# Belinda joins Liberals!!!!!!!!



## CarbonJohn (Mar 26, 2005)

Whole new ballgame now!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

And Elizabeth II shall run for the premiership of Alberta!!!!!

Seriously, is this an actual event re B.Stronach, or your speculation? I see nothing on the news sites re this matter.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Government in Canada is now officially one big self-serving joke. I am ashamed to be Canadian at this moment. That is all I have to say about that.

Mel


----------



## CarbonJohn (Mar 26, 2005)

Press conference right now


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Unbelieable!!!! Thanks for the link, CarbonJohn.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I know it's trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I can't help wondering what's going to happen to the Stronach/McKay "alliance."

Seriously: this is an incredible happening. I'd been thinking that an NS or Nfld/Lab Tory or two might cross the floor, but I always figured Stronach was the next Conservative leader, not the next Liberal minister of HRD. Still, it's not so surprising when you consider that she's more of an old-fashioned Red Tory than a contemporary Reform-a-Tory.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Sweet!

/working on my Sean Connery\Jeopardy! imitation for Mr. Harper


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martin pulls a Chretien and steals the next bright light. Blows me away.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMatt, the two Conservative MPs from NL, Doyle and Hearn, have been under great pressure to vote for the budget to pass the Atlantic Accord, which was stuck in to this budget. Even NL Premier Danny Williams, a Conservative, is urging them to pass the budget. Polls are showing a strong 4 to 1 favoring of this passage among Conservatives in these two ridings (I am in Norm Doyle's St.John's East riding). Still, even though neither man strongly supported Harper in the leadership race, they shall stand by him now. We shall see the end result of this action.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Who is the current Minister of Human Resources?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Unbelievable. Pretty much finishes Harper IMHO.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Who is the current Minister of Human Resources?


Lucienne Robillard.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Who is the current Minister of Human Resources?


She takes over from Lucienne Robillard who had been HRDC minister and national campaign co-chair.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

This is huge. Huge. Not only did she cross the floor, but she's called Harper on what no Tory wanted to admit. The Conservatives have dug themselves into a pit with the separatists and risk pulling the entire country into it, should the budget be defeated on Thursday. 

Add Stronach's vote plus a few disaffected Conservative votes from the <a href="http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=51f88a66-2d1f-4220-87f1-fbd326366cbd">Newfoundland caucus</a> and it's becoming increasingly clear now that Harper and Duceppe don't have the votes they need to defeat the government. 

Now Harper faces six long months of internal fighting and finger-pointing before the writs are dropped. 

Which goes to show you (once again) that in Canadian politics, one day you're the rooster, the next day you're the feather duster.

And vice versa.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dr. G, I think it might actually be easier for those MPs to cross the floor than to vote against their party on a confidence motion. If they vote against their party, they will probably be expelled from caucus anyway, so by crossing the floor they stand to gain the benefits of being in the government caucus instead of being cast adrift as independents.

Still, with the Stronach move I suspect you are right: if they strongly believe they belong within the Conservative Party, these Atlantic MPs can now vote with Harper and still see the budget passed...and it now seems almost certain that it will pass.

No matter how you slice it, this is a huge blow to Stephen Harper.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

WOW... unbelievable. Sit back folks you are looking at a future Prime Minister with her.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It still doesn't mean a Non-Confidence vote would fail, but it certainly complicates things a bit. Speculatively, the Opposition and Government were tied, with the Speaker (a Liberal member) having the opportunity to vote to break a tie, which is the only time he can vote.

Still, there were other scenarios that would have one side or another prevail by a vote or three. Dr G is quite right when he says there is nothing decided yet.

Ms Stronarch's move represents a 2-vote swing by itself. This may well cause some whom people had expected to vote with the government or abstain to change their position; it most certainly will be the the basis for some rather strong and insistent lobbying by Mr Harper and his allies to change the minds of people like the Conservative Members from NFLD.

There were about 6 votes that were in one way or another swing votes, so 2 may well not be enough by itself. But, should they lose, it has major implications for the election to follow as well, and certainly does not harm Mr Martin's chances of re-election; whatever they may be.

On the other hand, it is a major blow to Mr Harper in almost every respect, politically and personally, and is bound to raise doubts within his party and amongst Conservative members about his ability to lead.

A crisis for him, his proper course of action is to show the very leadership this development calls into question and convince those around him to rally around his cause and his leadership. A crisis is always also an opportunity. We shall see what he's made of in the next few days and weeks, I'm sure.

Politically, it's not much of a change for Belinda. Her father Frank was a staunch "Blue" Liberal his whole life and Belinda is very much a Red Tory, so the politics aren't really different; she doesn't have to change her position on anything.

I did find her comments about Mr Harper allying with the Bloc to take the Government down quite interesting (she basically said she could not find it in her conscience to ally with separatists to bring down an elected government, no matter what the stripe). I would not be surprised to discover that if there is a forced election, that Mr Harper will find himself defending charges he allied with the devil; in a party whose manifesto is the breakup of Canada. I wonder if other Tories are troubled by this as much as she is? It could be quite a fire for Mr Harper to put out, if it comes to that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

pg, as of this morning, on our local St.John's CBC radio, both Conservative MPs said that they were still going to vote with their party against the budget. We shall see if this stands up, because both Conservative MPs have said that they want to run again. However, the tide may be changing here in St.John's, and the Liberals and NDP actually have a chance to possibly get one of these seats. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Norm Doyle, Conservative MP from St.John's East, has just been interviewed on CBC St.John's. He is now wavering and said that he will wait and see what takes place on Thursday before he makes up his mind how he shall vote. Conservative MP from St.John's South, now says "It depends how the Atlantic Accord is presented in the budget" before he shall make up his mind on a final decision. What a difference one "walk across the floor" makes in the minds of these two politicians who were truly torn on this issue. 

Stay tuned for the latest from St.John's, where the first votes of any election are cast in all of Canada.


----------



## InsomniMac (Apr 1, 2005)

Melonie said:


> Government in Canada is now officially one big self-serving joke. I am ashamed to be Canadian at this moment. That is all I have to say about that.
> 
> Mel


Yah know, I felt the same way... so instead of bitching and whining about it (the Canadian way eh?!) I decided to join a party and volunteer during the campaign.
I don't have a lot of time as a small business owner and parent butt I figure things ain't gonna change unless we all take part...
It's people like you that shame me into being a Canuck.


InsomniMac
- it ain't easy being Green..


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

iMatt said:


> I know it's trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I can't help wondering what's going to happen to the Stronach/McKay "alliance."
> 
> Seriously: this is an incredible happening. I'd been thinking that an NS or Nfld/Lab Tory or two might cross the floor, but I always figured Stronach was the next Conservative leader, not the next Liberal minister of HRD. Still, it's not so surprising when you consider that she's more of an old-fashioned Red Tory than a contemporary Reform-a-Tory.


my thoughts exactly
belinda was the heir apparent with her mentors/backers of mulroney and harris
if harper doesn't form the next gov't stronach would have been their next leader to bring ontario onside

now, the CONs have been marginalized, again
bring back Bill Davis and Joe Clark and the PC party, but too late
Martin moved the Libs to the right to grab the "red tory" vote
too late for harper et al to grab it back

harper's response on CBC 1 pm EDT

let's see what his spin doctors can come up with


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

iMatt said:


> I know it's trivial in the grand scheme of things, but I can't help wondering what's going to happen to the Stronach/McKay "alliance."


Simple! Nothing will happen - everything will be okay. They'll just get separate beds, like Rob and Laura Petrie.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*harper's response now set for 11:40 EDT*

programming note

harper's response now set for 11:40 EDT


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

PM Martin was just quoted as just stating that there would be no overtures to get the two Conservative MPs from NL to cross the floor on the vote on Thursday. The plot thickens.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Hmmmmmm...

Harper will not make huge gains in Ontario... He just doesn't get it...

The Conservatives are non-existant in Quebec...

The Maritimes wants the deal the Liberals are offering...

The Cons have won almost every riding they can win out west...




Where have I heard that before.... MaCcNuttt? Didn't we have that conversation before...? I forget....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I wrote her a note congratulating her on putting the country first.

*[email protected] * http://www.belinda.ca/newpage.asp?pageid=9

I think she read Ontario pretty well and was not being listened to by her caucus.
Do the budget, show governance, wait for Gomery, then vote.

Harper wanted to do none of the above......so he loses......BIG time. I wonder now about McKay.??


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Looks like things are finally coming around for the Libs:
also
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/coyne-running050517.html

Did Harper really think it could be that easy?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> PM Martin was just quoted as just stating that there would be no overtures to get the two Conservative MPs from NL to cross the floor on the vote on Thursday. The plot thickens.


Hmmm...I think this translates as "we'll be introducing another new Liberal MP tomorrow, so there's no need to make overtures to these gents." 

Who's a Red Tory and Stronach ally? Peter McKay? Would he, could he? Somehow I doubt it...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JAMG, actually, Newfoundland and Labrador would like their fair share as well, since we are part of the Atlantic provinces and not the Maritime provinces.

"The Maritimes wants the deal the Liberals are offering..."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iMatt, tune in tomorrow for another episode of "How the Government turns..........all around St.John's".

Seriously, while I have voted once for Norm Doyle, who has served three terms as our MP here in St.John's, I think that strangely enough the main issue that is causing him to side with Harper is their mutual opposition to same sex marriages. It has been rumored that Hearn shall not run in St.John's West in the next election, but run in John Efford's seat, since Efford shall not be running again due to health problems. The days of the Conservatives literally owning the two ridings here in St.John's since NL joined Confederation (1949) may be coming to an end. We shall see.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Dr. G. ...

Please pardon my poor choice of words... 

To the West I am an easterner, to the French a "Tête Carrée", In Traannnnaa, i'm a 905 commuter mooching off of The Big Smoke's prosperity, while not contributing to the Tax Base {Yea.. Right...}

As unfair as it is, most of Canada, wrongly, groups NLFD/Labrador into the Maritimes in the sme manner that all of Canada groups everything between Oshawa and Hamilton into Toronto. No slight is intended.. My Bad...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

That was pretty weak on her part. 

If she wanted to vote her conscience and if she didn’t agree with Harper’s views, she should have sat as an independent. But, to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. At the very least, she should have accepted nothing from Martin.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

She's in a position of power - Harper is not AND she has satisified her riding and her province.



> Stronach's statement
> Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Updated at 11:21 AM EDT
> Globe and Mail Update
> 
> ...


Could not have said it better :clap:

If you can't see it you are as blind and marginalized from an Ontario view as Harper.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

My beliefs about politicians have been proven correct again. No matter what the stripe, they will do whatever it takes to either get elected, stay in power or be in power. 

"I can have a seat if I run for the Headless Chicken party, no problem, I'm in."


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... But, to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. ..."

Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but since when has Belinda NOT been about political opportunism? Or Harper? Or Mr Martin. Wait a minute, they're all like that, except perhaps for the ones who are too "nice" to get nominated at all, let alone elected.

People either hate her or forgive that in her, since, I dunno, about the second day she came upon the scene which, if you remember, was a bid to lead the national party, widely expected at the time to form the next government in a landslide, with no political experience whatsoever. Nah, that's not opportunism.

It's a perfectly good example of "hindsight being 20-20". Yesterday it was not even speculation, today we are stuck wondering why we didn't see it coming, and tomorrow the other "political opportunists" will be saying they knew it all along.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

iMatt said:


> Hmmm...I think this translates as "we'll be introducing another new Liberal MP tomorrow, so there's no need to make overtures to these gents."
> 
> Who's a Red Tory and Stronach ally? Peter McKay? Would he, could he? Somehow I doubt it...


Peter McKay is Stronach's "companion"

If I was running against Peter McKay I would take that quote from Harper's response; "You can't trust someone that changes parties" and run it as a radio and tv spot in McKay's riding over and over and over again.

Belinda kept it professional. Harper made it personal with his; "I am sure Peter (McKay) is most hurt by her decision"

I wonder if Belinda's father, a died in the wool CON, will vote for his daughter?

The Atlantic provinces MPs will be very hard pressed to vote against the budget which now has a huge package for Atlantic Canada.

Harper will hold a caucus meeting before Thursday's budget vote to take stock. I wonder if some of his MPs vote FOR the budget, if he will throw them out of caucus.

Looks like Martin has a bit of the old politician in him after all. Or was this some brilliant strategy by one of his assistants?

You just know the pollsters are jumping on the phones to see what effect this has in Ontario and across the country for Liberal support.

Could it be that Martin wants the budget to fail, and with a majority of Canadians against an election, think that he can win a Liberal majority?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

thank you spell check?


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Thanks Gordguide & Carex. For calling it like it is. I cannot believe the posters on this forum are taking this recent turn so lightly. It is almost surreal....

I am disappointed that ordinary Canadian citizens continue to defend a person whose Daddy is one of Canada's richest businesspersons, who has absolutely no political experience, higher education or political bent - then decides to get herself More Power and run for the neocons? When she realizes she can't climb higher on her "bought" ladder (yes, she bought her riding), she finds the right moment and jumps ship into a plumb liberal cabinet position! With visions of future prime minister-ship, no doubt. Not opportunistic? Yea, sure.

Inflammatory statements such as "If you can't see it you are as blind and marginalized from an Ontario view as Harper." certainly are not in good taste, nor are they of any intrinsic value. I have lived in Ontario all my life, so who are you? My "Ontario view" doesn't count, I guess. Is there a Liberal-approved "Ontario view" posted somewhere on the internet? More like "Macdoc's view", eh? Pompous.



> I wrote her a note congratulating her on putting the country first.


Your action simply illustrates that she can fool many ordinary Canadians. I wouldn't be so quick to show my gullibilities....

She's a political whore, nothing more, nothing less....

This is not how I want my country to be run. I'm not defending any of the top political parties. I worked for Robert Kaplan's campaign in 1968 (Trudeaumania) and have voted Liberal (federally) ever since the last federal election, where I voted Green. Regardless, this country is in big, big trouble.
Conniving, power-plays and pork-barrelling do not make for good country-building.

Mel


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Anything is better than Haprper's seperatism and his party's bigotry.

I still would never vote Liberal. I'm voting for Jack and the NDP!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Melonie, 
Thank YOU.

I'm still trying to figure out Stronach and if the change is genuine but you put it into proper context.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Peter McKay is Stronach's "companion"
> 
> If I was running against Peter McKay I would take that quote from Harper's response; "You can't trust someone that changes parties" and run it as a radio and tv spot in McKay's riding over and over and over again.


I know McKay and Stronach are involved...for now. I doubt it will have much impact on how things play out.

I can see McKay making the switch on purely ideological grounds (whether the Libs would have him is another matter), but I can't see him actually going through with it because, unlike Stronach, he has been very vocal in denouncing the government in recent weeks. Too much backtracking and flip-flopping required, whereas Belinda will be able to sell this as "being true to her ideals." 

Still, I can't help thinking that one or two Red Tories will follow Stronach's lead very shortly. Her departure quite clearly says "the PC-Alliance merger is not working for PCers who still consider themselves 'progressive.'"



> Harper will hold a caucus meeting before Thursday's budget vote to take stock. I wonder if some of his MPs vote FOR the budget, if he will throw them out of caucus.


Yes, I think he would expel them, and if he's smart he's already made that perfectly clear. Perhaps if Harper now decides that the vote is unwinnable (or not worth winning), he will ask certain wavering members to abstain on Thursday, allowing some limited face-saving all around...as opposed to utter humiliation.



> Could it be that Martin wants the budget to fail, and with a majority of Canadians against an election, think that he can win a Liberal majority?


This is an interesting possibility. It seems clear that the Libs have the upper hand now, but I don't think they actually want a spring election. While an election now might be to their advantage for the reason you give, any appearance of engineering a budget defeat would eliminate that advantage. Introducing new high-profile MPs wouldn't help in such a scheme.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Melonie said:


> Conniving, power-plays and pork-barrelling do not make for good country-building.


For good or ill, that's how this country has been built since <i>before</i> Day One. It started with colonial authorities handing out land and various other goodies to their cronies.

Maybe that's why we're in the state we're in? Spend a hundred years looking for another way, pretend we've found another way, suffer crisis after crisis when it becomes clear the "other way" was a sham?

For the record, I agree that Belinda Stronach is a political opportunist. Where I disagree is in the implication that this somehow makes her different.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

iMatt - 

All countries suffer the same problems, with varying degrees of transparency. Greed/selfishness/bull****ting are not strictly a Canadian political syndrome. What we need is a political system that WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT FOR THE POLITICIANS. No one is listening. No one is asking the right questions. We need a political messiah, really, if we are to make any real changes for the better. The status quo will likely maintain...as GW Senior says..."stay the course". Pshaww....

Belinda Stronach's defection IS DIFFERENT. Why?

a) timing - as Church Lady would say "how convenient"!
b) what she "landed" in return for her whoreism (a frikkin cabinet position, for gawd's sake!)
c) the fact that she has been bouncing mattress springs with McKay for some time!

Now, if all politicos were like Carolyn Parrish, I would sleep much better. We need more politicians like her to stir things up and slap a few smug faces. She is no model of perfection, make no doubt, but her integrity is miles above most others in Ottawa.

This is my country and this is your country too. How long will we put up with our country being run like a Monopoly game?

A lot of posters here are wondering what will happen next, instead of concentrating on what has just happened. What's with that? It's like the politicos can do anything they want! Are most Canadians on SOMA or something? Are we so hardened to the fact that our political system sucks so badly that we don't even bother to question basic priorities like motives, ethics and all things "good for the country"?

Mel


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Interestingly, at 11:28 MST, the CBC websites seem to be on their way to crashing. Going to any CBC national or regional site and clicking on any eMail link and you get a server overload message, and things seem to be progressing slowly to affect the whole site.

" ... Yes, I think he would expel them, and if he's smart he's already made that perfectly clear. ..."

Really? This is the same party who refused to expel the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, Jim Pankiw, despite a regular parade of perfectly good opportunities over more than 5 years and two nomination meetings.

Elected as a Reform Candidate in 1997 and then as a Canadian Alliance candidate in 2000, he was suspended from the party in 2001 only after he left voluntarily, joining other CA MPs calling for the resignation of Stockwell Day. He sat with the Progressive-Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus until the election of Stephen Harper.

Mr Harper waited until June 2002 to announce he would refuse to allow him to rejoin the Party. Who knows how long it would have taken, if at all, to expel him had he not left on his own first.

Now, for the kind of MP Dr. Pankiw is: (and this is by no means comprehensive)

Investigations by the RCMP for Hate Crime and the Human Rights Commission of Saskatchewan for promoting racism. Some of the topics of his constituency newsletters, which are paid for by taxpayers:

The Federal Government conspires with Native leaders to hide the evidence that Indians are inherently Criminal.
Wants to abolish the Indian Act.
Wants to abolish Fishing rights.
Wants to abolish bilingualism.
Wants to abolish Affirmative Action.
Wants to make hiring quotas illegal.
Claims he is Pro-Choice. Later introduces a bill into the house to abolish publicly funded abortion, after the wife of a doctor known to perform abortions announces she will oppose him in the next election.

Claims:
Whites are unfairly discriminated against;
English speakers are unfairly discriminated against.
Claims he is "looking out for Native People" because "regular folk" will "resent them" if they "get jobs" when white people are unemployed.
Calls bilingualism "Systemic Discrimination".
Attacked a native lawyer in a bar, "called him outside", while visibly drunk amidst many witnesses. Denies it.
Attacked a reporter for the Star-Phoenix in a meeting chaired by a court-appointed mediator to resolve libel charges.
Sends taxpayer-paid flyers and parliamentary mail outside his constituency, in particular to areas with predominantly poor residents.
The first was titled "Native Crime", followed by a call for the RCMP to investigate Native leaders for "Hate Crime" over the resulting outcry (they declined) and then followed it shortly later with " It's Clear Who The Racists Are.".
Causes Postal workers to face reprimand when they are ordered to deliver his pamphlets by the head of Canada Post.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Melonie said:


> Belinda Stronach's defection IS DIFFERENT. Why?
> 
> a) timing - as Church Lady would say "how convenient"!
> b) what she "landed" in return for her whoreism (a frikkin cabinet position, for gawd's sake!)
> c) the fact that she has been bouncing mattress springs with McKay for some time!


I believe these are differences of degree, not kind (or just peculiarities of the specific situation). Yes, the timing is "convenient," but not really ideal; her cabinet position is her "price" (everyone <i>does</i> have one); and the McKay factor actually should have made the move even less likely than any of us thought and, IMO, improves the chances that she will be able to sell this as a "principled" move. 

Another thing: she may be among the most calculatingly ambitious people we've seen in a long time (Mulroney comes to mind), but being a turncoat may well impose a ceiling on her ambitions. This could prove to be a very poor long-term career move.



> Now, if all politicos were like Carolyn Parrish, I would sleep much better. We need more politicians like her to stir things up and slap a few smug faces. She is no model of perfection, make no doubt, but her integrity is miles above most others in Ottawa.


Unvarnished honesty is a very tough sell in politics. For every one of us who values it, there are three or four more who can't handle it and don't want to hear it...and a couple of journos to bury them for good measure. Remember Kim Campbell? She was right about a number of things in the '93 campaign, but daring to speak them out loud killed whatever slim hope she had.



> This is my country and this is your country too. How long will we put up with our country being run like a Monopoly game?


I've said something similar before: more honest citizens need to be more deeply involved in the process, or the activist clique will continue enjoying its traditional ways of governing. There's the conundrum. Are <i>you</i> willing to drop everything and enter the melee? I'm not. We're in a nasty catch-22 in that the ordinary citizens who could help most are too disgusted by the dirt to even <i>consider</i> getting involved.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My full of contradictions aren't we.

Parrish is MY rep and I support her because she calls it like is as does Hazel McCallion. Strong women politicians *IN POWER.*

Stronach made a bold and decisive move, calls it like it is and switched from a party that is patently NOT listening to the majority in Canada and in Ontario and she's a whore. [rolleyes].

People in Canada to a very large degree wanted this budget and want the parliament to government.
She has maybe made this possible and what's your response.........the same as the attack dogs in Parliament.

First you say she's "inexperienced" then you decry "professional politicians" as scumbags.
Kinda fractured approach.


•••

Machiavelli would be proud.......you gotta BE in power to make change.
Martin has indicated clearly one of her key roles is to work with Martin to keep this sort of scandal from occuring again.

Thursday will tell part of the tale but it's far far from over.


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

WHOOOOO BOY!!!!

If it's political manoeuvering, it's brilliant. Then again, Stronach has always been at odds with some of her parties' policies, including same-sex marriage and partnering with the BQ. It may be opportunism, but not entirely devoid of principle.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

but will her daddy, a life long PC/CON, give her money, vote for her (is he in her riding?) and publicly support her?
or is he on some Aurora street corner muttering to himself and yelling at passing cars?


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

iMatt -

A thoughtful and considered post. Thank you for that!

A few comments:

Ideal timing vs. poor timing is a matter of "wait and see", but she was offered a big fat carrot and took it to further her own fortunes. I believe this is an unprecedented move - to walk across the floor is one thing, (becoming rote these days, is it not?), but crossing the floor into a Cabinet position has, to my knowledge, never happened in Canadian political history, at least modern Canadian political history.

I agree that her credibility will suffer and this move will forever nag at her heels.

Isn't it sad that "unvarnished honesty is a very tough sell in politics". No wonder we do not demand a higher standard of our elected representatives. Not that most of "them" really and truly represent us anyway. That is just lip-service.

I, like you, am not ready nor capable of "dropping everything and entering the melee". What I did say is that what Canada needs is a new "political messiah". Another Lester B. would be a good start. Or another Tommy Douglas even better.

Macdoc -

Please point out a contradiction. Where is the contradiction? Tell me! Enquiring minds want to know!

You want a contradiction? You say Parrish is your rep? Well, a little known fact is that Parrish was begged to come back to caucus last week. Know what? She refused. You support her. You stated that. So now what MacDoc? Eat your words or come up with one of your witty deflections? What'll it be this time? It is you who contradicts yourself, my friend.

People in Canada want this budget? Show me some real, unbiased facts that back up this statement. Please. This means no liberal/NDP-backed web resources that suit your purpose. Arms-length facts only please. 

I don't want this budget! I know many others who don't. This is an election budget, full of promises and deficit-building payouts. Hmmm....Atlantic Canada? How about you keep some oil revenues, and then we'll promise you this and that. Quebec? How's a nice big fat cheque for Bombardier. Plus everything else we give that province to keep them placated. Ontario? Well, Dalton, we'll give you this and that so just shut up already. The West? Well, they are mostly neocons anyway, so screw them - we have enough votes here in the East to win. What a great way to not only run a country, but to keep it together. NOT!

More drivel?

How about your statement "you gotta be in power to make change". I guess a certain Mahatma Ghandi doesn't matter to anyone anymore, eh?

Macdoc, in the current state of affairs, YOU would make a great Canadian politician, if you get my drift.

Mel


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

*Something To Think About*

Can you imagine working for a company that has a
little more than 300 employees and has the following
statistics:

30 have been accused of spousal abuse.
9 have been arrested for fraud.
14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2
businesses.
4 have done time for assault.
55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit.
12 have been arrested on drug related charges.
4 have been arrested for shoplifting.
16 are currently defendants in lawsuits.
62 have been arrested for drunk driving.

Can you guess which organization this is? No? It is
the 301 MP's in the Canadian Parliament. The same
group that cranks out hundreds of new laws designed to
keep the rest of us in line. Which one did you vote
for?

TAKEN FROM THE OTTAWA CITIZEN


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

When I heard this bomb shell on the radio this morning, I then heard this unreal low moaning, sobbing sound coming from the distance. It made my skin crawl. I didn't know if it was animal or man, until I realized it was coming across the water from Salt Spring Island.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

GA: LOL! I was going to say something, but it's been so nice lately I didn't want to tempt the fates. I guess the "fit" will be hitting the "shan" soon... wait for it. The kilted one will be here shortly.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iMatt said:


> For good or ill, that's how this country has been built since <i>before</i> Day One. It started with colonial authorities handing out land and various other goodies to their cronies.
> 
> Maybe that's why we're in the state we're in? Spend a hundred years looking for another way, pretend we've found another way, suffer crisis after crisis when it becomes clear the "other way" was a sham?
> 
> For the record, I agree that Belinda Stronach is a political opportunist. Where I disagree is in the implication that this somehow makes her different.


Just because it was OK in the past doesn't make it OK now. Wether or not that's 'how things are done'.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Manny said:


> The kilted one will be here shortly.


I'm sure he'll be watching the election results from the BC election tonight and then coming on to tell us all that the BC Liberal win is another sign of the world wide collapse of whacko leftoidism.

This Stronach thing has even knocked today's BC election out of the top stories.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

JAMG, no slight intended, so no slight received. It is a common misunderstanding, as you say. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, re your comment "The Atlantic provinces MPs will be very hard pressed to vote against the budget which now has a huge package for Atlantic Canada", it is still up in the air. Last night, it was certain -- they were voting for their party. This afternoon, it is a maybe. Stay tuned for tonight's CBC local news from St.John's when both Conservative MPs shall, hopefully, be interviewed live.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GA, don't count your moaners before they impale themselves upon the stake. "I didn't know if it was animal or man, until I realized it was coming across the water from Salt Spring Island." It is not wise to taunt the "Sage from Saltspring". We still have an ironclad bet, and it goes on until the actual election. Until I hear how the two NL Conservative MPs are voting, which might make the voting preferences of the independent MPs somewhat moot, none of the proverbial chickens have come home to roost just yet. Trust me on this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Melonie said:


> 30 have been accused of spousal abuse.
> 9 have been arrested for fraud.
> 14 have been accused of writing bad cheques.
> 95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2
> ...


Sounds horrible and IS an urban legend.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm
When I see the same story with slight variations....
http://www.iff-ifoundfreedom.com/freedom/canada.html
http://www.muddysmind.com/archives/000923.html (here it's the 535 members of the United States Congress)


and of course
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Apr 13, 2001
The Ottawa Citizen has been falsely attributed as the source of an Internet hoax that accuses members of Parliament of a variety of transgressions, including spousal assault and drunk driving.

The message circulating around the world erroneously suggests that the 301 MPs in the House of Commons have collectively been involved in several hundred criminal charges or moral lapses ranging from bad credit to assault.

"This is the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line," the message concludes. It incorrectly claims the list of crimes "was in the Ottawa Citizen." In fact, the Citizen published no such article or list.

Most of the information about the MPs in the message, such as the number allegedly arrested for fraud or shoplifting, is verifiably wrong. Still, the message has circulated on Internet mailing lists and Usenet discussion groups. This week, several radio stations in Canada contacted the Citizen in the hopes of interviewing the author of the story.

Citizen Executive Editor Don Butler said anyone reading the message should understand that it did not originate with the paper.

"We devoutly wish people would stop falsely attributing it to us if they're going to circulate this invention," he said.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, re your comment "The Atlantic provinces MPs will be very hard pressed to vote against the budget which now has a huge package for Atlantic Canada", it is still up in the air. Last night, it was certain -- they were voting for their party. This afternoon, it is a maybe. Stay tuned for tonight's CBC local news from St.John's when both Conservative MPs shall, hopefully, be interviewed live.


Marc,
I ask that you, in case we don't see the Atlantic provinces news coverage, keep me, if not us, in the loop re: the decision of those Conservative MPs and their comments on their votes on the upcoming budget.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Thanks for killing that, AS. I googled a few key phrases and could find nothing "for or against", so assumed it was fresh and real. My bad! I have alerted the party that forwarded it to me.

Mel


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

Melonie said:


> What I did say is that what Canada needs is a new "political messiah". Another Lester B. would be a good start.
> Mel


I think we can do better than that! I wouldn't want a PM who let someone like Lyndon B. Johnson slap him on golf course as a leader *shrug*...

I didn't vote for the Liberals but I would rather see them at the reigns than the Bloc or Con's. I agree with what others have mentioned about the move, it's not going to serve her in the long run, like Charest becoming a Liberal and going Provincial, I just don't have the same opinion of the guy - how can you be a conservative one minute and a liberal the next? No matter how red a con you are - you were a conservative! I also agree that Harper will never win Ontario, MacKay might have a chance, but Ontarians (and particularly we Torontonians - 411 that is  ) find Harper scary. I mean for god's sake we would have gone into the Iraq war if had been PM! 

I don't know what to make of it all, but I know I too feel democracy needs a major overhaul, I'm sick unaccountable politics and politicians - simply voting someone out of office should not be how we hold our elected representatives accountable, they've all got the same BS political lines and play the same political games. We want sound leadership not mud slinging!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, just heard the interview of Con. MP Hearn, who was Stronach's main supporter here in NL in her run for the Conservative leadership. He said that he was shocked when he heard the news. He said it was, and I quote, "Like finding out that you wife just ran off with a neighbor, and a neighbor you did not like." However, he slipped up (Freudian slip???) when asked how he would vote. He says that he knows how he is going to vote now, but that "we have a plan in place for Thursday". He did not want to elaborate upon what he meant by that, but he did say the "we" was the Conservative party. Wait and see.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Hi mackoroni -

Good to have new posters and great to have constructive criticism and thoughts! Thank you for that!

Frustrating times indeed. Yes, Pearson had his warts. But in the day, cowtowing to The Elephant was de riguer, I'm afraid. I would like to think that Mike would not make such a move in this day and age. Dief bowed to pressure and killed the Avro. Mulroney kissed so much Reagan ass it was embarrassing to say the least.

The meat of your discourse shows a shared feeling/belief that our political system is indeed a sham, and that this feeling of powerlessness is damaging our collective Canadian psyche.

Mel


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

Oh God Mulroney, I think he was actually a growth cut off of Reagans' ass that just kept growing and learned to mimic human behaviour - would I love to throw a stone at his huge head! Thank you for selling Canada down the river and ensuring many high paid positions for yourself on Corporate US Boards, you served us well. Sadly throwing rocks is not possible, instead I get to see he completely untalented, uncharismatic son on TV..."Daddy can you call up some friends and CTV and get me a job? I want to be in the lime light Daddy!" this must be so insulting and infuriating to journalism/radio & television arts student who are actaully good at what they do and don't have their father cashing in favours for them. And what's even more sickening is his close friend is CTV's Seamus O'reagan another revolting, smug young conservative*cringe*. Okay I digress and sorry to all the perfectly nice young conservatives out there.

I just can't believe we've come to accept so little. I'm voting for Jack Layton again, he's in my riding! Or maybe, just maybe I'll go Green!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

mackoroni said:


> I agree with what others have mentioned about the move, it's not going to serve her in the long run, like Charest becoming a Liberal and going Provincial, I just don't have the same opinion of the guy - how can you be a conservative one minute and a liberal the next? No matter how red a con you are - you were a conservative!


Charest and his government are very much small-c conservatives, possibly even neo-cons. He's only a so-called "Liberal" because that's the federalist party in Quebec politics; it was absolutely the only option if he was going to enter the fray here. It's just a label, and it definitely doesn't mean "left wing" today even if it once did.

It's of course a different story federally, where "Liberal" implies something left-of-Conservative. Today, that means the Libs look more like the old PCs than anything else, IMHO, because the political centre has steadily drifted to the right since the mid-80s.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Good News... We'll see the budget pass and Harper finally get some egg on his face. He deserves it for trying to call an election.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Just because it was OK in the past doesn't make it OK now. Wether or not that's 'how things are done'.


I didn't say it was OK, just deeply ingrained.

Why's it so tough to get rid of? I believe it's because people in power inevitably favour their friends in some way. Power (and not just in Canada, but everywhere) has <i>always</i> been about helping one's friends and screwing one's enemies.

You say it's really about advancing an ideology, doing what you believe is right? Show me an ideology, and I'll show you someone's self-interest; advance your ideology, and that interest is served. Friends of the government are happy again. (The last government I can recall that tried to treat its friends on an equal footing with everyone else was the NDP in Ontario, and the result was that absolutely everybody hated them.)

So we want to purge our system of undue favouritism? Great, but I guarantee it will never happen if we somehow cling to the belief that friendless, absolutely impartial people can get into power without incurring debts to <i>someone</i>. About the best we can hope for is that effective checks, balances and oversight can prevent the powerful from doling out gobs of money-for-nothing to their buddies. 

We're not there yet, not by a longshot.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

*Sexism?*

Am I the only one who sees sexism in the repeated comments (both on ehMac and elsewhere) about Belinda Stronach being a political "whore" and (to quote Bob Runciman) a "dipstick"?

When Scott Brison crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, were the same slurs tossed in his direction?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

gordguide said:


> " ... Yes, I think he would expel them, and if he's smart he's already made that perfectly clear. ..."
> 
> Really? This is the same party who refused to expel the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, Jim Pankiw, despite a regular parade of perfectly good opportunities over more than 5 years and two nomination meetings.


OK, so perhaps Harper isn't ready to expel members who break ranks. But I think parliamentary tradition probably does hold breaking ranks on a confidence motion to be more serious, a more "expellable" offence if you will, than merely being an objectionable loose cannon. 

My first expectation is that whoever remains aboard the Tory ship on Thursday will vote with the party -- more for fear of getting turfed than out of 100% agreement with the leader. I do think another defection or two could happen before then.

Of course, we are talking about the party of "more free votes!", so maybe I'm totally off base here.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Melonie said:


> I believe this is an unprecedented move - to walk across the floor is one thing, (becoming rote these days, is it not?), but crossing the floor into a Cabinet position has, to my knowledge, never happened in Canadian political history, at least modern Canadian political history.


It certainly is an extraordinary development, no doubt about it. The most famous parliamentary turncoats I can think of are, in Canada, John Crosbie and, in the U.K., Winston Churchill. Neither crossed the floor into a cabinet job, though both were ministers for their new parties after the next election. 

I've looked around for a list of sitting MPs who've changed parties, but no luck yet. It has certainly become unusually common lately, but I guess that's just a reflection of our tumultuous, ideologically uncertain Parliament.

As for a political messiah...I fear we will wait a long, long time for one of those. I believe it's virtually impossible that someone who's pure enough, whose ideas are fresh enough and broadly appealing, and who's enough of an outsider could build a real following in any of the existing parties. 

The biggest problem right now, and it's one that needs to be fixed before there's any chance for such a messiah to flourish, is that we have only one party with a national reach, and the Conservatives are failing utterly in their task of becoming the second national party.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, here's the latest from St.John's. On our local CBC TV news show, Norm Doyle was interviewed. He would not reveal how he was going to vote, but DID say that, and I quote, "I am the chair of the Conservative caucus, and I can't give away all of our secrets. But call me again tomorrow night and I'll let you know what is happening." Thus, the plot thickens. I don't think that anything sinister is afoot, but it is getting very interesting.


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

ct77 said:


> Am I the only one who sees sexism in the repeated comments (both on ehMac and elsewhere) about Belinda Stronach being a political "whore" and (to quote Bob Runciman) a "dipstick"?
> 
> When Scott Brison crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, were the same slurs tossed in his direction?


I agree, she's a labeled this and slandered so deeply because she's a woman, we as a society don't call the men who do the same things whores, even they the term could be used for them too.

As for Runciman, I'm not suprised, I'm sure he'd probably prefer no women in politics, little glimpses like that show people for what they really are. If I were in his riding I would pretty pissed that he would that view.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Didn't Winston Churchill cross the floor (twice)? I think Stronachs defection is the most interesting thing to happen to Canadian politics since Trudeau's "just watch me". The timing and intrique is impeccable. The dollar has lifted as a result and Stephen Harper has a major, major problem. He'll be unceremoniously dumped should the no-confidence vote fail (althoguh he's young enough to make a re-apprearance in the future - perhaps as a less eager beaver). It's also interesting that not a single Liberal crossed the floor to the Tories. Interesting times - for sure.

Due process.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

According to the hints that both Conservative MPs from NL have been dropping for the past couple of hours, this time tomorrow should make for an interesting discussion. We shall see.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

just heard the news. belinda's stock just rose in my book.

i can't wait to see that smug self satisfied look wiped off 'pig eyes' harper's face on thurs.

harper basically had the prime ministership handed to him on a plate - and he blew it. his fellow c.r.a.p members will shove their hay forks up his a$$.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> According to the hints that both Conservative MPs from NL have been dropping for the past couple of hours, this time tomorrow should make for an interesting discussion. We shall see.


Marc,
thanks for the updates
I think the Conservative MPs from NL will either abstain or vote for the gov't.
It all depends on what kind of spin the Conservatives want to put on this.

Will Harper whip them to vote against? Or does the party of "free votes" allow its members to vote as they wish? How does he spin either decision? Will other CON members go against their leader's wishe and, cross the floor, abstain, vote for the budget and risk expulsion from caucus.

Harper is in quite a bit of a pickle.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Looks good on him too!
I am loving this! Finally we get some happy excitement out of Canadian politics.
I don't see the fortunes of the Conservatives changing till they lose the social conservatives from the mix bu tthen they'd just be PCs again.
 

Best news I've heard in more than a month.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, abstentions are what I am betting for re Doyle and Hearn. They shall say it is for the good of NL, and thus, not face a very possible defeat in the next election, which does no good for Harper if St.John's East and West go Liberal or NDP. Harper will say that it is in the fine Conservative tradition to put one's region above the party, but that both members will prove their loyalty by helping to vote against the Liberals the next time around. Thus, they shall then put the country above the party. It all seems like a political shell game. We shall see.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iMatt said:


> I didn't say it was OK, just deeply ingrained.
> 
> Why's it so tough to get rid of? I believe it's because people in power inevitably favour their friends in some way. Power (and not just in Canada, but everywhere) has <i>always</i> been about helping one's friends and screwing one's enemies.


Heh, that I definately agree with. Still, politicians need to 'screw' a little less.



iMatt said:


> You say it's really about advancing an ideology, doing what you believe is right? Show me an ideology, and I'll show you someone's self-interest; advance your ideology, and that interest is served. Friends of the government are happy again. (The last government I can recall that tried to treat its friends on an equal footing with everyone else was the NDP in Ontario, and the result was that absolutely everybody hated them.)


Exactly my point. The NDP was hated by everyone due to partisan politics. You call this a fact of life. I agree. However, it's a fact of life that needs to change... look south for examples 1 to 1 billion of why.



iMatt said:


> So we want to purge our system of undue favouritism? Great, but I guarantee it will never happen if we somehow cling to the belief that friendless, absolutely impartial people can get into power without incurring debts to <i>someone</i>. About the best we can hope for is that effective checks, balances and oversight can prevent the powerful from doling out gobs of money-for-nothing to their buddies.


Agreed. Debts and favours are part of the system. Before there used to be a least a little priciple. Now there is none. We need some sort of balance. Some sort of shake up to the whole system. What we have just doesn't work anymore.


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

We need a dark jedi to bring balance to the for^H^H^Hgovernment. (Sorry, I had to)

The only way to fix widespread corruption that I can come up with is to have a much more open government. This primarily includes all party records and keeping all parties open. Why should a party that runs the government be allowed to keep secrets from people? It just doesn't make any sense to me. If all party and government documents were open and available on the internet then we could all keep an eye on them. (Of course this doesn't fix document falsifications)

I actually think it would be better to get rid of the party system altogether, but then again the general public is too lazy and/or stupid to elect people as it is so maybe this wouldn't work either. This would take actual work rather than picking a colour like it seems so many people do now. (Wow. How's that for a generalization?)

As things stand I think I'm just going to stop voting because I don't care who gets elected out of the big three, as they're all more or less the same. (If I thought there was some danger of a really dangerous party getting elected I would likely care more)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What has really disapointed me is Harper's reaction. He has shown once again, why he should not lead Canada... He has shown a complete lack of leadership in his responces.


(as well as many other Conservatives)....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

speaking of secrets, why did parliament allow a 'secret' vote on same sex marriage?

only 2 rules in politics
1. get power
2. keep power


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What must really make the Cons mad, especially those from the far right edge, is that they can no longer use Belinda as centrist whitewash. Now it's much harder for them to try and continue with the fiction that they are closer in spirit to most Canadians, rather than the Canadian branch plant of the US Republican Party.

Could it be that the old Tories and the Reformers are already splintering?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Looks like Steven Harper is starting to change his tune. What happened to "We'll bring down this government the FIRST chance we get". Someone getting cold feet that some other Tories are going to jump ship to get the budget through.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

ha ha ha aha hahhaha. too funny. harper = retarded.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

A fascinating move, just when I thought things were getting dull. It appears Martin may now have time... but what will he do with it? Is Belinda lining herself up to be the next Prime Minister? Will the progressive rump of the Conservative party defect en-masse? And how will this play out in the next election, assuming Paul Martin keep that promise even if he doesn't have to.

And just for fun, can anyone come up with the perfect Hallmark greeting card sentiment that Belinda could send to Peter Mackay? Here's my stab:

"I can't be with you
while you're with them.
So I'm leaving you
for a real PM."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: ....always on the money FN

David Petersen as king......or queen maker. Ontario power at it's best -


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

It's funny that out of five pages of a thread only 4 westerners have replied. I had never even heard of this woman until this morning when a Torontonian from work told me about it.

Not sure whethers its because Ontario doesn't give a $hit about the West or whether the West has given up being part of this country...

..but I know I won't vote nationally until a god damn westerner runs.

...and what I don't understand is who gives a $hit what party she says she belongs to. Let her have the right to switch! That's what's wrong with politics...party loyalty. Trying to pick a party to vote for in this country is like having to buy an entire CD when all you want is one or two songs. Give me itunes any day of the week.

[/rant]


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pamela said:


> ..but I know I won't vote nationally until a god damn westerner runs.


And thus Pamela explains why the Neo-Cons will never win in it's present state. It's a National election, not some western cow hick dairy queen we have oil so we don't care about the rest of Canada election...

How about giving the East a candidate that has more brains than some hick that can barely run a McDonalds franchise....


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Oh yeah. I forgot. We matter even less on the coast because we don't have oil. Thanks for proving my point AS. (and p.s. the last time I checked Alberta was full of Neo-Cons, non?)


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

*A westerner writes ...*

... some hick ...

To which hick do you refer? Surely not Flanagan's Chosen One - must be Ralph.

Stronach's actions lend a fine touch of irony to an otherwise aggravating federal show. Good for her.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pamela said:


> Oh yeah. I forgot. We matter even less on the coast because we don't have oil. Thanks for proving my point AS. (and p.s. the last time I checked Alberta was full of Neo-Cons, non?)


Pamela, don't mean to be harsh towards you.
The "pity poor us westerners" is a cry that I hear too often. 
I also hear the cry of "pity us poor Quebecers" also, "no one loves us" yadda, yadda....

Seems politician are more adapt at pointing differences than finding common ground between ALL Canadians. It's a rather myopic view to think that the "east" does not think about the "west" (and yes B.C.)
I have to say, that I did find BC a little strange when I lived there. Many seemed to consider Washington State part of BC (and vice-versa)- I guess the Rockies put a block there...


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Originally Posted by Melonie


> I believe this is an unprecedented move - to walk across the floor is one thing, (becoming rote these days, is it not?), but crossing the floor into a Cabinet position has, to my knowledge, never happened in Canadian political history, at least modern Canadian political history.


Rare but not unprecedented in modern times. There is usually a reward, (payoff?) to crossing the floor. Two days after Scott Brison left the new Conservatives for the Liberals, he was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary, which is technically not a Cabinet position but is an assistant to a minister, and is a Privy Council position. And, of course he is in the cabinet now.

When Jack Horner left Joe Clark's Tories for Trudeau's Liberals in the late 1970's he was appointed minister of industry, trade and commerce, a far more important ministry than human resources.

The reward (payoff) is usually commeasurate with the name value of the MP and the needs of the government.

Stronach has big name value, her defection is a body blow to the Conservatives, and the Liberals were desperate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and she brings Ontario and David Petersen into play - not inconsiderable factors.
40% Lib support in Ontario according to a big Environics sampling and that was BEFORE the switch.

The missing 8%.....Joe Clark's revenge. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This is getting to be quite hilarious:
Tories to Support Budget 
But Harper Vows to Topple Liberals on Amendment 
Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Conservative leader Stephen Harper says his party will now support the federal budget.

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=28035

and from Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman: "She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick, with what she's done here today. She is, at the end of the day, going to paint herself as something of a joke."
I could not even be that sexist if I tried - What a go Bob!


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Well most of you out not in BC probably don't even know that we just had a provincial election today.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=bc_home&articleID=1929740

liberals win again...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Pamela said:


> Well most of you out not in BC probably don't even know that we just had a provincial election today.
> 
> liberals win again...


There are a few threads that have talked about it already - we are waiting for the MacNutt version of the rapture....


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

yes, he is quiet today...should be interesting though! lol!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pamela, re your comment "Oh yeah. I forgot. We matter even less on the coast because we don't have oil.", this is the point here on the East Coast.........and we DO have some oil. Welcome to the Club.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, the latest developments from here in NL -- Harper will vote for the original budget, which contains the Atlantic Accord, thus, keeping the two Conservative MPs from here in NL in the fold. However, he shall have his party vote against the NDP supported budget amemdment. A most interesting move.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Harper came out and blasted NL Premier, Danny Williams, last night in Ottawa. Williams is Conservative, and he want Williams to "stick together with his boys in Ottawa".

So, C43 will pass. And, as for C48, it remains to be seen.

Now, the question is if one budget is approved and the amendment is defeated, is this actually a vote of non-confidence????? The plot thickens still.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> A fascinating move, just when I thought things were getting dull. It appears Martin may now have time... but what will he do with it? Is Belinda lining herself up to be the next Prime Minister? Will the progressive rump of the Conservative party defect en-masse? And how will this play out in the next election, assuming Paul Martin keep that promise even if he doesn't have to.
> 
> And just for fun, can anyone come up with the perfect Hallmark greeting card sentiment that Belinda could send to Peter Mackay? Here's my stab:
> 
> ...



"Yes I left it's true.
He wants to be PM,
I do too."


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Dr. G, Martin has said both budget bills must pass and he would accept each vote as a matter of confidence.

I wonder why Harper didn't say a week ago that he would agree to C43 but not C48? Seems to me that's a far more reasonable (and perhaps acceptable) position, given he fell over himself approving it in the first place. Many of the most significant budget measures are in the original bill.

Heck, if he had said from the outset that they would pass the budget and then defeat the government over Gomery, I suspect the polling numbers would be different. He just didn't get that this budget was/is important to many people and the Liberals have been able to use that to their advantage.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brainstrained, I see your point. That would have been, as you so rightly state, a reasonable compromise. 

Now Harper wants to know if we have to let the Liberals "... hire Mafia types so that Danny Williams can get his money sooner". So now Harper is slurring both Newfoundlanders and Labradorians AND those of Italian heritage.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

A touch of bitterness perhaps?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Brainstrained said:


> A touch of bitterness perhaps?


more like "true colours"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes

Martin vs Parrish........decorum

Harper vs Stronauch ........school yard gibes from the Cons - hard to control the red-eyed foam at the mouthers when top Con is one himself.

.....course there IS Martin versus Copps 

•••••

*Late Breaker* www.freedominion.ca seems to have self destructed - I know it's bad but reaaaaallllllly??!!!! 

••••

Hilarious skit on CBC this morning about Mckay and Ms. S.

Very well done - made me laugh. Came right after the interview with Belinda.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

saw this on another forum.....  

Here's the link if you want a try;
http://www.katewerk.com/sign/lawnsign.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> more like "true colours"


And speaking of true colours, does the old saying, "My kingdom for a horse", not apply to PM the PM in this case?

He is as bad as BS baby in the whole sordid affair, is he not?


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Pamela, re your comment "Oh yeah. I forgot. We matter even less on the coast because we don't have oil.", this is the point here on the East Coast.........and we DO have some oil. Welcome to the Club.


Okay I'm going to get lambasted for this, I can feel it, but why do so many areas of Canada feel that they are ignored? I think that every region of the country has crap representation...I don't think anyone anywhere in the country feels their regions needs are being met. (I'm also tired of people disliking Ontarians and particularly Torontonians. It seems to have become an acceptable form of bigotry.)

One major problem we have here is the transit system, we have the busiest system in Canada, pay the highest rates for public transit in North America, the system needs major upgrades and yet there's no provincial or federal support what so ever for improvements. Other countries receive not only state/provincial support but federal level support as well, this is the case in the US. How is that a New Yorker can pay less than a Torontonian for a transit fare (exchange rate considered) for their vast, vast system that is older than ours?

Why aren't the Fed's taking greater measures on pollution coming in from the US? Most of the summer in Toronto is spent under a smog advisory the pollution of which 50% (and some believe up to 70%) comes from the US! Why isn't the Federal government doing more about that? People every summer die as a result of this, people can't enjoy the outdoors because of poor air quality. 

Not to mention that Toronto is completely overcrowded, our current infrastructure is starting to buckle under the population explosion that's occurred over the last 20 - 30 years. I'm all for immigration but I think until changes occur to our infrastructure to accommodate the increased population immigration needs to be dispersed to other major Canadian cities to some degree. Especially considering the new Ontario Greenbelt plan, the 905 Toronto area will not be expanding beyond it's current borders. But when there's room come one and come all, I love the cultural diversity here, it's unique, inspiring and allows for a greater dining experience  

Anyway the point I'm getting at is that there are unaddressed problems everywhere, provincially and in major urban centres. And I am one Torontonian who doesn't think that Hog Town is the centre of the universe!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Lest any of you think Dalton has no use whatsoever...


I don't think matters bode well for Dalton in the next election...scary we may have another conservative government on our hands. But at least it won't be with ol'Ernie, that guy was greasier than a chicken ball. I think Dalton is creepy too, there's something to rehearsed about the way he speaks. He tries to come across as honest and deeply committed to what he is saying but he always sounds kind of off and some what insincere to me *shrug* maybe it's just my perception of him.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I'll vote for Belinda, even if she's an independent.









I think we should hold a referendum to decide which party she should be in.

To the last comment: Who knows, maybe Dalton will be leaving also?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> and from Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman: "She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick, with what she's done here today. She is, at the end of the day, going to paint herself as something of a joke."
> I could not even be that sexist if I tried - What a go Bob!


And the conservatives show their true colors, resorting to name-calling and sexist stereo-typing. Why any woman would vote for this party is beyond me. In my view she's a smart, aggressive, progressive woman who actually wants to accomplish something for Canada and not sit on the sidelines.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Western alienation...*

I agree with most westerners that we are largely ignored by Ottawa. However, I think that's a good thing. Having spent considerable time in both Alberta and BC, I shudder to think of what might happen if western politics infected the rest of the country.

Many people seem to thing the petty corruption of federal politicians is terrible, but they have no idea how bad it could be if some honest politicians with agenda's like Ralph Klein's got into power in Ottawa.  

Cheers


----------



## sammy (Oct 12, 2002)

Kosh said:


> And the conservatives show their true colors, resorting to name-calling and sexist stereo-typing. Why any woman would vote for this party is beyond me. In my view she's a smart, aggressive, progressive woman who actually wants to accomplish something for Canada and not sit on the sidelines.


 I think you mean "And A conservative shows his true colous." Please get a thinner brush


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

sammy said:


> I think you mean "And A conservative shows his true colous." Please get a thinner brush


A Conservative my ass.
The Conservatives have shown PLENTY of bigotry of most kinds. This is not just one person look here:
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=222366&postcount=78
and here:
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=222367&postcount=79

I agree I see no reason any woman, gay person, poor,, native, elderly, or French person would vote for these jerks.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

After reading more about this I can only see the stupidity of Harper. He apparently "read her the riot act" just before this. This is after a year of sidelining her and allowing the Fundamentalist fanatics and western seperatists to completly control the Conservative's adgenda.
Harper needed an Ontario moderate to show that his party is not just seperatists and fanatics and he messed that right up.
That's OK though because now it will be hard to hide what his party is really up to: attacking a woman's right to chose, re instilling the death penalty, fighting Gay rights and weakening confederation.

Harper has driven off his voice of moderation in the party and now all will be crystal clear. 

No big win in Ontario for Harper and his merry band of bigots.

Thank God!


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

martman said:


> A Conservative my ass.
> The Conservatives have shown PLENTY of bigotry of most kinds. This is not just one person look here:
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=222366&postcount=78
> and here:
> ...


Wow... quoting yourself... I'm convinced.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

quoting myself quoting Conservatives.
I could have re-posted these quotes but I chose to link to them instead.
Please explain what is wrong with this.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Belinda would have shown more backbone by staying with the Conservatives and changing it from the inside. She could have helped form a real alternative to Central Canada besides the Grits. However, she jumped ship and got a plumb job. Just typical political nonsense I've seen out of our last 4 PMs (by that I mean the last 25 years). It's a shame. As a moderate Westerner I was hoping she and McKay together would, in the future, give me a reason to vote Conservative. She put that off a few more years. Thanks Belinda.

Peter Mansbridge absolutely ran rough-shod over Belinda during her CBC interview. If she wants to be PM sometime I sure hope she works on those interpersonal skills. She also looked stoned. Maybe it was the light (even though it was cloudy in the interview) but she looked like her eyes were closed. 

It's a shame that the PCs don't seem to have any internal dialogue. However, if the shoe was on the other foot (let's say... McLellan joined the PCs), would the Grits be any better? Maybe a little but they definately would not be Saints.


----------



## mackoroni (May 16, 2005)

martman said:


> A Conservative my ass.
> The Conservatives have shown PLENTY of bigotry of most kinds. This is not just one person look here:
> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=222366&postcount=78
> and here:
> ...


I agree 100% too! I have no idea who votes for them considering the above people are the major majority of the population!

Conservatives seem to be a boys club who take care of their boys. There is tolerance of women in politics as long as they don't get too ambitious. Many (but not all!) of the real pro conservative men I have known have also shared this opinion to some degree, so it's not surprising at all, just surprising he would dumb enough to share is sexist ignorant view out loud. They usually don't share it because it's not politically correct and if mentioned around the wrong woman would cause a justified lashing. I knew a man who had 4 daughters, was a pro con (an Ontarian who actually voted for Preston Manning when he was still around - scary? hell yea!) and this man had taught his daughters that feminism was bad. Now there's a wide spectrum of feminist - but feminism is the reason his four daughters could study at university and do something with their lives besides get pregnant, raise children and clean the house (not there's anything wrong with that if that's what you want to do) but they have the choice. 

This is just one example of sexist conservative men I have come across. And it's just gotten so much worse with the neo-cons and western reformists. I don't know what the rest of the country would do if the neo-cons won an election if it were called...it's not like we could move south! Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Or a Bloc/Con majority alliance. Gives me goose bumps.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

martman said:


> quoting myself quoting Conservatives.
> I could have re-posted these quotes but I chose to link to them instead.
> Please explain what is wrong with this.


Where did you get the quotes from? There have been so many miss-quotes (or blatant rewrites) running from both the left(centre) and right that you just can't trust them anymore. Quotes also take peoples words out of context (not that it would help with some of those). Also, action speaks more than words in a lot of cases. For example, Trudeau's one fingered salute to Canadians west of Ontario.

And don't quote MacNutt.... he's a statistical oddity... and it encouraging him.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Belinda would have shown more backbone by staying with the Conservatives and changing it from the inside.


How? After Mr. Harper gave her a browbeating and told her she would never lead the Conservatives...

I have not seen so much flipflopping and lies from the Conservatives. What this "incident" has done is expose how much the Neo-Cons cannot be trusted with the country. I'd vote conservative if they could show us a leader and have some kind agenda that is good for Canada...

Latest MacKay lie:
MacKay dismissed one of Stronach's stated reasons for defecting to the Liberals – that the Tories were threatening national unity by aligning themselves with the Bloc Québécois to bring down the government.

"I don't want to speak directly to her but to the concern. It's not true. We're not aligning ourselves with the Bloc. That's nonsense,"
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/18/mackay050518.html
WTF???


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I feel for you but the Conservatives are NOT the PCs. The party needs more than a change in leadership. The SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES who seem to be in the majority in the party are killing it with their backwards look at Canadian society.

Take a look at the effect in Toronto for example:
In the riding of Parkdale/ Hight Park the conservatives ran a crazy fundamentalist who was EXTREMELY anti-abortion. He went to one all candidates meeting where he was heckled by the constituants. He never showed his face in public again. Thsi includes three other all candidates meetings.
He got 2000 (aprox) votes. People like him will never draw more votes out of this riding because it is a progressive riding. But this is the majority of who the current Conservatives are. The merger was a spectacular failure. They are just the Reform party with a different name.

If the Conservatives are to ever gain power they need to toss the Christian Right Wing element or at least figure out a way to side line them.

Till then the Conservative will never be anything other than the party of the West and religious cookoos.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> Where did you get the quotes from? There have been so many miss-quotes (or blatant rewrites) running from both the left(centre) and right that you just can't trust them anymore. Quotes also take peoples words out of context (not that it would help with some of those). Also, action speaks more than words in a lot of cases. For example, Trudeau's one fingered salute to Canadians west of Ontario.
> 
> And don't quote MacNutt.... he's a statistical oddity... and it encouraging him.



{sarcasm]That's a good tactic. "I don't like your quotes so I will claim they are bogus"{/sarcasm}

Each quote has its source at the bottom. If you think I am pulling a fast one here why don't you prove it rather that insinute.

As for actions speaking louder than words: The whole adgenda of Harper's Conservatives is about limiting rights of minorites (gays, women, French, ect.) You're correct but the actions of thte Conservatives are why no one outside of Alberta and BC trust them.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> "I don't want to speak directly to her but to the concern. It's not true. We're not aligning ourselves with the Bloc. That's nonsense,"
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/18/mackay050518.html
> WTF???


Your enemy's enemy is your friend. 

If the vote was today or early next year doesn't matter. The Liberals have already lost Quebec. They're just delaying the inevitable. Besides, with all the polls and BS jumping the Con ship, wouldn't they want an election?

Yay Canadian politics.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

iMatt said:


> Another thing: she may be among the most calculatingly ambitious people we've seen in a long time (Mulroney comes to mind), but being a turncoat may well impose a ceiling on her ambitions. This could prove to be a very poor long-term career move.


Hunh? Oh, she might not get to be Prime Minister now? Gee, what a total career failure, LOL.
She's now in charge of democratic reform - is that not something to aspire to?
As for being calculatingly ambitious; let me rephrase that for you: she wants to make a difference, and she probably thinks she can do a better job than some of the other people in politics. I would not disagree with her.

Deeds speak louder than words. She brought the current Conservative party together. Her action today may have just as positive an effect on the shape of that party, because she's reminded us all of how Harper is holding them back from being progressive. She's become the person in charge of democratic reform at the same time that she demonstrated the power of one elected representative to simultaneously work good for her riding and the nation.

Harper is asking MPs to vote against a budget he helped build so that he can get into power. He's allying with separatists to do it. He asked Ontarians to vote for his party on the strength of his promise to be centrist, and then afterwards defined a policy that discriminates against same sex couples. Turncoat? Calculatingly ambitious? Political opportunism?

If there's anything negative to be said about what happened today, it's that the Conservative party is at present unworthy of Belinda Stronach's membership.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I doubt that Belinda's career is going to be hurt by this.
They love her in Newmarket / Auroa. 

They'd vote for her if she was in the Communist party.

Harper was a fool to not give her a plum and to berate and sideline her. This is just yet another serious miscalculation by a man who has no understanding of politics outside of Alberta.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Elmer, nothing has happened to change my view since I went on record a little while ago as believing that no party has really earned my vote. I do have a slight preference for the Libs over the Cons, but I'm not exactly a Liberal supporter (even though I don't want an election now).

There may be an element of principle in Belinda Stronach's change, but I don't think that's inconsistent with her being calculatingly ambitious, opportunistic, and a turncoat. (I use "turncoat" in the general sense of any MP/MPP/MLA/MNA who changes parties, and I'd use the same term whether I approved or not.)

And yes, I do believe that this move can hurt her career. If the government falls tomorrow and the Conservatives go on to win the election (unfortunately not as unlikely a scenario as you and I would want), she will have gone from opposition to opposition. And, let's face it, politicians who change parties do tend to have a long-term cloud over their perceived trustworthiness.

As for her own seat, she will have a tough fight because her opponents have tons of tape of her blasting Martin. Everybody knows she voted to recommend the government resign a week before joining the government. These things will dog her.

Finally, I believe she did do something highly unethical: she attended a Conservative caucus meeting/election strategy session on the weekend, while she was in talks with the Liberals. I think the right thing would have been to make an excuse to miss the caucus meeting.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

iMatt said:


> Finally, I believe she did do something highly unethical: she attended a Conservative caucus meeting/election strategy session on the weekend, while she was in talks with the Liberals. I think the right thing would have been to make an excuse to miss the caucus meeting.





the Toronto Star newspaper said:


> But a Stronach spokesman said she only attended the introductory session of the party's "candidate college," and a long-time Tory MP who also sat in on the meetings said there were no sensitive discussions relating to the election platform or strategy.


  Sometimes it's so easy to believe evil of someone ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I wonder if Peter Mackay had been the one to cross the floor if the media would be wanting to know why he had betrayed her, or the details of the their relationship? There is a real double standard here because Ms. Stronach is a woman.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Elmer: I stand corrected, thanks.

Dr. G: you are generally right about the double standard, I think, though I do believe we would be asking about the fate of their relationship. Just because people love to gossip no matter how much they say they hate it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

sammy said:


> I think you mean "And A conservative shows his true colous." Please get a thinner brush


Nope, I meant "the" or maybe I should say "THE", as in more than one. I've heard more than one resort to name-calling and sexist remarks.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I wonder more about her abilities to handle this new position. As well, I wonder about the fairness of her "leaping" over loyal Liberal backbenchers. Still, I also do not want to see an election now. I am not sure how I shall vote in the next election, but I would like to see the budget passed and the results of the sponsorship commission completed before I make up my mind.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I wonder more about her abilities to handle this new position. As well, I wonder about the fairness of her "leaping" over loyal Liberal backbenchers.


Yes this has bothered me also. 
Sometimes, being the head of an entreprise is being a cheerleader for the troops. At this level, does it mean that the ministers in charge are easily changeable?

If I were a Liberal backbencher, I know I would have to accept it for the good of the party but with some festering bitterness....


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes this has bothered me also.
> Sometimes, being the head of an entreprise is being a cheerleader for the troops. At this level, does it mean that the ministers in charge are easily changeable?


As a federal government employee, I can tell you we don't even keep up to date on who our deputy minister is, never mind our minister. The cheerleader, at least for my agency, is a level or two down from the top. In my case I would say it's usually the Commissioner of the agency. The Commissioner has been more stable than the minister and thus seems to have a longer term goal than the minister.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, it would be even more troublesome for her "jump to fame" if they should lose this vote, and subsequently, lose the election. According to Macnutt, this is a done deal, but I would rather wait for the votes to be counted. We shall see.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

ct77 said:


> Am I the only one who sees sexism in the repeated comments (both on ehMac and elsewhere) about Belinda Stronach being a political "whore" and (to quote Bob Runciman) a "dipstick"?
> 
> When Scott Brison crossed the floor from the Conservatives to the Liberals, were the same slurs tossed in his direction?


I guess I wasn't the only one .


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ct77, I agree with your views about the unfair and sexist slurs hurled at Ms. Stronach. I have expressed this view in various threads, so you are not alone in your disliking of this sort of language. Paix.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Is she even allowed to become a Cabinet Minister? On CBC last night one of the commentators eluded to the fact that technically it's not Martin's job to give. This sounds very odd since it's my understanding that the PM appoints all the Ministers. Does the Governer General have to rubber stamp the request first? Is there some sort of vote on it? Just wondering...


----------



## Brian Scully (Jan 23, 2001)

*my god I have spent most of today*

Trying to catch up with the miriad of postings on this thread which has been perhaps the most civil on a contentious issue that I have ever seen.

Thank you all for you calcutated view points . I am amazed that the total view points of ALL members over perhaps a 60+ age gap from each and every province and party are so consistant that while they may not seem eye to eye on Belinda that there appears to be some consenus that Stephen Harper blew this defection of his moderate female member really big time. He chewed her out and ridiclued her big time and then thought that this gutsy lady would just fade into the background? Once again just an other example of how little he REALLY know about politics and how Parliment really works 

He has never shown any concept of how to lead a real leadership of a National Political Party in Eastern Canada be it Ontario, Quebec or any other province other than Alberta and the Klein red necks 

Can Paul Martin come back with a majority ? I really doubt it no matter how much I would wish it. 

Can Stephan Harper force an election?

Doubtfull that he would want it under the current polls

Would he win?

More than doubtful and if he tried he is toast as a PC leader so you know he is not going to try.

Ok how does he escape the tightrope that he has with his rhetoric bound his party into?

He supports the budget ? He has already said he will (100 % reversing his point of several days ago) Thus pimping the Queens on NL who cannot seem to make their own decision. And then voting against the government on the admentment 



GMAFB

And his members name WHORES ? 


I don't think so


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Brian, what exactly are you saying in your comment "He supports the budget ? He has already said he will (100 % reversing his point of several days ago) Thus pimping the Queens on NL who cannot seem to make their own decision."? What "Queens" in Newfoundland and Labrador???


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

dr g., it's hard to separate what you are quoting from what you have written. would you consider using the quote tags or place the quote above your own writing separated by an empty line? my eyes would thank you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

TMR, is this any better?

Brian, what exactly are you saying in your following comment:

"He supports the budget ? He has already said he will (100 % reversing his point of several days ago) Thus pimping the Queens on NL who cannot seem to make their own decision."

What "Queens" in Newfoundland and Labrador???


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

much better, thanks. it's just a small thing - makes it easier to scan the page.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I think I've heard the word "Stronach" 1 million times in the past 24 hrs. 
I'm stressed out on Stronach(s).  

She's got guts and intelligence. She understands the implications of the move. 

Whatever happened to great Parliamentarians?
Remember when Joe Clark left the Harper camp and sat as an Independent. He knew that he could not sit with the Cons for what they represented. Would not cross the house because he had principles.
Eastern alienation/Western alienation, what is Harper doing making deals with the Bloc?

Joe Clark is a true Parliamentarian, knew what loyalty, justice, honesty and truth meant in Government. Ed Broadbent was another.

Parliament used to be dominated with lawyers, now it seems it's dominated by business majors with not one iota of strength of character, just playing out the game to get a good pension.
Most of them, anyway.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> Is she even allowed to become a Cabinet Minister? On CBC last night one of the commentators eluded to the fact that technically it's not Martin's job to give. This sounds very odd since it's my understanding that the PM appoints all the Ministers. Does the Governer General have to rubber stamp the request first? Is there some sort of vote on it? Just wondering...


You're probably thinking of Andrew Coyne, who agrees with a recent op-ed piece by historian Michael Bliss who, in a nutshell, claims that for the past week the government hasn't had legitimate constitutional authority to govern. (The argument is that even though they didn't lose a true confidence motion by the technical definition, losing the votes they did should have led to an explicit vote of confidence.) 

It's an opinion, not a fact, and it's not an opinion that appears to be supported by anyone with power to do something about it. The governor general, the opposition leaders, the Queen...

Assuming the government <i>is</i> sitting legitimately, then the prime minister does have the authority to appoint a cabinet minister. No vote. There is a swearing-in ceremony presided by the GG.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Hi all,

I just want to step in here and remind people of some of the rules on ehMac.

Please don't insult other members (regardless of what they've done), there are better ways of pointing out someone was wrong.

Personally I think the same should go to our members of Parliament. Regardless whether you agree with them or not, they were elected and deserve a certain amount of respect. (After all it's called HUMAN rights, and they are human - contrary to popular opinion).

Remember to keep it civil and let your mind rather then your emotions do the talking.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Thanks for this, though: " However, she jumped ship and got a plumb job."
> 
> Funniest lack of spelling skills I've seen today.


  lol. touche.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

iMatt said:


> You're probably thinking of Andrew Coyne, who agrees with a recent op-ed piece by historian Michael Bliss who, in a nutshell, claims that for the past week the government hasn't had legitimate constitutional authority to govern. (The argument is that even though they didn't lose a true confidence motion by the technical definition, losing the votes they did should have led to an explicit vote of confidence.)
> 
> It's an opinion, not a fact, and it's not an opinion that appears to be supported by anyone with power to do something about it. The governor general, the opposition leaders, the Queen...
> 
> Assuming the government <i>is</i> sitting legitimately, then the prime minister does have the authority to appoint a cabinet minister. No vote. There is a swearing-in ceremony presided by the GG.


Eck, it goes back to that garbage. 

Thanks for the info iMatt.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Che????


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Gordguide - yesterday said:


> " ... But, to take over the portfolio of HRDC just smacks of political opportunism at its worst. ..."
> 
> Umm, not to put too fine a point on it, but since when has Belinda NOT been about political opportunism? Or Harper? Or Mr Martin. Wait a minute, they're all like that, except perhaps for the ones who are too "nice" to get nominated at all, let alone elected.
> 
> People either hate her or forgive that in her, since, I dunno, about the second day she came upon the scene which, if you remember, was a bid to lead the national party, widely expected at the time to form the next government in a landslide, with no political experience whatsoever. Nah, that's not opportunism.


I agree with this. Thanks, gordguide.

As I was listening to callers on a right wing radio station yesterday, foaming at the mouth about Belinda, calling her every name they could get away with saying on the radio, I thought about this post.

What a bunch of babies! They loved the opportunism when it looked like it might help them out, but they hate it when it works against them. Somehow they could watch Stephen Harper, day after day, so excited about the prospect of bringing down the government that you could almost imagine the puddle of drool at his feet. But that wasn't opportunism, no, not at all, it was for the good of the country. Even though his party stood no chance of becoming a majority and would rely on the support of the left wing separatist Bloc, to survive more than a few days. This didn't seem to worry the neocons at all.

I actually heard election style ads on the radio today from the Conservative party, stating how the Libs have to go. Man these guys are in a panic, aren't they? They're so close to getting their toe in the door on Sussex Dr., but now it might be slipping away, because of Belinda. But all this is for the good of the country, it's not opportunism. I hear they have a bridge they want to sell me, too.

Belinda wants to be PM, some day. Just like probably 90% of the MPs who ever run. She thinks she's got a shot at it if she joins the Libs and she figured out she would have no shot at it with the Cons. Pretty simple.

The thing that is really making those Con partisans so damn mad is that Belinda was the fuzzy moderate, centre-right sheep's clothing that all those far right Republican style neocons could hide under. How many times have we heard them point to her as proof that they weren't the knuckle draggers from the Reform days, but a brand new party of moderate centrists? Now that sheepskin has left, just when they thought they were closing in for the kill and really needed it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL, I strongly agree with your comment "Joe Clark is a true Parliamentarian, knew what loyalty, justice, honesty and truth meant in Government. Ed Broadbent was another." I met Ed Broadbent when he was here in 1988 campaigning for Jack Harris and met Joe Clark in 1994 in Calgary. Both were fine men and dedicated Canadians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The plot thickens as critical vote looms*
> By BILL CURRY and GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Thursday, May 19, 2005 Page A1
> With a report from Campbell Clark
> ...










...."Playing with fire Harper is".......Yoda May 19th 2005
on a small planet in a corner of the galaxy.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I heard the Conservative advert on the radio this morning as well. I guess they paid the ad agency already and so wanted to ensure they actually produced the advert. They should have pulled it as it is clearly an election advert and is out of place with the news - if anything, the message just re-affirms the Harper disconnect with the rest of the country. However, some of these ads may be difficult to pull at very short notice and they likely thought they could at least play to their constituency.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I guess they paid the ad agency already and so wanted to ensure they actually produced the advert.


I guess there's more than one way to waste money on advertising  
Anyway, I was thinking. If the Conservatives get elected, what is Harper going to do to change the system so that things like the sponsorship scandal never happen again? Or is he going to say, "Liberals are out, problem solved"?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I will say one thing about Stephen Harper. Over the summer, I was in the Calgary airport waiting to come back home to St.John's. Waiting for the same flight to TO was Stephen Harper. A few people were coming up to him and obviously wanting something from him, because of his look of discomfort. He finally walked into the corner of the waiting area..........where I was sitting. I mentioned that it was not easy being an readily identifiable politician, in that people were always wanting something or trying to influence your views about something. He laughed and agreed. We got to chatting when he asked where I was from, and that I did not sound like a Newfoundlander. Our only discussion about politics was when he asked me where in NL I lived, and along with saying that I lived in St.John's I mentioned that I voted once for Norm Doyle here in St.John's East.

It was an interesting 15 minute conversation. I may not support many of his views, but he struck me as a decent person who is in a difficult position.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

He needs to spend more time with the likes of people like you Dr. G. Mind you, that could be said of every MP in the House......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, personally, I would like to spend some time with the likes of Ed Broadbent and learn a thing or two from him. Thank you for the kind words, however.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Belinda Stronach came up here to Goose Bay, Labrador, along with a few other federal cabinet ministers, in an attempt to counter the visits by Stephen Harper this weekend. There is an election on Tuesday for the seat that was vacated when the Liberal MP, Lawrence O'Brien died recently. After the election, we shall not see anymore cabinet ministers or leaders of any parties, especially not in Labrador. They only "come a callin'" when they want something, like votes or hydroelectric power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Has anyone noticed the amount of limericks and doggerel this episode has inspired.
Even in the newspapers. 

I guess pulling a "belinda" will soon be in the language.

•••••

Can we vote to remove Rex Murphy from his post as Cross Canada checkup.

His NeoCon colors have been showing far too much for a supposedly neutral voice.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Can we vote to remove Rex Murphy from his post as Cross Canada checkup.


No.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with Mugatu. Rex Murphy is an articulate voice of reason. I don't always agree with his views, but he elevates the discourse on a myriad of topics.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

(off topic a little) I was just reading Rex on line and the "Rex effect" isn't the same without his voice.
Any chance he has a podcast?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ottawaman, I have had the opportunity to meet Rex Murphy a few times in person, and had the chance to have coffee with him once for about 20 minutes off in a corner of a conference here in St.John's. I wanted to listen to him talk, and all he wanted to do was to listen to me talk and listen to my New York City accent. Go figure. Still, he had a grand laugh when I said that we both make our living having people listen to us, although he had a much larger audience, but one which could turn off the sound of the TV.


----------

