)

Reply - Quote
2324. Scott Tribe said on March 7, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I cant disagree with your assessment either, Manitobaliberal, and I’ll state if that’s the case, its a risky view to be taking (others would say worse things.. but I’m in a diplomatic mood).

If there is enough grass/netroots noise supporting it however, they will have to pay attention to it. More importantly, if the Canadian public seems taken with the Harper plan (and one poll said 65% of them do like the proposals about the Senate), then I think that puts pressure on them to reconsider their view and put forward something better and something more democratic-reform then that proposal.

Reply - Quote
2326. Woman at Mile 0 said on March 7, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Well if they agree to a coalition does it have to be forever? After all a coaltion is not a merger. Doesn’t that mean it can be for a long time or a short time? Sure if elected as a coalition they would be obligated to stay together and if it collasped they would have to call another election. Wouldn’t we just be back at square 1 again? Or is the deal breaker they run as a coalition and if they win, then PR is put to a national referendum when the next election is called?

Reply - Quote
2331. Daniel said on March 7, 2007 at 11:12 pm

[quote comment="2322"]To be honest.. I agree with the Liberals coldness toward the Senate reforms; my point is they need to counter it with a better electoral reform proposal then just pointing out the shortcomings of it and be charged with being a party who wishes to preserve the status quo.[/quote]

But that’s the thing - from all I’ve seen, they ARE the party that wants to preserve the status quo.

It seems painfully obvious that the Liberal Party’s opposition to senate reform has little to do with the “lack of action” in the plan, and everything to do with altering a status quo that almost exclusively benefits them. And who can blame them, really? If we’re talking about PR electoral reform for the House of Commons, I’m sure they’d be aware of this tidbit: under a pure PR system, the last Liberal PM to win a majority would’ve been MacKenzie King in 1940 - a frightening prospect for a party that has become quite used to governing with majorities over the years.

Scott, I’m not sure if you’re fairly new to politics, or just have excessive faith that our elected officials are looking out solely for our interests, but I’m quite sure that the Liberals would be the LAST party to propose any sort of radical electoral reform.

Reply - Quote
2333. Scott Tribe said on March 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Daniel: FYI.. no.. I’m not new to politics. Idealistic, yes… but not new :em50:

Of course there will be inertia in the higher rankings of the Liberal Party (and no so high rankings). Its the job of us who believe in this reform to push against that inertia.

And I am certainly not advocating the Liberals advocate pure PR. What I suggest they do is advocate system like this that would address regional complaints about their votes meaning nothing while still allowing a good chance for strong governments.

Reply - Quote
2334. Woman at Mile 0 said on March 8, 2007 at 12:50 am

This is the big kicker for me. I went to the first meeting ever for a new branch of Fair Vote Canada in Victoria a year and a bit ago. I was very interested in learning about different systems of PR. However I was shocked at the first meeting to find the branch (yes only formed at that point for maybe an one hour and a half) by majority voted to adopt STV over any other system. The first meeting!!
I was ticked that all the exploration fun part of looking and truly understanding the voting systems and the repercussions of each….was gone and so I left. I was just not sure if STV was the way to go. Too fast for me it was…like trying to get to 3rd base on a first date. Something like that takes time for slower people like me to ponder and consider. I can’t say for sure that I might not like STV but also like the simpler sound of MMP.

Reply - Quote
2346. mushroom said on March 8, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Mile 0,

STV was not something I swallowed initially as good for BC. Preferred the German model of PR. However, I have modified my stance and will encourage the people of BC to vote for STV in the next referendum.

My reasons are as follows:

1)It almost passed the referendum threshold (60 per cent). Three percentage points and it would have been implemented (BC-STV 57 per cent approval). The support among the plurality means there is no need to go back to step one. BC wants voter reform instead of staying with the old system.

2)Any system of PR is better than First Past The Post.

3)In the next election for the Scottish Assembly, the Assembly will be elected by STV instead of MMP in the past two elections. Scotland has decided to follow the voting system of its Irish cousins.

Reply - Quote
2347. mushroom said on March 8, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Apologies.

Got my facts wrong. It is STV that will be used in local elections. The Scottish assembly will use the MMP.

Reply - Quote
Sorry the comment area are closed

Category

Recent Entries

Archives

Feeds

Meta