(Your Colour Here) Libs

John Ibbitson's latest is worth highlighting mostly for a distinction which I'd think deserves more attention:

There are a great many voters who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. In the past, they have supported the Liberal Party, in part because it won elections and in part because these voters distrusted the strain of social intolerance they detected within the Progressive Conservative/Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservative parties.

We could call these people Manley Liberals, in honour of John Manley, the former Chrétien cabinet minister who is currently the head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Many Manley Liberals will have noted that the Liberal Party no longer wins elections, and that it reversing many of its own former policies.

As it becomes increasingly clear that Mr. Harper is keeping whatever socially conservative tendencies he might have in check, the temptation for Manley Liberals to switch to the Conservatives grows.

So what's important about Ibbitson's description? I'd argue that he takes a step toward ending the usual "red Lib/blue Lib" dichotomy - even as he misses the significance of the distinction by painting them as properties of blue Libs generally.

On the one hand, there's certainly reason to separate out blue Libs as normally described, being those who hold an ideological position favouring economic conservatism and (in some cases) social liberalism. And there's not much doubt that such a wing would naturally be attracted to the Cons if the Libs become weaker - which is where the Cons' efforts to split up the Libs' coalition make sense.

But there's also a third group which I'd describe as the (Your Colour Here) Libs, being the substantial element of the party which is mostly attracted to the prospect of playing a significant role in winning power regardless of what policies get implemented as a result. (The current litmus test for this group: anybody who's arguing as fervently against corporate tax cuts now as they argued for them back when the Libs were the ones proposing them.)

Now, some within the third branch may wish to take the easiest path to power via the Cons. And indeed at least a few have already done so.

But those who have stuck with the Libs thus far figure to be more attracted to a party which offers the chance to stake out a position within a developing governing coalition, rather than one with a top-down structure which reserves plum positions for those who have demonstrated past loyalty. So there's reason for hope that if the Lib coalition splits, enough of its component parts might well gravitate toward a progressive alternative to give the NDP (or other left competitor) a strong chance at winning power in short order.