Talk:Liberal Party of Canada

NDP’s role in minority governments

I initially removed this, and it was reverted. I don’t want an edit war so, I will ask, how is this relevant to the liberal party page? I understand that they play a role in the confidence and supply of the liberal government but it seems to me that doesn’t need to be on the Liberal Party page. Wikentromere (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, could it be reworded in some way? It doesn’t fit in wells . Wikentromere (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. Previously, I took that aside as a quick, implicit way of explaining the party standings and relative strength — that the Liberals ally with the NDP rather than the Conservatives tells you that the LPC and CPC are the two major parties — but on closer inspection, I suppose that calling the CPC their "rival" already does that. So, if it's not actually providing context, I don't think it's important enough for the lede. That the Liberals sometimes ally with the NDP is true but it's always (until very recently) been an informal partnership; mentioning it so prominently almost makes it sound like they've got some sort of CDU/CSU or Liberal/National agreement going on, which is obviously not the case. I'll go ahead and remove it. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ideological Position

I think there should be consideration for placing the Liberal Party of Canada on the Centre-right to Centre-Left spectrum, as evidenced by shared centre-right policies with the Conservatives, from back-to-work legislation, prioritizing tax cuts that benefit 6-figure earners, and rejection of many NDP policies like the wealth tax

I would at least like to hear opinions on this. Perhaps a compromise would be like what we see on the NDP page, which is a centre left party that has a left-wing faction. The Liberals could be seen as a centrist party with both centre left and centre right factions 174.89.12.70 (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We can talk about any rreliable sources that are presented. Moxy🍁 06:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding Social Democracy to Ideology

I think with recent decisions such as $10-a-day child care, the dental care program, and the framework for national pharmacare, we should heavily consider adding social democracy to its ideology. This is the party that brought national healthcare federally, and now under Justin Trudeau and it has moved even more left-wing compared to where it was before him being leader, I believe currently it’s aligning with social democracy more than Social Liberalism.

I know some people will argue that the dental care and pharmacare initiatives were only undertaken due to the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. However, the fact that Justin Trudeau was willing to work with the NDP demonstrates his left-wing stance, and he actually implemented the measures they requested in the agreement.

This party, which introduced national healthcare, $10-a-day child care, and legalized marijuana showing a trend towards drug liberalization, and is now also providing dental care for low-income Canadians and potentially pharmacare for contraceptives and diabetic medication. These actions illustrate that social democracy should be added to the party's ideology I believe this party under Justin Trudeau is as Left wing if not more than the Labour Party of the UK under Keir Starmer. I’m interested to hear other peoples opinions. Black roses124 (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back up your claims, or is this all your original research? "However, the fact that Justin Trudeau was willing to work with the NDP demonstrates his left-wing stance, " - No, it really doesn't. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sources that explicitly state the Liberal Party follows social democracy, I don't have many except for sort of this one: Fraser Institute article.

I disagree with the think tank’s conclusion of "modern-day socialist." I argue that Trudeau aligns more with social democracy; he has certainly governed as a social democrat, and I believe anyone with a basic understanding of social democracy would agree. The Liberal Party under Trudeau has undergone a clear identity shift. Policies such as the framework for national pharmacare and a dental care program for low-income Canadians indicate a social democratic approach, contrasting with the 1990s Liberal Party.

Lets not forget the Liberals historically is the party that introduced national healthcare a strong pillar of that ideology that all social democrats argue for, and under Trudeau, they have implemented $10 a day childcare and drug liberalization—key social democratic policies. In 2015, Tom Mulcair, a self-proclaimed social democrat, promised similar initiatives with 15$ a day childcare,  pharmacare, and marijuana decriminalization. Furthermore, Trudeau's supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, a first for a Liberal Prime Minister, shows a shift leftward, emphasizing his social democratic governance. He could have agreed to the deal without implementing the policies, but he has followed through on the items.

The Liberal Party is a big tent party with many views and factions. In the 1990s, the “Blue Grits” led the party, their ideology ranging from social liberalism to conservatism. Currently, it seems the “Red Grits” are governing the party, with their ideology leaning more towards social democracy I believe social democracy belongs in the ideology. Black roses124 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fundamentally, this is not a matter of what our personal opinions are. Your arguments are fine for a forum discussion, but on Wikipedia we deal with reliable sources. This is because everything we write in an article must be verifiable. It is simply not verifiable to say that the Liberal Party as a whole, or even factionally is social democratic in any capacity. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The Fraser Institute is also a biased source.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s true Fraser Institute is biased. Black roses124 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems very limiting to claim that a party can't align with certain political ideologies if no reliable sources state as such, even if it is objectively true. Hypothetically, if a centrist party moves far-right but there are no reliable sources stating this shift, it will still be considered centrist? This approach seems inadequate and restrictive for this specific discussion.

I do have this publication from Professor Kenneth Dewar https://activehistory.ca/papers/the-social-democracy-question/ which references a lecture by Ed Broadbent, a former leader of the NDP and a self-proclaimed social democrat with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in political science. The article discusses numerous expressions of social democracy across party lines in Canada. For example, John Diefenbaker introduced the national hospital insurance program, and subsequent Liberal governments introduced similar actions. Under Lester Pearson, universal healthcare, Medicare, and the Canada Pension Plan were introduced. Additionally, William Lyon Mackenzie King introduced unemployment insurance legislation, and Pierre Trudeau created the National Energy Program and Petro-Canada as a publicly owned petroleum utility. All these are examples of social democracy.

In recent years, Justin Trudeau has followed in this tradition with policies such as $10-a-day childcare, banning unpaid internships, introducing a federal Canada Disability Benefit, and establishing a framework for pharmacare with plans to cover diabetic medication and contraceptives. These actions suggest that the Liberal Party has continued to implement social democratic policies.

In conclusion, the Liberal Party has historically introduced numerous social democratic policies, including universal healthcare, the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, the National Energy Program, and creating Petro-Canada. Along with Justin Trudeau's recent social democratic policies, we can reasonably conclude that the Liberal Party's ideology includes elements of social democracy. Even if we exclude Justin Trudeau's contributions, the historic expressions of social democracy by Liberal prime ministers, as stated by Ed Broadbent, provide sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Additionally, the Australian Labor Party is often recognized as having a social democratic ideology, despite the lack of explicit labeling by some sources. This further illustrates that political ideologies can be inferred from policy actions and historical context. Black roses124 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Black Roses, the thing is, Wikipedia works on reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE) not original research (WP:OR). What you’ve cited is interesting, but it doesn’t directly say that the Liberal Party is social democratic. To add that to the infobox, we would need a reliable source to support it. That’s the nature of WP as an encyclopedia, to aggregate material from others. Reliable sources are particularly important for contentious issues, like articles on political parties. Otherwise, there would be unending edit wars, if the criteria were editors’ personal views. For example, if you check the history page for this article, there’s been a series of attempts to change the political summary of the Liberal party to “far left”. That’s also been rejected, because that editor didn’t bring any reliable sources in support of their position. Cites to reliable sources are needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The source I provided quotes Ed Broadbent, who says that numerous policies enacted by Liberal prime ministers are social democratic. If a party is enacting social democratic policies and making formal agreements with a party that is explicitly socially democratic, one can reasonably infer that the party has at least some level of support for social democracy.

However, I'm willing to compromise. At the very least, can we include 'faction: social democracy'? I believe the current description is inaccurate and misleading by stating only 'Liberalism,' which suggests that the party has a single coherent ideology. When in reality, the party is multidimensional, encompassing a variety of political ideologies from conservatism to social democracy.

I am not arguing for 'democratic socialism' to be included in the infobox ideology. All in all I believe we should at least mention 'faction: social democracy.' While I think these rules are too restrictive and limiting, I respect Wikipedia's guidelines. If you decide that even including 'faction: social democracy' is too much, I will respect that decision and if this is it thank you to everyone participating in the discussion. Black roses124 (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, my belief is that even if the Liberal Party were to turn Canada into Sweden, we still wouldn't have any sources stating that the Liberal Party is social democratic. I really have been given an impossible task. Black roses124 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources available to say that the Liberals have a social democratic ideology, then by putting it in, we would simply be incorporating your personal opinion. That is not how Wikipedia works; it's not based on personal opinions of editors. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I don’t want to sound more repetitive than I already am, so it’s the end of this discussion. Black roses124 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.broadbentinstitute.ca/andrew_ajackson/pierre_trudeau_the_liberals_and_the_social_democratic_left

Does this count it talks about how Pierre Trudeau is essentially a democratic socialist 74.14.0.182 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I meant social Democrat 74.14.0.182 (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

How the term is used in a Canadian context. Moxy🍁 13:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)