Party over for Liberals?

 Tomorrow, on CBC Radio's Day Six, the question will be posed: Is the Liberal party dying?  It's part of a series they call "deep-sixed," in which they feature  debate on the potential extinction of once-familiar things -- the dining room, rock and roll, RIM, etc. 

Two columns this week have also broached this territory. My colleague, Chantal Hébert, noted that the Liberals' days may be numbered, with the NDP on the rise all over the country. Over at Postmedia, Stephen Maher also made the same observation, though he tempered it with a wee, tiny, thin reed of hope for Liberal partisans. 

I'd be willing to wager that in spite of all these challenges, the NDP will continue to make gains at the Liberals' expense, but hope often triumphs over experience in politics, so don't expect the Liberals to give up just yet.

Ever since the May 2 rout, many Liberals themselves have been talking about whether the party's over. The first time I heard it was a few days after the election, when a former candidate, someone who has occupied high posts in the party, said bluntly to me that he thought the odds were 50-50 for Liberals to survive. Several months later, it's still not clear to me whether the party is getting its act together or simply, in the parlance of palliative doctors, "getting its affairs in order."  Here, to me, are some of the signs the condition could be terminal. 

* These aren't good times to be in the middle, the natural home for the Liberals. Former campaign chief David Herle wrote an intriguing column a few weeks ago in the Star, in which he linked the shrinking political middle in Canada to the shrinking middle class. Bleakly, he forecast: 

If our politics cannot find the prescription for saving the middle class, increasing disparity in Canada is going to make politics and life more divisive and more confrontational.

* The old grudges and family feuds are still alive. For evidence of that, just cast back at the reaction from some Grits to Sheila Copps' candidacy for party president. Granted, Copps has been a polarizing figure in the past, but to hear some Liberals, she is a bigger problem for the party than the Conservatives or the New Democrats. That's no exaggeration -- in the wake of May 2, we've seen lots of Liberals reconciling themselves to the Tory majority and making nice with Conservatives, in a way they simply cannot manage with their old foes, within their own party. 

What this tells me is that there may be nothing left of the party except those old stories and schisms --  which, for the uninitiated, have a bit of a "you had to be there" quality to them. Back last year, I showed up at a Liberal event in Hamilton, and I inquired about the whereabouts of former MP and minister Tony Valeri. One of the long-time Liberals in the crowd said that Valeri had to stay away from party events, as well as Copps, because the bad blood from their 2004 riding feud was still coursing through people's veins there. "If either Copps or Valeri was here, we'd lose half the crowd, either way," he said.   

* There's no leadership race under way. On top of their internal feuds, which are often (but not always) leadership-related, Liberals only really come alive when they are planning for succession. Justin Trudeau made his non-enthusiasm official this week, when he confirmed in Waterloo that he wasn't running to be the next leader, and I haven't heard any sizzle about any other future candidates either. It may well be too soon, or it may be that no one sees much of a future in the job. 

* The party isn't exactly awash in cash, and former leadership candidates, even former leaders, are still sloshing around in debts from past campaigns. 

* The talk of a merger is still out there, and it's coming from none other than Jean Chrétien, the winning-est Liberal leader in recent memory. Now, it is also true that Chrétien only seems to like the Liberal party when he's running it (ask other former PMs about that) but it is telling that a politician who dominated Liberalism for the past few decades doesn't hold out much hope for the party to continue  in its current state.  Other former senior Liberals have pretty much disappeared too, vanished to academia or the private sector, and if they are active in trying to keep their old party alive, they're doing it very quietly. 

 

All of these gloomy conditions don't tell the whole story of the Liberals as they now exist, of course... I'm sure there are folks out there who can balance this off with signs of optimism, beyond (as Maher mentioned) that thin hope the New Democrats will screw up. I'd be curious to hear what is driving any Liberal revival hopes right now; send them along if you've got them -- either in the comments section here, or email: sdelacourt@thestar.ca

*** Update: I'd draw your attention to this early response to the blog post, from Steve over at Far and Wide: 

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2011/10/we-might-be-dead.html

Comments

[Oh Boy]

Canada is home to brokerage parties -- parties that borrow a bit from the right and the left, parties that balance one region's needs against another's. This is the case at the Provincial level in Quebec, Ontario, BC and even Alberta (consider Redford's win).

The current Conservative Government rose to power for three reasons: 1. They were internally divided; 2. There was a desire for change after 13 years of Liberal rule (the Liberals had done what was asked of them in terms of budget and economy, so people were ready for change); and, 3. the Conservatives became a brokerage party, cobbling together Western Reformers and former PC's from Ontario and Quebec. They passed cash to Quebec, recognized them as a nation, flooded rural and suburban Ontario with cash and put Alberta oil at the forefront of economic policy. But they left healthcare alone and only tinkered with immigration.

In a majority, the Tories risk becoming just like the incumbent, entitled Liberals they replaced. Their internal fractionalism could well rise up (again -- like in the 1980s-90s PC/Bloc/Reform/Alliance splits), as with the Martin/Chretien Liberal rift.

Consider the recent Ontario election. The Liberals won by being a brokerage party -- not too left, not too right. It's basically what Canadians want, so if the Federal Liberals find ways to present a united, brokerage alternative to a long-in-the-tooth incumbent Conservative party, especially one that drifts right in a majority, they can win again.

[Elizabeth Maybenot]

They were nothing but a bunch of "we know whats best for you" so this is what I have waited for all of my adult life...the death of the LIEBERALS!

[Catherine]

Hi Susan,

I'm with Steve from farnwide. I am a proud Liberal. I discuss politics with my father, who reads your work, and my adult kids and their families. The Liberal party must assume some responsibility for some of their choices and their present predicament might underline them. But, families are just that. Tough times. Times of celebration. Times of adapting.

I'm with the right family. I want them to make decisions that are tough and for the right reasons....not because of the past and not because they are easy.

The Liberal party has been a contributor to this fine country. I'm quite surprised that our fourth estate would treat the LPC with such slight of hand. I guess they gravitate to the shiny, new toy because it's shiny and new.

The easy choice might be to talk of a merge. With less of the Liberal party apparatus making bold decisions for the grass-roots of the Party, because they just don't have the money, there will be less of the old grudges and folly to be had.

[Pete]

Reminds me of the old Conservative party that was killed by Mulroney. They had a quick and painless death. The Liberals seem to be going the long slow death way.

[Keith Meisenheimer]

.... a conservative movement dominated by radical world wide republicans ... a world wide socialist movement that hides their party constitution or a savy Bob Rae & caucus that are hungry to earn their jobs ? ... occupy wall street being evicted from an American park by a Canadian company ... give me a break Ms. Delacourt .

[Matt]

Note that Chretien has said publicly that he has favoured merger since 1993 -- including the years when he was in power. Did you interpret his comments as a sign of Liberal weakness when he said them when they had a huge majority? Don't think so.

[ray hard]

Hope CBC interviewsPeter C. Newman whose next book, due in mid-Nobv, is sub-titled The Death of Liberal Canada. Its a great read, esp for younger Canadians who are unaware of the era of CD Howe, St. Laurent and Pearson when the foundations were laid. In my humble view, Martin allowing thugs Herle, Scott Reid to take out Copps and over-reacting to Adscam laid seeds of decline and fall.

[Observant]

Was Chretien so angered by the political assassination perpetrated by the Martinite Liberals that his revenge has also destroyed the Liberal party?

If the federal Liberals merge into the NDP, will it also be the demise of the provincial Liberals?

Are we witnessing the union of the centre-left into a new political entity in Canada?

Gonna be interesting times.

[hollinm]

In all of the comments no one has mentioned that the Liberal party has been in decline for 20 years. Their attachment to the West is virtually non existent. Chretien won three majorities, not because he was a great prime minister, but because the opposition was divided and he was able to hang on to Toronto.

Despite public pronouncements I believe the Liberal party is messiah centric. They believe the leader will solve all the problems. However, the party is drifting today because there is no real leadership. Bob Rae is only going through the motions. To think he would rebuild the party just to hand it over to someone who he would consider less than him is anathema to all that he stands for.

Like Ms. Delacourt says there is nothing that has come in the public domain that shows the party has changed since May 2nd. Its business as usual. The same old tired faces standing up in parliament spouting their talking points. Sad...its really sad to watch.

[Ron Hartling]

Having recently completed a month-long tour of 75 Liberal riding associations throughout Western Canada, I'm actually optimistic about the future of the Liberal Party. Yes, we certainly received our comeuppance on May 2, but I see no evidence of a strong desire on the part of Canadians to dump our Party. Rather, what I saw was an election in which voters were unhappy with ALL their choices. That created an unstable and hence unpredictable political dynamic in which one of the myriad of small things that happen in every campaign would trigger an avalanche effect. Unfortunately for us Liberals, the trigger was Mr. Layton's performance in the leaders’ debates. Even more unfortunately for most Canadians, the legacy of that performance was a Harper majority government, essentially a four-year license to turn Canada into something that the vast majority of us don’t want. I believe that, rather than a stale choice between an ideologically-blinkered Party on the right and another on the left, Canada NEEDS a renewed Liberal Party. The onus is on us to deliver that before the next election.

[Dayton F.]

Ask Frank Mckenna or John Manley if they would like to lead this troop at this point? Both prominent Liberals are very comfortable with the state of our union. Too bad all the others were and still believe they are entitled to govern. Must be sad living in the past. "Denial" is a bad place get over it.

[Periscope]

Top 5 reason why the Liberal Party is not dead

5) The floor the Liberals hit in this years election, was still higher than both the CONS and NDP minimums and on par with the highest the NDP had previously hit.

4) The NDP will continue to prove, that while an interesting story-line for the uber-hungry politio's, they are simply not ready and more importantly, too drastic a directional change. See all Provincial elections so far this year, Cdn's like to keep things safe.

3) Elections matter and Leaders matter. No two politicians have been so undermined as Leaders, as Dion and Ignatieff. Both had significant flaws, but paramount was that neither was an effective politician. Layton just proved again how powerful an effective leader can be, and what that can yield; to a lesser extent, McGuinty as well.

2) The CONs are far from popular, or even attempting to 'govern for all'. The combined PC / Alliance vote share in 2000 was 37.68%. Steven Harper just won 166 seats with 39.62%. The conservative needle hasn't budged. The majority win was based on targeting riding with niche issues, related effective voter turnout, but most importantly, an NDP vote that split the left in an unparrelled fashion.

1) Canada is a progressive country. Nearly 2/3 of Cdn's consider themselves to be Democrats over Republican. Quebec and its 82 seats are squarely left of center. The party that can position itself in that time honored, socially progressive, fiscally conservative, will always have a strong place on the political placemat. Mulroney proved it with his record numbers and the last party to do that effectively, was indeed the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Patricia Morfee]

I have always admired you Susan as I have followed you for many years, but I am a Liberal voter for over 40 years and my husband and I just bought a Liberal membership for the first time in any party. So don't count us out yet.

[Cyril Rogers]

Susan,

I am a great admirer of your writing, having recently stumbled upon your excellent work "United We Fall". I do, however, wishe to disagree with your assertion that the there is no future for the Liberal Party. It will and needs to be rebuilt to be sure, but I am optimistic that it will redefine and reinvent itself over time. The CONS are not a broadly based party and their arrogance will be their eventual undoing. As for the NDP, their main base is the province of Quebec; this flirtation is unlikely to last. Ultimately, the Liberal Party will re-emerge and gain strength but it will have to rebrand itself first. A healthy dose of humility would help, as would electoral reform.

[Troy Davidson]

The fact that Justin Trudeau is not running is not significant - he was never planning to run this soon anyway, and he wouldn't be doing so even if the Liberals were still #2. He and his wife have 2 young children and he was always planning to wait until his children were older.

[bocanut]

Maybe Don Buroughs has some suggestions?

[Niall]

Three names:

John Gerrard,
Anita Neville,
John Harvard,

One of these guys are not like the others (ie: loyal, intelligent, humble, accomplished, etc.)

Liberals are faithless B***ards, devoid of any ethical considerations