Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Follow A Conservative Or Lead With Liberals

When did having a dominating leader become a good thing? When did a political party, intended to represent the views of many, become valued only for the views of one? While some may envy the Conservative Party's strong leadership of Stephen Harper, I feel pity for that party because it only has one man for a member.

In a recent poll by Abacus Data Inc. it was revealed that Canadians view the Liberal Party as lacking strong leadership, and in one sense this is true. The Liberal Party is not run by one man like the Conservatives currently suffer under, the Liberals compose an actual political party. A political party which gathers strength from diversity and debate, a political party which hangs its success on the leadership of its members and not just one man.

Where the long-term success of a political organization can never be based on one person, but instead its principles, it's a wonder why such importance is placed on Stephen Harper and not the Conservative Party's general membership. The same curiosity applies to the attention given to the lack of monopolistic leadership within the Liberal Party while neglecting its more developed membership of leaders across Canada.

The kind of leadership within the Liberal Party reflects the kind of leadership Canada needs. The success of Canada does not rest on one man, it never has and it never will. We did not become a country because one man willed it, we did not end wars because one soldier fought them, we are not a just society because one person upholds it. We are Canada because of our people, not because of one man. And in that same vein, the Liberal Party, it's views, it's actions, it's future is what it is, not because of one person, but because of our members, because of us.

If people want to follow one man, they should join the Conservative Party, if they want to lead with another, they should join the Liberal Party.

19 comments:

Glenn said...

.....it's a wonder why such importance is placed on Stephen Harper and not the Conservative Party's general membership.

When you realize that the strength of the Tory fundraising machine is BECAUSE of the strength and vast numbers of the "general membership", then you'll understand why your comments about the CPC being run by Harper alone is utter BS.

Glenn said...

Chretien+strong leader = good. Harper+strong leader = bad.

Don't bother trying to deny it; I've seen and heard enough Liberals and their media sycophants that blathered about the "strength" of Chretien leaderhship now hypocritically decrying Harper's.

The Liberal Party is not run by one man like the Conservatives currently suffer under, the Liberals compose an actual political party.

What a singularly absurd statement, that the LPC is an "actual political party", thereby impying that the CPC is somehow not.

You want to know why your party is doing so abysmally with lacklustre leadership and a rudderless direction? It is because of arrogant statements you uttered like the one above.

Brian G. Rice said...

Good post Scott. I agree 100%.

marie said...

Glenn. You want to know why your party is doing so abysmally with lacklustre leadership and a rudderless direction? It is because of arrogant statements you uttered like the one above.

One could say the same about your post Glenn. Being smug is asking for a disaster when you don't expect one. You just may be eating your words very soon. Con parrots echoing their great leader even drinking the poison Kool- Aid. Gulp Gulp, Gulp!!!!

Oh and Glenn, Chretien is no longer the leader of the liberal party and in case you don't know that, just a reminder. If Chretien were so bad for the majority of Canadians, he never would have won successive majorities not did he have any trouble winning a majority like the one man show Harper has. In general, Canadians have had all the time they needed to get to know Harper and they do not like or trust this man. Can't say I blame them.

How can one like a serpent and a control freak. Canada cannot afford him any longer and his tenure might be dying a slow death.Time to rid ourselves of this Communist dictator controller hiding behind religion for support.

His religion is no where close to mine. More like Russia's leader during WW11 and Germany's. Need I say more?

Glenn said...

His religion is no where close to mine. More like Russia's leader during WW11 and Germany's. Need I say more?

Comparing Harper to Stalin and Hitler; calling him a "communist dictator"? Nope, that says enough right there.

ridenrain said...

I think the major difference is the Conservatives for the most part have a direction and policy they work towards. The Liberals don’t really have a direction but just float around in between. The need a strong leader to unify them because they don’t believe in anything other than staying in power.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Glenn, Goldman Sachs makes money from millions of people, it doesn't mean those millions of people determine the policy of Goldman Sachs.

The Conservative Party in that same way makes money off of their members because they are treated like consumers and not like activists.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Ridenrain, unassailable logic. Just look at today, Liberals not in power but more unified than ever... But that's probably not what you meant.

Glenn said...

Glenn, Goldman Sachs makes money from millions of people, it doesn't mean those millions of people determine the policy of Goldman Sachs.

Fist off, using Goldman-Sachs as an analogy is laughable. What I'm talking about here is more akin to shareholders. When enough "shareholders" don't like the direction the "company" is taking and threaten to pull their "assets" out, don't you agree that would get the attention of the "company"? Doesn't the sad state of financial affairs within the Liberal party tell you that much? C'mon Scott, please tell me you are not this naive.

Glenn said...

Just look at today, Liberals not in power but more unified than ever...

LOL sure they are, Scott, sure they are.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Yeah Glenn I'm sorry I was stupid. You are a liberal party insider and you certainly know more than I.

Anya said...

Harper would not be a leader to many if they knew about his past.
He was a member in 1989 of The Northern Foundation, who were entirely against Mandela in Africa. The Heritage party and Reform were Nazi sympathisers. Look it up on Google.

Glenn said...

Yeah Glenn I'm sorry I was stupid.

Apology accepted.

You are a liberal party insider and you certainly know more than I.

'Cause you're such an insider, right Scott?

One hardly needs to be a "liberal party insider" to know all about the LPC's fundraising woes and why they can't even pay off party leadership campaign debts from FIVE years ago.

The Heritage party and Reform were Nazi sympathisers. Look it up on Google.

Okay then. Now do a Google search on "Michael Ignatieff and Illumnati" or "Michael Ignatieff and New World Order" Here is a hint, free of charge - don't believe everything that Google tells you.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Great guy Glenn. You are a man of honour and class. Please share any other information you have on the Liberal Party. Maybe you should start a liblog. Just think about it big guy.

The Mound of Sound said...

Scott, "liberals not in power but more united than ever"? You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. The LPC is rent with division just as it was during Dion's tenure.

The great leaders of the Liberal Party were very strong leaders, quite contrary to what you suggest. They were both forceful and determined. Sadly, the current office holder bears little resemblance to any of them. You may wish he was like them, I certainly do, but he's not.

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Mound, I disagree. Under Dion the Party was in shambles. I had organizers tell me they weren't trying and pta executives say they wanted Dion out.

I never suggested the Liberals didn't ever have strong leaders. I maintained it's better to be a party of many than of one.

wilson said...

Liberal supporters, like marie, did not fully grasp what the outcome of the 2008 election was, in English Canada.
The CPC won 57% of the seats in the ROC.

Libs fool themselves with a number twist that '63% of Canadians voted against Harper'.
But only if you include Quebec (where Libdips combined won only 4 seats more than the CPC).

The ROC does not hate Harper like the LibDips and the media try to convince themselves.

In the ROC, the CPC won 133 seats out of 233....
that's 57% folks, (8% more than the previous Lib govt)
without Quebec in the equation.

That is a VERY strong mandate from the ROC, 57% to PMSH.
And also why the coalition of losers failed.

92 seats in the West,
PMSH won (72) 77% of them.
106 seats in Ontario,
PMSH won (51) 48% of them

And with 77% of the West in his back pocket,
PMSH is on the move in fortress Toronto (CPC at 48% and gaining),
and polling ahead of the LPC in Quebec.

The reality for the Libs is that 57% of English Canada voted for the CPC and there are not enough federalist seats in Quebec for the Libs to win even a minority.

Time for Libs to start talking turkey with the Dippers about a merger.

igm said...

You can't simply unite the Liberals and NDP. There are significant differences in their economic policies that would push fiscally conservative Liberals (Blue Grits?) to support the CPC and prop up its misguided social conservative agenda.

Specifically, the NDP supports:
- "Buy Canadian" procurement policy
- Taxing capital gains at the same rate as income
- Increasing the progressive taxation gradient
- Protecting Crown Corporations and regulatory protection of Canadian ownership

This interference with capital movement, and taxation on capital will chill investment in and trade with Canada, reducing our competitiveness and growth.

Liberal policy combines fiscal conservatism successfully with social progressivism. Conservatives pretend fiscal conservatism and rack up mountains of debt. Ten of Canada's fourteen largest budget deficits in my lifetime (forty years) have occurred under Conservative regimes.

On concrete issues like social policy, sound fiscal management, and international engagement, Liberals win hands down. Tories like Glenn know there's something dishonest about a PMO that lies to Canadians about the legitimacy of coalitions, prorogues Parliament to hide policies that result in the torture of combatants who were once in our custody, dismisses the importance of the UN Security Council when Canada fails to win a seat there, installs a fifth Environment Minister in as many years with no direction or vision for the portfolio, preaches open government while obstructing access-to-information requests and media access to the PMO, and in general regards Parliament as an obstacle to rather than an instrument of government.

I'd be surprised if he admitted it, but I imagine a thinking man like him is not proud of that record.

marie said...

Wison =bad, Harper a dictator and a liar. Both traits that sane canadains despise.

Liberal supporters, like marie, did not fully grasp what the outcome of the 2008 election was, in English Canada.
The CPC won 57% of the seats in the ROC. That didn't give them a majority Wilson. The remaining seats which were the majority were won ny the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP.

Thats a fact that even you you can't dispute honestly Wison. so please cut the BS already.Your only fooling yourself and your CONservative parrot sheeple.

Man you guys must be really worried about Harper even pulling another minority by the hours you people keep following the party talking points.


And Glenn, its not BS. THe only ones that do any talking in his party his himself and the closely written party lines he wishes them to say. Now that Glenn is a one man show and party.