Talk:British Columbia Liberal Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi, I'm not sure why the federal Liberal logo is placed on the bottom of the page as the BC Liberal is not affiliated and only share the name (Liberal).


It should be removed immediatley!! Verged

Request for information[edit]


Queen's University is missing the Vancouver Sun reels for a number of BC Liberal Party leadership conventions (to shamelessly name-drop a page that I created yesterday). Can someone who has access to these reels look up the ballot results of the following:

In each case, the Sun's coverage will appear two days *after* the dates listed above (they didn't run a Sunday edition in those days).

My thanks to anyone who actually does this,

CJCurrie 02:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1952 Election[edit]

I thought I'd explain my heavy editing and deletions to the materials about the 1952 election. A lot of it didn't relate to the Liberals at all -- just meanderings about Bennett and CCF and pacts with Tom Uphill. All very nice but not relevant to the Liberals. The main message is that they lost badly and went off into the wilderness. What the others did is for entries elsewhere, in my opinion.


"Liberal Party of British Columbia"[edit]

It's my understanding that Liberal Party of British Columbia has never been the formal name of this organization. The proper name is British Columbia Liberal Party-- this is reflected in the majority of media useage, the Elections BC's registry, and the party itself. Up she goes onto Wikipedia:Requested moves -The Tom 22:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose A redirect will do the job just as well. --Spinboy 19:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since Violet has this really breeder idea that I have to explain my strong objection, I will. It has to do with that as far as I am aware, everyone knows it as Liberal Party of British Columbia. --Spinboy 23:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Obviously being from the UK I'm not in the best position to argue this, but "everyone knows it as..." isn't a particularly easy point to prove. Google searching shows it to be less popular and the Elections BC page is quite a strong source, I would say. If you want the common name then "B.C. Liberals" seems popular at their official site, but I'm not surprised they shorten it and "Liberals of B.C." doesn't sound as good. Just seems odd to me that you're so dead set against the move. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Last I checked, wikipedia policy was to use the common usage name, not necessarily the legal name. --Spinboy 23:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • But is it the common name? I'd be willing to say that "Liberal Party of British Columbia" is not how people refer to them in common speech. And as I said the Google search indicates otherwise. I think it'd be close enough for either to be acceptable, to be honest. violet/riga (t) 23:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I suggest we hold off a few days. I posted this on Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board, so maybe we'll get some more feedback. --Spinboy 00:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I've move it back for now because there were remaining double redirects when you undid the move. Looking at the incoming links that only goes to strengthen the decision to have it at British Columbia Liberal Party. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • [edit conflict] For gods sake I was just explaining the move when you undid it again! Please accept the decision for now as you will soon be violating the (spirit of the) 3RR. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • You will also be violating it, I will leave it, but I will put a tag on disputing the name. --Spinboy 00:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I think you're a power-hungry bitch, Violet. --Spinboy 00:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Really nice thing to say to someone trying to help out. You're being stupid about this, having not presented a decent argument and reverting a change without any discussion. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm not required to argue it, just oppose it. My reasons are allowed to be my own. There was no consensus. --Spinboy 00:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • If you disagree with a decision someone makes it is good practise to discuss it before undoing it, especially with page moves. There does not have the be consensus to move a page, and you were outvoted 2 to 1 anyway, with no decent argument presented at the time. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Correct name of the party. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I wish to note that the debate is still ongoing, and that the move is not final. --Spinboy 00:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Again we disagree - you've begun a second discussion to undo a decision that has been made. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm allowed to put it up again. There was no consensus. --Spinboy 00:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Never said you weren't, just that this is a separate discussion. Oh, and you've forgotten the {{move}} tag. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I see the tag, what about it?--Spinboy 00:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Follow the guidelines at WP:RM and add the notice to the top of this page. violet/riga (t) 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Are your hand broken? Could you have not done it yourself? --Spinboy 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • You're the one wanting to move it. violet/riga (t) 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to Liberal Party of British Columbia[edit]

The common name is Liberal Party of British Columbia. --Spinboy 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I should clarify, if you vote support in this section, you are voting to change the name back. --Spinboy 01:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

  • Oppose for the following reasons:
    1. The argument for common use is wrong when Google shows more hits for "British Columbia Liberal Party" than for "Liberal Party of British Columbia", which is boosted by mirrors of this article, and the incoming links favour the former. I doubt people refer to them with the full name usually anyway.
    2. The party itself uses the name B.C. Liberal Party as a short form (
    3. The Elections BC's registry and Legislative Assembly of BC list it as "British Columbia Liberal Party".
  • violet/riga (t) 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for violet's reasons, as well as the fact that Liberal Party of British Columbia is NOT the common name. As a British Columbian and keen political follower, I can vouch for this. -The Tom 19:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the above reasons. -- Flag of Canada.svg Earl Andrew - talk 05:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 16:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Add any additional comments

I am confused the current WP:RM page says Talk:Liberal Party of British Columbia -- Liberal Party of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Liberal Party --Spinboy 00:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) If this is not what this vote is about please enter a new request on the WP:RM page and remove the current one. Having done that place the request line from the WP:RM page at the top of the "Requested move" section Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


A notice that I have put up a request for arbitration in regards to User:Violetriga. --Spinboy 05:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separation of Liberal-Conservative Coalition into separate article[edit]

I've been compiling historical provincial electoral district returns and habitually created links for Liberal-Conservative Coalition, which as it turns out happens to redirect here. I think the Coalition should have its own page, as it's not the direct "property" of either provincial Grits or Tories and very much a political beastie in its own right, as well as a particular period in the province's history. Pages which listed in previous linked each word in the title separately, e.g. [[Liberal]]-[[Conservative]] [[coalition]], with the coalition a small-c. Which it wasn't, i.e. it was a capital-lettered name and a "party" in its own right. Not prepared to write an article about the era yet but, as said, I think it shouldn't redirect here.Skookum1 22:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would make far more sense to list the various candidates as either Liberal or Conservative, and then by means of a footnote point out that the parties chose not to compete against one another during those years. The Tom 23:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a murky subject; some of them became Socreds later, too. IMO the Coalition was virtually another party, with a common caucus and its own platform (not two); and as I said it's a major period in BC political history, and the only alliance of its kind in the province's history (Socreds weren't a unite-the-right thing so much as a grassroots/populist thing; the current BCLP is just hijacked, and that's all there is to it; but it's not openly a Coalition, as was "the Coalition" (as it's put in all the histories I've read). I see your point about the two parties; and the lack of a current Coalition article (an oversight IMO; I might write a stub later just to get rid of the redlinks) adds fuel to splitting it back; but to me this is a change that has to be written in; if someone types the Liberal-Conservative Coalition now it redirects ONLY to the BC Liberal Party, and that's just not right (even if Hart and Johnson, the two Coalition Premiers, were originally Grits). Coalition is what people looking it up might type, and that will go to the Coalition disambig, obviously enough. Your alternative I guess could be "Coalition (Liberal" or "Coalition (Conservative)"; but there's still a need for a common Coalition colour.Skookum1 02:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to avoid the need for a separate colour. My understanding is that it functioned much the same way the Liberal-National arrangement works in Australia. Single slate, separate leaders, candidates nominally associated with one side or the other but using the Coalition name on the ballot The Tom 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect introduction[edit]

The current introduction of this article has a incorrect definition of neoliberalism. "liberal" in neo-liberalism refers to (new) liberal economics.

Links to feds?[edit]

The party is not formally linked to the similarly-named Liberal Party of Canada active on the federal level.

Didn't this change in the Martin era? Also, the intro should clarify that the current party is very different from its pre-1970s predecessor of the same name (despite having the same constitution/charter).Skookum1 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note re WP:COI (conflict of interest guidelines)[edit]

To party members who may wish to edit the article: please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest concerning members of organizations editing articles about those organizations. this is a general comment/warning being placed on all BC political party pages because of problems with some articles...If you are a member of the Liberal Party of BC you should not be editing this article!!.Skookum1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think if you are a member of the Liberal Party, **OR ANY OTHER PARTY** (example, the NDP), you should not be editing this entry. --WikiMart 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pat McGeer[edit]

This article already existed solely as a basketball bio, with no mention of his poiltical career. I gave it a start, cribbing from the UBC Sports Hall of Fame bio, but lots more shoudl be added; I put in what I put in mostly so he could be categorized properly; not sure of his Liberal leadership dates, which cabinet portfolios etc....someone here hopefully knows more, or would like to research this more; Pat was "orphaned".....(and I don't ahve a cite for the plywood satellite dish but it's probably online somewhere). Oh one more cat to add there which seems viable - "futurist".Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong Allan Williams link[edit]

The link meant to lead to Liberal-turned-Social Credit politician Allan Williams actually direct to an entirely different Allan Williams, the original manager of the Beatles. Ken Burch 7:54 11 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re dissociation from the federal party[edit]

Re this in the lede:

Previously affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada, the British Columbia Liberal Party has been independent of its federal counterpart since the late 1980s.

Because I added the fact tag I didn't also emend this to add that the reason for this is that the BC Liberals include many members and attract many backers and voters who otherwise vote Conservative nationally and before that Alliance/Reform, and likewise the old bedrock of the Social Credit who are anti-leftist. Not having this explained leaves that line "hanging". But there's a lot of unsaid stuff in this article so far, isn't there?Skookum1 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not "Conservative liberalism", decidedly Neoconservative[edit]

A quick read through the conservative liberalism is enough to demonstrate that the BC Liberals, at least in their current post-2001 incarnation, do not qualify; they are clearly neoconservative and widely known to be such, and include a number of hard-right members; they are "Liberal In Name Only" and are known to be farther to the right than the federal Conservatives; many of their members and backers are ex-Reform/Alliance and campaign for as Tories, and the party is noted for its close ties to the US GOP (Republican Party), particularly its privatization and Christian-right wings; it's authoritarian in nature, elitist and oligarchic by behaviour and bears no resemblance even to the days of Boss Johnson, certainly less so to Duff the Gordon Wilson era it was left-of-centre and decidedly socially and economically liberal; that ended with the takeover by the Campbell faction. It may be true that historically (pre-1952) the party was "conservative liberal", but socially liberal it never was, certainly not like the federal Liberals. Having "conservative liberalism" in the infobox, despite long-ago traits of that, is not suitable given the misrepresentation of the current party as anything but neoconservative; I've changed this once, no doubt it will be changed back; press cites for the current incarnation of the party being neoconservative abound, whereas it would be difficult to point to examples of any kind of social or economic liberalism (otehr than neoliberalism, which is about privatization and allegedly-small and an uregulated economy and is really indistinguishable from neoconservatism. Any party that attacks and undermines social programs, has homophobic loudmouths as candidates/MLAs, law-and-order ex-police cabinet ministers, anti-tax fanatics and espouses the privatization of government infrastructure should not be thought of as liberal in any terminology, other than the name that it holds. If they weren't neoconservatives, the Premier and other high-ranking members and MLASs wouldn't have been invited to speak at neoconservative organization conferences in the US....."conservative liberals: they're not.Skookum1 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not Neocons, they are Neolibs but they are also Conserative Liberals, Liberals with a Conservative agenda, and that is what they are.

"Liberals with a Conservative agenda' is not the defition of Conservative liberalism. And they are not Liberals in the slightest, other than by name, i.e. only in the capital-L sense.Skookum1 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservative v. Neoconservative: reply to Palpatine[edit]

I reversed your change from Conservative to Neoconservative. As in my edit comment, it's well-known on all sides in BC that the party and the Premier and certain cabinet ministers in particular are closely linked to the Fraser Institute, which is one of the core institutions of Canadian neoconservatism and brags about it (though it likes the word "libertarian" especially when rationalizing its more excess beliefs and policies). And as I said in the edit comment, it's ironic that a cite not using "Neoconservative" and choosing "Conservative" instead would be another of the province's neoconservative institutions, namely the flagship paper of CanWest Global. IIRC (though I'll read it again) that site does make mention of the Fraser Institute (as does the article text), which to anyone familiar with that institution, on right or left, is unmistakeably neoconservative. Including agreeing with American foreign policy (which true-blue Conservatives never used to do). Another reason that "Conservative", esp. with a capital C is unpalatable, is that that of course is the name of another party, both provincially and federally. The BC Liberals are a coalition, with maybe some real Liberals on the backbench and mostly neocons in cabinet....cites in places like The Tyee and Canadian Dimension for this are legion...I do find it amusing that the Vancouver Sun doesn't see fit to admit it, despite often extolling the Fraser Institute's august wisdoms itself.......further ironic is your username, are plans for slaughtering the young Jedi going, Emperor-to-be? Just kidding....neoconservatism is not American property either as an ideology or as a word; it has different meanings in different countries, and different politics in different Canada it's more connected to corporatism but it is shored up by the religious right and the usual redneck specctrum of the BC right. "untramelled free enterprise" with a maniacal faith in the wisdom of the market, and in restraint/anti-tax spending is all part of it. It may not be what you in the States (if that's where you are) call it, but it's called neoconservatism in Canada......and anyone familiar with BC's news knows that the Liberals are, well, just a bit more complicated than simply a small-c conservative party. "Radical" is a term that comes to mind, and in fact the Fraser Institute ilkes to bandy about the phrase "radical liberalism" (for over-the-top libertarianism....).Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You say all these things yet they all sound like your personal opinion, with no evidence to back it up, other than two websites, one of which is a small-time non-mainstream news source and the other which doesn't even work. The BC Liberals seem like a fairly standard centre-right party who are on the neoliberal side of liberalism and are liberal conservative. Looking at the page for neoconservatism, very little there seems to apply to them. They may be allied with the Fraser institute, but the Fraser institute is, as you say yourself, mostly a libertarian thinktank. Enigma00 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The Fraser Institute's libertarian side is equally complemented by its arch-NeoConservative foundation. What else are Michael Walker and Michael Campbell but neo-conservatives? Your opinion that the Liberals "seem like" a "fairly standard centre-right party" is ludicrous and unsupported by any current media/academic analyses of this party; Gordon Wilson's party was centre-right, Gordon Campbell's is arch-right.Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideology - "Liberalism" and "Liberal Conservatism" are NOT correct[edit]

The current regime, aka the Campbell Liberals, are notable for NOT having any connection with traditional liberalism in BC, and even more than the MiniWac Socreds (1975-1991) have extremely close ties to the Fraser Institute, which is one of the main mouthpieces for neoconservatism not just in Canada, but in all of North America. Pretending that connection does not exist is nonsense. While it's true that the historical Liberal Party (pre-1975) was "Liberal conservative" and, earlier one, even "liberal" by the standards of the time (e.g. the Pattullo administration), and that the Wilson Liberals who "brought the party back from the wilderness" were "real" Liberals, i.e. a centre party with leanings towards the social welfare state and social liberalism, but a fiscally conservative approach, there's NO WAY that either label applies to the party since 1996 when Campbell & Co. took over. That the party is (now) neo-conservative is widely supported, even in the mainstream media (who are not a reliable source for politics in BC, anything but); as an alliance of Tories, ex-Reform Party folks, a very few old-guard Liberals and a smattering of Socreds and various opportunists, does not equal either "liberalism" or "liberal conservatism". In light of all this, the Ideology section in the infobox should just be left empty, or not mentioned; unless qualified with "1903-1996: Liberalism. 1996-present NeoConservativism".Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I still don't think you're providing much in the way of evidence for your claims, but would you accept listing "Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Liberalism" as ideologies? I think this is accurate, and perhaps a good compromise. I don't believe "neo-conservative" is an accurate term for the party, as they do not advocate and enact the kinds of policies that are typical of Neoconservative republicans in the US. Enigma00 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You're not very famliar with them and all they've done and said, then; they're more Republican than the Republicans, except for most of them not being arch-Christian conservatives (they do include that element, however). There is NO WAY Gordon Campell is a traditional liberal, big-L or small-l, and his policies are too radical to be "conservative", and "neoliberalism" supposes that they have any ideology at all; and in fact you'd be hard to find one, it's all about expediency and radical free-market policies and the destruction of government in favour of contracting government services out to the public sector, and also privatizing public assets like the railway and the hydro resources and more. I'll find some cites for the "neo-conservative" NOT, I repeat do NOT, confuse this party with the relatively-liberal federal Liberal Party of Canada; a clue to the BC Party's orientation is that their colours are red and blue, because they've got so many federal Tories - and ex-Reform Party people- that the traditional Liberal red would be unsuitable; they're so far right that the provincial Conservatives are now appearing to be "centre right", since the Liberals are "far right".....Skookum1 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

POV on 1991-1995 section[edit]

The language/account in this section is heavily biased against Wilson:

Wilson's policies did not coincide with many other Liberals both in the legislature and in the party who wanted to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of Social Credit. The Liberals also proved themselves to be inexperienced, both in the legislature and in building a broad-based political movement. They had a difficult time to build a disciplined organization that could mount an effective opposition against the New Democrat government.

The latter two sentences in particular are a gross distortion; the Liberals under Wilson proved quite effective in Opposition and if not for the scandal with Tyabji and the related leadership challenge, might have won in 1996; a poll history for that era would help to cite that, Wilson remained very popular with the public, including during the leadership challenge and in spite of his peccadillo with Tyabji. Proof of Wilson's policies not coinciding with "many" other Liberals in the House needs substantiation; yes, Gary Farrell-Collins was restive about Wilson and was seen as a federal-Liberal "mole" (he's the same Gary Collins who was about to take the stand in the BC Rail trial when it was suddenly ended by the controversial plea bargain/sentencing/court costs "deal"). As with distorted statements in the lede, now corrected, to me this section shows signs of COI editing by the Campbellite/Marrissenite p.r. crew.Skookum1 (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

J.A. MacDonald[edit]

The leader listed under the first three "Election Results" is J.A. Macdonald. This links to a disambiguation page that does not include this person. (Sir John A. was dead by this time, so it can't be him - and the others appear to have represented Canadians in other provinces with no mention of being the first leader of the BC Libs.) (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

reducing size of government[edit]

Michaelm has deleted from the article reference to the current BC Liberal government trying toreduce the size ofthe provincial government. Can anyone confirm this, or, could Michaelm kindly provide some information relating tothis? Thanks. Kevintoronto 00:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was this responded to? The Liberals did reduce the size of government in 2001 in both budgetary and staff ways, as well as by selling Crown assets. The scope and scale of reduction was quite significant, and has caused a relative increase in the proportion of budget that health care and education occupy. This may need its own Wiki article, as it is a significant activation of a neo-liberal agenda.
--Sookevista (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
You're a laugh riot, and sound pretty much like someone from the Public Affairs Bureau, the government/Liberal propaganda/p.r. agency. Selling off Crown assets by giving them to people who backed the party's election, and the leader's takeover in 1995, doesn't exactly downsize govenrment - Crown corps were not part of "the government", they were publicly-owned assets flogged off by and to partisan interests. As for "budgetary and staff ways", privatizing government agencies and services into the hands of often-American-owned outsourcers did not reduce the power of presence of those agencies, and in many ways increased them, and whatever money was saved was blown on the Olympics. Increasing spending on health care, you say? Then why were there so many budget cuts that emergency rooms and care homes had to be shut down, often with fatal consequences (those budgetary cuts also went to pay for the Olympics). Schools?? Gimme a break, school funding has been increasingly in crisis since the Liberals took over and not a few schools have closed, and whole types of programs have been ditched. That's done nothing to the scale of either Education or Health ministries, and those aren't really "government" in teh same way the bloated ranks of Liberal appartchiks staffing once-non-partisan positions - and also the aforementioned Public Affairs Bureau, which got bigger and bigger. I suppose refusing to recognize the Opposition and give them their usual salaries/funding/office space saved a few pennies, huh? Another thing that got bigger, most pointedly, the size of the cabinet, which Campbell promised to reduce the size of and then over-doubled it, following it up by regular increases in salary for himself and other MLAs (yeah the NDp accepted it, but the NDP are piggies at the trough like all other MLAs); the cabinet became the largest in history, with the largest cabinet budget in history, too. Government has gotten, effectively, BIGGER and more powerful, albeit too-often "privatized" or PPPd as has graft and corruption and other ways to funnel public money to friends in teh private sector; costs have risen on thigns like highways contracts, which like so much else have been shown to have been tendered by tainted processes...."it needs its own wiki-article?" LOL yeah sure, so long as it's NPOV and COIers don't take part in "writing" it.....what, exactly, do you think needs its own wiki-article. A treatise on how the Liberals allegedly reduced the size of government by giving it to their friends??.Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the BC Liberals be included in a Conservative parties template?[edit]

Please see Template talk:Canadian Conservative Parties for a discussion of whether or not the BC Liberal Party be included in this list of Conservative parties? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

COI censorship by IP user again[edit]

this edit removed cited material which should be restored, this one supplanted and referenced the "new" POV claim of being "centre to centre right". Both publications are from the UofT Press so equally "valid", but the COI nature of the second one might be (very likely) discoverable. This entire section (cited on the Wilson and other pages if not here) was also removed on the first edit: <quote>First elected into provincial government in 1916, the party went into decline after 1952, with its rump caucus merging with the Social Credit Party of British Columbia for the 1975 election. It was returned to the legislature through the efforts of Gordon Wilson in a break-through in the 1991 election. At this time, the Social Credit Party had collapsed, with the BC Liberals able to garner the centre vote traditionally split between left and right in British Columbia provincial politics. After Wilson lost a leadership challenge in the wake of a personal scandal in a bitter three-way race, the party was led by Gordon Campbell, who became Leader of the Opposition after Wilson's convention defeat. In the wake of the electoral collapse of the British Columbia New Democratic Party (BC NDP) in the 2001 election, the Campbell-led BC Liberals won an overwhelming majority in 2001. In November 2010, after mounting public opposition to a new tax and the controversial ending of a political corruption trial, and with low popularity ratings, Campbell announced his resignation, and on February 26, 2011, Christy Clark was elected as the party's new leader and thereby became 35th Premier of British Columbia.</quote> Isn't it interesting how loudly complaints were made about changes to the Dix page when the same vein of edits are made here without a peep. Of course, only one "side" is making such edits, and such complaints. I'm not going to bother restoring the deleted section, so I'm not "outed" and slandered in teh Vancouver Sun again for "somebody wants to keep XXX out of the YYY article". I hope other responsible wikipedians take note of these and both monitor this article and revert/integrate such edits instead of tolerating wanton censorship and revisionism by IP interlopers with obvious partisan agendas. Granted, I'm 15 hours ahead so other Canadians and BCers aren't awake yet; I remember middle-of-the-night-in-Canada when this kind of thing was going on before here, and on the Dix article, and so on.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Party's ideology — more complicated than "centre right"[edit]

It seems to me, that in the wake of Premier Clark's election, this article could use a more thoughtful examination of the party's ideology. Bluntly stating that it is a "centre right" or "conservative" party seems simplistic, considering polls show the party has a ton of federal Liberal supporters [1], including the current premier. The party does rely on Conservative networks for much of its organization and campaigning, but Liberal ones as well. Several of Premier McGuinty's top strategists were flown out to assist the 2013 Clark campaign, for instance [2].

Likewise, there are a number of issues where the party has opposed the federal Conservatives, and indeed, mainstream Canadian conservative opinion in general, such as the carbon tax and Vancouver's safe injection site.

In some of the discussions above, it's clear a lot of commenters/editors have simply hated the BC Liberals, and have presumed the party to be a radical, right-wing party on little evidence other than their own personal opinion. In the article itself, many of the "centre right" or "conservative" citations simply site authors who have described the party as conservative in passing, because that's the "conventional wisdom" but not because of a serious analysis of what the party actually believes.

I do not consider myself a BC Liberal supporter, but I do think the party is probably most accurately described as an "anti-NDP coalition" that supports broadly neo-liberal policies and is closer to the "centre" of the political spectrum than the "centre right" per se. I think you could make the case that it's one of the most aggressively pro-centre parties in Canada, in fact, at least in the sense that the data suggests it is indeed an alliance between the federal Libs and Tories, who are usually understood to represent the competing ideological poles of federal politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

federal Libs and Tories, who are usually understood to represent the competing ideological poles of federal politics is a complete fallacy, and quite frankly IMO is a lie, and both are considered right wing, and the BC Liberals are noted repeatedly as being farther to the right than Harper's Tories. But this is not a place to forum, you can claim not to be a BC Liberal supporter not a Tory one, but WP:DUCK; BC politics has been polarized between right and left since the 1930s, and that polarity wasn't Liberal/Conservative. What the poles are in federal politics does not apply in understanding BC politics, and that's such a truism it seems inane to have to remind anyone of it. Until this current regime, though, it's true that the feds kept out of BC politics rather than directly sending in technical/political support on behalf of one of right-wing coalition. Rewriting and reinterpreting history adn reality seems to be a major spin game these days, pretending that the BC Liberals are "hard centre" is not just a lie, it's WP:Original research on your part. The battle over the ideology in the infobox here has been going on for a long time; BC Liberal supporters always wanting to purge the cited references to descriptions of them as neoliberal, neoconservative and so on are not going to go away; and they outnumber by far the POV sources claiming that they are liberal, centre or anything else.Skookum1 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives "are considered right wing?" That contradicts the entire idea that Harper gets elected because the "left" vote is split, something Libs, Greens, and NDPers all seem to believe on some level. And "farther to the right than Harper's Tories? Even though they're to the left of the Harper Tories on safe injection sites and the carbon tax? This sort of partisanship just shows how we need some objective standard of measuring ideology.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

de-watchlisting this page, tired of the propaganda efforts to "soap" it[edit]

After considering my previous reply to yet another "I am not a BC Liberal supporter" who advances views that are overtly BC Liberal/partisan in nature, and given the false accusations against me re related topics that were made into a front-page issue by a "reliable source" who clearly wasn't reliable, I realize that the war over this page's content is never going to end; there are enough experienced, conscientious editors now aware of the thorny problems of ideology and partisanship that will always be trying to use Wikipedia to promote/spin their agenda, and blame partisan bias on the part of those editors who stand in their way. It's tiresome, and time-consuming, and unlike those many IP users and SPAs who come along with overtly partisan intent, I don't get paid nor have any political allegiances. Wikipedia famously is not about WP:TRUTH anyway, it's about citability ...... what constitutes a "reliable source" will always be an issue in BC, and re the national media, which is famously right-wing and anti-left wing despite the usual neocon complaint that the media are left-wing (har de har har har). The facts of what is being done to BC Hydro, what was done to BC Rail, what's really going on with provincial finances/debts are not in teh "reliable sources" but in "blogs" that are where the citable facts are to be found. Posturing by "I am not a BC Liberal supporter" people who push BC Liberal/federal Tory talking points is never going to stop, and I have been made a touchstone for their resentment against Wikipedia not caving into their wishes. To date, the Sun reporter who published a series of lies and distortions "stands by his article" and "has no regrets" and violated his Wikipedia usership with nearly every post, and with every article he published; I contacted him after all that about the edit war going on on t his page, which was clearly another partisan content-war, and he said he woudl refer it to his editors who may cover it. But they did not, nor of cousre were interested in anythign that diverges from their own advertorial agenda......clearly partisan from the get-go including aping what IP users had to say, including trying to get my blocked to silence me. You can have the playpen to yourselves now; it will always be a sandbox getting rained on and made muddy by people not wanting to admit to the facts and actually deleting cited materials as has often happened here; without a peep from teh "reliable sources" who made such a big issue over my role here, but had nothing to add other than more accusations and false representations about myself, and about Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is never so much fuss about NDP or Green or provincial Tory articles; it's only the BC Liberal articles which are subject to such ongoing partisan activity. 'Nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Columbia Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Party colour[edit]

Mainstream Research has now indicated that the party colour is Navy Blue. The parties website, campaign bus, and advertisements are all primarily navy blue. A changing of the colour might be in order, potentially something like the namesake Liberal Party of Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles lindberg (talkcontribs) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Early Years"[edit]

The section "Early Years" is undescriptive and seems to either have parts cut out, or replaced with a non-NPOV statement. Please fix! -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Interim leaders count[edit]

Interim leaders perform the function of leadership even if it in a stop-gap period.

Therefore interim leaders should count.

Alternatively just get rid of the numbers and let the reader to come up with their own conclusion on this. (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkinson is still leader?[edit]

Zussman seems to be reporting that Andrew Wilkinson is still leader of the party. It seems when Wilkinson resigned he only resigned as leader of the opposition, not party leader. So Shirley Bond may only be the caucus leader, not party leader. Not sure how we should deal with this. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is the term "Hung Parliament" used instead of "Minority Parliament"?[edit]

The term "Hung Parliament" is not typically used in Canada when referring to a Minority Parliament. If one looks at the Wiki for "Hung Parliament", the reason for this is quite clear: The idea of a Hung Parliament pertains to a situation in which no party has an automatic mandate to form government; in contrast, in Canada, the party with the most seats is always offered the chance to form government. This is why the NDP/Green government had to be formed after a non-confidence vote against the Liberals, who had automatically been offered the chance to govern after winning the most seats. (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Eh?