# Emerson may quit



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Emerson might quit, sources say
> Former Liberal said to be disheartened by uproar over party switch
> New Democrat MP refers cabinet appointment to ethics commissioner
> Feb. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

:clap:


----------



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

Resign as minister or resign his seat?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dissension in the ranks big time. 



> Turner says he'll move bill to stop MPs jumping parties
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> Ottawa — *Despite a tongue-lashing from the Prime Minister, Conservative Garth Turner says he will proceed with a private-member's bill that would force MPs such as Trade Minister David Emerson to resign and run again when they switch parties.*
> ...


••••

I suspect resign period.


----------



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

Very interesting. Needless to say, Harper did NOT expect all of this in his first week in office.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

CBC Radio news currently has Emerson saying "no way" to the will you quit question.

This one obviously is the most noticed gaffe on the part of our new fearless leader, but I am also extremely dismayed by the appointment of a non-elected person to cabinet (& his appointment to the Senate), by Harper's lack of comment on the Grewal affair developments, and by Harper's lack of foresight in making the two predictably controversial appointments.

As for Emerson, after these actions I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. But then, that's how I feel about most politicians.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Needless to say, Harper did NOT expect all of this in his first week in office.


The New York Times is commenting on that...


> *Awkward Start for Canada's New Leader*
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has gotten off to a shaky start in his first week in office, facing a rash of criticism for three cabinet appointments that appeared to *compromise his past positions* on making government more democratic and ethical.
> While he was the leader of the opposition, *he objected furiously last year when the Liberals lured one of his party's senior members* into the cabinet days before a vote in Parliament that would probably have otherwise brought down the government of Paul Martin, who was the prime minister.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/international/americas/11canada.html

I'm quite sure that the "free votes" that Harper harped on are gone also...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

harper will tell his MPs that they are "free" to vote with him

Emerson will have me at "goodbye"


----------



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

"harper will tell his MPs that they are "free" to vote with him". This is what it might come down to in the final analysis.


----------



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

Right wing conspiracy?

The emerging plan appears to be for Stephen Harper to make George W. Bush look good (a task that has seen previous pretenders such as "Brownie" and Karl Rove fall on their swords). A Herculean task that, I must admit, Mr. Harper is proving rather adept at achieving. Who'd have thunk it.....?


----------



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

Jim, "Brownie" may not have fully fallen on his sword after all, if you have heard his Congressional committee testimony.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Anybody seen the latest poll numbers?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060211/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_col

48% of Canadians disagree with Harper's cabinet appointments, while 52% agree.

54% approve of Harper's performance so far.

Yes, the Conservatives were hypocritical to give Emerson the appointment. But I also have to say that the 'outrage' shown by some Liberal supporters rings a little empty. Where was the this response when the Liberals were doing the same thing?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Anybody seen the latest poll numbers?
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060211/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_col
> 
> ...


I'm no Liberal but there is a big difference between crossing the floor after serving for a while and crossing the day after being elected. If you can't see it than you are blind.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm no Liberal but there is a big difference between crossing the floor after serving for a while and crossing the day after being elected. If you can't see it than you are blind.


Uhhhh.... You did read the part where I criticized the Conservatives, didn't you? Speaking about being blind...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Where was the this response when the Liberals were doing the same thing?


ummm, Harpo and the cons were supposed to present a bill to stop floor crossing, but now that they've done it, this legislation doesn't seem to be a priority as per the con member who presented the private member's bill

the cons have just shown they can be just as sleazy as the Liberals
congratulations on tossing aside principals (senate appointment) and ethics (Grewal)


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Yes, the Conservatives were hypocritical to give Emerson the appointment. But I also have to say that the 'outrage' shown by some Liberal supporters rings a little empty. Where was the this response when the Liberals were doing the same thing?


Seems to me that most of the true outrage over the act itself is coming from people who actually voted for Emerson. If people who voted for Stronach or Bryson couldn't or wouldn't muster the same outrage, that's their issue. 

As for the rest, even someone who supported those other floor-crossings can be perfectly consistent in pointing out the Conservatives' hypocrisy on this one. It's not a matter of saying "shame on you for doing that" but "shame on you for justifying doing that after what you said about Belinda Stronach and/or Scott Bryson." 

Peter McKay is a case in point. I'd like to ask Mr. McKay this: if Emerson was so disillusioned with the Liberals, why did he run for them? Seems odd to develop such a severe case of disillusionment between election day and swearing-in day.

As for those (like the PM) who say "he'll serve his constituents more effectively in cabinet than in opposition," well no s**t! Wouldn't they all, eh?

At least David Emerson kept a promise. He is indeed Stephen Harper's worst nightmare. So far.

(I'm not a Liberal supporter, BTW.)


----------



## NewBill (May 29, 2005)

Alternate explanations anyone?

The Conservatives don't 'want' to govern long enough for the Liberals to rebuild. It is the biggest threat to their future majority.

Winners act this way, losers act differently. Here and everywhere else we expose cynical expectations. Do these behaviours echo our expectations of flout them?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I would strongly oppose a bill to prevent MPs crossing the floor... the parties have too much power as it is over their members and this would make it worse. I'd certainly support a 'Recall' motion for MPs who flagrantly disregard their mandate... as I think Emmerson has done. The bar would have to be above 50% to prevent frequent flip flops of power... perhaps 55% or 60% of the electorate.


----------



## NewBill (May 29, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I would strongly oppose a bill to prevent MPs crossing the floor... the parties have too much power as it is over their members and this would make it worse. I'd certainly support a 'Recall' motion for MPs who flagrantly disregard their mandate... as I think Emmerson has done. The bar would have to be above 50% to prevent frequent flip flops of power... perhaps 55% or 60% of the electorate.


Recall is a chaotic option in my opinion. But if it were to be used, perhaps 55 - 60 or even 70% of the number of those who voted would be more reasonable especially when something in the order of a 60% turnout at the polls is the usual.

I think a bielection in the disputed riding is the better option.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Recall is a chaotic option in my opinion. But if it were to be used, perhaps 55 - 60 or even 70% of the number of those who voted would be more reasonable especially when something in the order of a 60% turnout at the polls is the usual.


I think that's problematic... if only 50% of the population voted then it would be possible to get 60% or 70% voting for a recall and then another 60% or 70% of different people voting after the recall to recall the replacement. Because of that I think it has to be based on the electorate rather the those who voted but therefore the threshold should be low; 55% or 60% at most. Once the recall succeeds then a bielection would follow.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if an MP becomes unhappy with the party they belong to, they should as an independent until the next election and certainly NOT be allowed into cabinet or caucus

that way the electorate will have an opportunity to reward/punish the MP and the MP will not profit from their defection


----------



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

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if an MP becomes unhappy with the party they belong to, they should as an independent until the next election and certainly NOT be allowed into cabinet or caucus
> 
> that way the electorate will have an opportunity to reward/punish the MP and the MP will not profit from their defection


Agreed. This is the honorable way for those concerned. Chuck Cadman showed more integrity than the rest of the House in its entirety.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Harper needs to step up here and ask Emerson for his resignation.

The only way this thing can end peacefully is with a by-election.

This is the way it should be done. To leave a political party, you either quit, or get tossed out. If you quit, call a by-election. If you get tossed out, you sit as an independent.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I'm not sure what everyone's problem is here.

The seat the member sits in, and the party he is a member of, are completely different issues. Legally, one has no affect on the other. Tying them together is a stupid idea. 



guytoronto said:


> This is the way it should be done. To leave a political party, you either quit, or get tossed out. If you quit, call a by-election. If you get tossed out, you sit as an independent.


This is your solution?!? If you quit your party you must quit your seat?

If the constituents are unhappy with Emerson, they have the court system. If Emerson did something illegal, the RCMP will sort it out. If he did something unethical, Layton's call for the ethics commisioner to investigate might produce something.

But even more rules about parties/seats will just create unnecessary red tape around the consciences of elected representatives. There is enough legality to swim in for the critics of this appointment. We don't need more, particularly more that violates the nature of the parliamentary system.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Harper needs to step up here and ask Emerson for his resignation.


Because everybody admires a waffler.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I would strongly oppose a bill to prevent MPs crossing the floor... the parties have too much power as it is over their members and this would make it worse.


You said it! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> You said it! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


time for riding associations to have candidates sign non-competition agreements as many of us do in the private sector

If elected, I [candidate] agree to remain a member of the [party].
If I decide to leave the party I will sit as an independent until the next election.
I will not accept a cabinet position nor become a member of caucus of another party until an election is called.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think it's almost a type of fraud. He campaigned under the banner of one party. Accepted donations because of that affliation and accepted campaign financing because of that party and from that party. Also he lied and said he would be Stephen Harper's worst enemy as an opposition member.

As a politician he lied. Lied publically. He should resign. He should be sued. There should be a class action suit brought against him by the constituents who overwhelming voted against a conservative candidate. 

His mis-represented himself to the public and his riding and he must be accountable to that.


In general though I have nothing against crossing the floor or switching parties... but campaigning under one party and then switching to the government that wins before it even sits is just opportunism.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> He should be sued. There should be a class action suit brought against him by the constituents who overwhelming voted against a conservative candidate.


Sued? On what basis?

I don't like what Emerson did any more that I like what Stronach et. al. did, but I don't think there is any cause of action here. Under our system you vote for the candidate, not the party, and MPs are allowed to switch parties any time.

I wouldn't mind seeing a law that forces sitting MPs that wish to change their party affiliation to sit as independents until the next election, but that is not the system we have now.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

again, a simple contract between all candidates and their riding associations should take care of this type of shenanigan
or perhaps my solution is too simple?

or perhaps politicians hate signing anything ?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think it's almost a type of fraud. He campaigned under the banner of one party. Accepted donations because of that affliation and accepted campaign financing because of that party and from that party.


If you're right, the riding should just stop b!tch!ng and get a good lawyer already.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Without a recall structure the courts are really the only protection the consituents have.
It's complex as you have several "entities" involves

Constituency/voters - the riding itself.
The specific riding associations
The national parties
Parliament
The candidate/MP.

Tough lawsuit to undertake tho I think the clearest is the Liberal riding association and the specific funds spent. Fraud is a criminal offece and would require a very high standard to convict.

A civil suit by the ridinag assocition would fare better I would think and just the action itself would likely bring about a resolution long before it went to court. The relatively well heeled Cons should just give the money to Emerson to refund and be done with it to at least take that aspect out of play.

The voters are screwed the way the current system works IMO.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The relatively well heeled Cons should just give the money to Emerson to refund and be done with it to at least take that aspect out of play.


far too logical and honourable for harpo et al


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think he could be sued for fraud. It would have to be a civil suit. The liberal party itself has a better change of winning damanges, but I think the citizens of the riding would have a chance at forcing a resignation and a byelection.

There is a implicit contract that when you run for a party and accept money as the candidate for that party and hold yourself up to be that party's candidate that you don't change parties immediately when your party doesn't get into government.

His switch does not seem like a principled stand. It seems unethical for him to represent himself to the voters as one party and then switch to the opposite party once he's got the election in. He is a liar and fraudster, a crook and and coward. He should do the RIGHT thing and resign and run as a conservative in a by-election.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes, the Conservatives were hypocritical to give Emerson the appointment. But I also have to say that the 'outrage' shown by some Liberal supporters rings a little empty. Where was the this response when the Liberals were doing the same thing?


Floor crossings are permitted under our current system, and there is no restriction on when MPs cross the floor -- so they can even do so on the eve of a confidence vote, or the day after they get elected. I don't particularly like this, but there is nothing wrong with it under the current rules.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> if an MP becomes unhappy with the party they belong to, they should as an independent until the next election and certainly NOT be allowed into cabinet or caucus
> 
> that way the electorate will have an opportunity to reward/punish the MP and the MP will not profit from their defection


I like this solution! If we had legislation to this effect it would have shut down shameless opportunists like Stronach and Emerson, while still providing a way out for MPs who are not pleased with their parties.

Of course if the MP were to resign, the "next election" would come very quickly in that riding, so there would be an option to run under the new party affiliation, or sit as an independent till the next general election.


----------



## g4manwithipod (Feb 5, 2006)

*stinkers*

if it can be proven that he accepted an inducement to switch, then it's in the Ethics Commissioners court. 
So much for the Conservative push to "clean" up government. Just remember who put him there guys...Hypo(crite)-Harper. Even people in his own party are calling foul. In middle ages, there were harsh penalties for breaching an oath. Maybe they had it right (at least about the oath, anyway).


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

g4manwithipod said:


> if it can be proven that he accepted an inducement to switch, then it's in the Ethics Commissioners court.


It would be pretty tough to prove he accepted an inducement to switch.

Same as with BS -- she may have been offered a cabinet post to cross the floor on the eve of a non-confidence vote, but good luck proving this.

As the rules stand now, floor crossings are allowed, and it's pretty hard to prove the reason why an MP chooses to do so.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

don't even need legislation
riding assoc. just need to have candidates sign contract to NOT switch parties
only option would be to sit as independent or resign and go for by-election

no need for legislation - simple contract and THEN the MP could be sued for breach of said contract if they switch parties

also, if candidate refuses to sign, it probably means they are allowing for the possibility of one day switching and are not likely to have the riding's issue at heart


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> don't even need legislation
> riding assoc. just need to have candidates sign contract to NOT switch parties
> only option would be to sit as independent or resign and go for by-election...


The problem is, these "non-compete" agreements wouldn't be used by all the riding associations for all the parties, all of the time.

If crossing the floor is bad, then legislation is in order.

If it is OK, it is OK to cross the day after you're elected, or on the eve of a confidence vote, even though it smells bad...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The problem is, these "non-compete" agreements wouldn't be used by all the riding associations for all the parties, all of the time.


certainly a very easy way to start and I hope Emerson's ex-riding assoc. is looking into this


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> certainly a very easy way to start...


I liked your earlier proposal -- sit as an independant if you quit your party.

Legislation would make the rules consistent for all, not just those burned in the past.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess the fundamental question needs to be put out.

Do you

Elect a representative of your riding.......

To represent your ridings interests in Canada's parliament regardless of party - ie you trust the person to make informed choices as YOUR representative regardless of party affiliation.

or

To represent your ridings interests in Canada's parliament as a member of the PARTY you are voting for.

Big difference and I would think needs clarificiation.
Person or party?????
I suspect it's both and swings back and forth depending on circumstance. Hard then to craft a rule that covers both.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> To represent your ridings interests in Canada's parliament as a member of the PARTY you are voting for.


that would be my interpretation
you may want to start a poll on this


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> I liked your earlier proposal -- sit as an independant if you quit your party.
> 
> Legislation would make the rules consistent for all, not just those burned in the past.


politicians, if anything, keep their options open
i doubt this type of legislation would make any sense to them
it serves the interest of the electorate, not necessarily the politician and why i don't think it would be welcomes in the house of commons - see recent con party 180 on floor crossing private members bill

this type of change needs to begin at the grass roots level
after it's the people that are pissed unlike emerson


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Person or party?????
> I suspect it's both and swings back and forth depending on circumstance. Hard then to craft a rule that covers both.


As the rules sit now, you are voting for the person, and they are free to switch parties as they see fit.

Parties already wield a fair bit of power, so maybe the current rules aren't a bad thing as they allow the option of quitting the party to MPs who can't stand to vote along party lines.

I still like the idea of forcing folks who quit their parties to sit as an independent until they contest an election under their new colours.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...it serves the interest of the electorate, not necessarily the politician and why i don't think it would be welcomes in the house of commons...


There might be some truth in that -- unfortunately.


----------



## Showtime (Feb 17, 2006)

"Right wing Conspiracy"
is there any other kind? This is why Harper will be out of office in a matter of months.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Showtime said:


> ...This is why Harper will be out of office in a matter of months.


Don't count on it:


> If we had it all to do over again, Tories would still win: poll
> ...
> Decima's Bruce Anderson said the numbers signal a number of things, notably that the controversy surrounding Mr. Emerson's switch and the appointment of unelected Michael Fortier to cabinet have not affected Conservative support.


Basically, the Tories would stay where they are, the NDP would pick up a few seats at the expense of the Grits.
source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060216.wpoll0216/BNStory/National/home


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Always leaving out the nuances:


> The Conservatives would win another *minority* and the NDP would gain at the expense of the Liberals


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Basically, the Tories would stay where they are


That nuance?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Damn Beej you are right (I need more coffee)..... and so was PenguinBoy

My apologies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I was reading this at the time:


> *Campaign promises*, only minutes into his new term of governance, *were broken or seriously trodden on with little more than a dismissive aside about superficial criticism.* Voters in Vancouver-Kingsway want a recall (not going to happen folks, but keep trying), while the accusation of hypocrisy by disgruntled new Conservatives and others must be causing nervous tics amongst the party brain trust.
> 
> Even when it comes to the substantial work that Harper is supposedly doing, we have to depend on outside sources, speculation, party press releases, and long-lens photos of handshakes and smiles outside 24 Sussex to figure it out.
> 
> ...


http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-ed...orPrimeKeyword=Nickerson&editorLink=Nickerson


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: There's coffee in the Shang...if you're allergic, I can bring it out for you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Opaque!!!....he currently seems to be invisible.....


----------



## Showtime (Feb 17, 2006)

I don't know if there was another election within the upcoming months that the Tories would win another minority. Remeber the primary reason why they're in power now is because citizens wanted to punish the Liberal party for the sponsorship Scandal, the Tories probably would not bring that up again in another election, and by seeign what Stephen W. Harper has done thus far, it I'd be surprised to see him win another election.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Sued? On what basis?
> 
> I don't like what Emerson did any more that I like what Stronach et. al. did,


Comaprring Emmerson to Stronach is disshonest. Stronach didn't cross before the gov't had even sat.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Comaprring Emmerson to Stronach is disshonest. Stronach didn't cross before the gov't had even sat.


Crossing to take a bribe to specifically thwart of non-confidence vote is better because of...dishonesty?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Showtime said:


> I don't know if there was another election within the upcoming months that the Tories would win another minority. Remeber the primary reason why they're in power now is because citizens wanted to punish the Liberal party for the sponsorship Scandal, the Tories probably would not bring that up again in another election, and by seeign what Stephen W. Harper has done thus far, it I'd be surprised to see him win another election.


You missed the recent poll saying the outcome would be the same and that hte Emerson issue has no traction.

The Bloc also just came out and said they would prop up this government for some time to come.

I would love it if the Liberals and NDP tried to force an election right now. Bring it on. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, most governments seems to have a honeymoon period - this is not the case with the Tories. Of course you fail to mentioned that the polling firm was wrong in it's projections on the election? Maybe they should use real data for that one and rethink their methods...

The Bloc will prop up the government but maybe you should look at why. Not a deep thinker are you Vandave....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060220.wxhouse0220/BNStory/Front/home

The Bloc never said it would not force an election -


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Not a deep thinker are you Vandave....


It doesn't take any deep thought to realize the last thing Canadians want right now is another election. 

The election is over.... live with it. :baby: You have jumped all over the Conservatives on every possible issue. It just shows how tainted your opinions are towards the new government and it undermines your credibility. Keep crying wolf.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It doesn't take any deep thought to realize the last thing Canadians want right now is another election..


Correct that - but it does not mean that the Cons have carte blanche....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You have jumped all over the Conservatives on every possible issue. It just shows how tainted your opinions are towards the new government and it undermines your credibility.


The Cons are responsible for their own mistakes - and only an idiot would not see that. No one has cried Wolf - only pointed out facts - unlike the NeoCon brigade that actually like to make up stuff...  :yawn:


----------



## Showtime (Feb 17, 2006)

In response to your "Bring It On" comment Vandave, I hope you realize the only reason why Conservatives are in power currently is because Canadians wanted to punish Liberals, however now that the Conservatives are screwing everything in office, it won't be long until we see a Liberal majority in the house. so have fun while it lasts.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Showtime said:


> In response to your "Bring It On" comment Vandave, I hope you realize the only reason why Conservatives are in power currently is because Canadians wanted to punish Liberals, however now that the Conservatives are screwing everything in office, it won't be long until we see a Liberal majority in the house. so have fun while it lasts.


See the trend?

1989 - 1
1993 - 52
1997 - 60
2000 - 66
2004 - 99
2006 - 124
200? - 155+


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There's trends.......then there's dead ends. 










Wanna see the urban versus rural trend in Canada.....you ain't breedin fast enough boyo.










what don't you STILL understand between voting Liberals out versus Cons in.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Wanna see the urban versus rural trend in Canada.....you ain't breedin fast enough boyo.
> 
> what don't you STILL understand between voting Liberals out versus Cons in.


Ya, there is an urban-rural divide. So what's your point? Is one vote more important than another?

I live in the city BTW. 

Some people who voted Conservative voted to get the Liberals out. I'll give you that, but I don't believe it was that significant of a percentage. The Conservatives got 30% in 2004 and that was Paul Martin's first run at the PM. The Conservatives didn't even have time for a policy convention prior to that election. In 2006, the Cons got 37%, which is the 2001 total combined vote the Alliance + Old Cons got. It seems to me that the Conservatives just regained their traditional base of support.

In any case, AT BEST, only 7% of their vote was a protest vote (i.e. 37% in 2006 - 30% in 2004). In reality it was probably somewhere between 1.5 and 3.5%. This range is more consistent with the 1.7% gain the NDP got.

Even if I give you that 7%, the Conservatives would have equalled the next highest party in support (i.e. Libs at 30%). 

QED


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Vandave said:


> QED


You don't know the meaning of a "proof," do you?


----------



## Showtime (Feb 17, 2006)

I strongly doubt that the Conservatives will have "155+" seats in the next election, likely next year.
And are those numbers before 2004 PC and Alliance combined?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Showtime said:


> I strongly doubt that the Conservatives will have "155+" seats in the next election, likely next year.
> And are those numbers before 2004 PC and Alliance combined?


1989 - 1 Reform
1993 - 52 Reform
1997 - 60 Reform
2000 - 66 Reform
2004 - 99 Alliance
2006 - 124 Conservative
200? - 155+ Conservative


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> *Conservatives' popularity slips: poll*
> OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Conservatives have lost some public support since winning the January 23 election and are now slightly behind the opposition Liberals, according to a new poll released on Tuesday.
> 
> The SES survey put backing for the Conservatives at 33 percent, compared with the 36.3 percent they won on election night. The Liberals, who were ousted after 12 years in power, were up to 33 percent from 30.2 percent.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_poll_col

Trend?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_poll_col
> 
> Trend?


No, the poll is accurate to within +/- 3%. It takes more than two points to establish a trend. Show me the polls in a couple weeks and we'll see if there are any trends.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So Vandave, what do you make of the latest poll? You seem to place so much trust in them....
Spin, spin, spin....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ya, there is an urban-rural divide. So what's your point? Is one vote more important than another?


Do you understand demographics??
Rural areas are depopulating.
Urban areas are growing.
Cons are and generally have been historically nowhere in urban areas ( note Anne McClellan even in Alberta where her riding was ). Cons are benefitting right now by a split left wing voting pattern as the liberals did by a split right wing voting pattern previously.

That last 30 seats will require an enormous shift that could in reality only come from a battle in Quebec that has nothing to do with social policy as a driving elective force but rather with a* NOT Liberal but still Federalist* constituency growth.

If Cons have to "buy" Quebec.......they will look no different socially than the Liberals and pray they do as good a job fiscally.
I suspect the latter will NOT happen and Con support in Quebec will = deficits in Ottawa.

•••

Y'know it gets a tad tiresome hearing about the West and Quebec when almost half the bloody economy resides HERE!!!!!

The West may want IN, Quebec may want DISTINCT..........I'LL SETTLE FOR FAIR .

a $23 billion imbalance with Ottawa ain't it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Cons are benefitting right now by a split left wing voting pattern as the liberals did by a split right wing voting pattern previously.


There is only one left wing party. What is there to split?



MacDoc said:


> Y'know it gets a tad tiresome hearing about the West and Quebec when almost half the bloody economy resides HERE!!!!!
> 
> The West may want IN, Quebec may want DISTINCT..........I'LL SETTLE FOR FAIR .
> 
> a $23 billion imbalance with Ottawa ain't it.


That's why the west wants in. The West is a large portion of the Canadian economy and has traditionally been left out of the federal governance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The West wants in? What a load of BS - the West has been in.
You have had prominent members of cabinet from BC during the Liberal reign. Ideas from the West have been used and appropriated by the Liberals....

So Vandave, what do you make of the latest poll showing support for the Cons down....? 

Spin, spin, spin... oh wait, he was fired.... hahaha


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Y'know it gets a tad tiresome hearing about the West and Quebec when almost half the bloody economy resides HERE!!!!!


When you say HERE are you talking about Ontario, or just the GTA?

It appears to me that ON is ~40% of Canada's econonomy, which is closer to 1/3 than 1/2 -- and that is for *all* of ON, which includes a fair number of ridings outside the GTA with strong Conservative support.

reference: http://www.ofina.on.ca/ontario/ontario.html

It also looks as though that 40% may decline over time: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/041109/d041109b.htm


MacDoc said:


> The West may want IN, Quebec may want DISTINCT..........I'LL SETTLE FOR FAIR .


Do you mean fair as in "Crow Rates" and "National Energy Policy"?

In any case, the West *is* in now!


MacDoc said:


> a $23 billion imbalance with Ottawa ain't it.


ON isn't the *only* Province that gives more to the feds than it gets in return: http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The West wants in? What a load of BS - the West has been in.
> You have had prominent members of cabinet from BC during the Liberal reign. Ideas from the West have been used and appropriated by the Liberals....
> 
> So Vandave, what do you make of the latest poll showing support for the Cons down....?
> ...


I thought you missed my post on this, but I guess not. 

I said I would wait a couple weeks to see the next poll before I believe the result. A 3% change would be a small to moderate loss of support. However, the 3% drop is within the polls margin of error so you can't read too much into it yet.

Chretien wouldn't agree with you about the west. He said, "I don't do politics with them." The appointments Chretien made were all token. I think Martin wanted to fix things and he actually made his way out here quite often. I bet Martin travelled to Alberta and BC more times during his short term than Chretien has in his life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Ontario 'fiscal gap' thing is somewhat odd. Alberta has been saying it contributes a lot for sometime now to fend off the Feds who want the NEP back. Suddenly, McGuinty has budget troubles and it's an Ontario issue that must be dealt with! McGuinty's general complaints miss three key points that undermine his urgency:

AB's gap is far larger per capita

Ontario's gap used to be larger (ie. it's not new, and it's not even as large as it used to be around 2000) 

The basic calculation misses some important points such as Federal debt repayment. This is where McGuinty traverses the boundary from 'imbalance between jurisdictional governments' to 'imbalance that hurts the goose that lays the golden eggs'. By mixing the ideas of what benefits the ON government (more from the Feds) with what benefits the ON people, he can add more urgency to his argument. 

I can't remember where, but a better analysis was done showing a truer version of the 'gap' as it pertains to the economy (instead of the spin).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't deny there are and have been imbalances elsewhere in Federation what I'm referring to is NOW. In the past Ontario has been the quiet hinge pin.
It's squeaky time and I'm a tad weary of the whining east AND west.

The $23 billion was the Economist figures in their Canada Survey so go argue with them. They are not McGuinty's numbers.

I'm referring to all of Ontario - GTA is 50% of that and hurting the most - Toronto looks to have a larger deficit than Ontario  - whether the gap was larger in the past is meaningless - the NEED is now - not then - and don't pull out the Alberta gap - it's windfall - your infrastructure is well funded ours - which produces our wealth along with our populace is NOT well funded nor in good repair right now.

If your oil sands needed a $30 billion refit to continue to produce and you paid $20 into Ottawa instead of the retrofit 30 needed....... you'd be howling too.
THAT IS the situation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The $23 billion was the Economist figures in their Canada Survey so go argue with them. They are not McGuinty's numbers.
> ...
> I'm referring to all of Ontario - GTA is 50% of that and hurting the most -
> ...
> ...


You keep using it. You stand behind it and explain why it is correct to keep repeating it. 
...
Wasn't GTA $6 billion, by some other calculations that were repeated?
...
Is the NEED now, or is it that McGuinty doesn't want to make tough choices? Why wasn't the NEED when it was larger? It can be argued it is a cumulative thing...but that's not the only argument.
...
'your infrastructure' -- are you talking to someone else? 
...
Again 'your'. This view, the view McGuinty wants his voters to take, dramatically reduces his responsibility. This is the provincial game. Something is bad, don't analyse it more or use historical perspective...just look to Ottawa.
...
For the record, I find Canada's melange of hidden equalization to be very bad for the nation and it should be fixed -- this will take money away from other provinces (not necessarily provincial governments) relative to not fixing it. Supporters of 'fixing' the problem are conspicuously silent on this implication. 

Regarding the $23B, tossing it around is perpetuating a very narrowly chosen analysis because the 'thrust' of it has a point. Common practice.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> - and don't pull out the Alberta gap - it's windfall -


Windfall, combined with sound fiscal management.

In any case, if ON had some sort of windfall (say the auto industry *REALLY* picked up, for example), would the resulting imbalance somehow be less of an issue?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> - and don't pull out the Alberta gap - it's windfall - your infrastructure is well funded ours - which produces our wealth along with our populace is NOT well funded nor in good repair right now.


If the GTA is going to go looking for infrastructure money from the feds, they should have elected some Conservatives -- they would do better with representation from the government, as opposed to opposition!

If it makes you feel any better, our infrastructure here in Calgary could use some work as well...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Every major city is facing a 'gap' by the very structure of provincial and federal spending. The cities in 'have' provinces are facing the biggest gaps. GTA is not special in this...just getting louder. Maybe having their votes taken advantage of for so long finally pissed off a few of them...welcome to the club GTA. Cities, especially in have provinces, fund the nation's social equalization programs, explicit and implicit. This pursuit is worth it, in my opinion, but the degree and approach is debatable.

The problem remains: fixing any 'gap' involves relatively less for everyone else; why don't the 'fixing' proponents talk about this more? Because good politics involves blaming someone else while acting like no one else will be affected, relatively or otherwise, by the change. Then, when someone does something, complain.

By the way, the GST cut, that I disagree with, would reduce the 'gap'. Just one example of fixing the 'gap'.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> If the GTA is going to go looking for infrastructure money from the feds, they should have elected some Conservatives -- they would do better with representation from the government, as opposed to opposition!


ooo, I get it...we are to be punished for not voting Conservative? So when the Liberals win the next election, the west, I assume, will be punished? O wait, that's not allowed...you guys always need to be "in"


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

trump said:


> ooo, I get it...we are to be punished for not voting Conservative? So when the Liberals win the next election, the west, I assume, will be punished? O wait, that's not allowed...you guys always need to be "in"


I was just making fun of the line we always hear out here about electing Liberals in order to have a voice in government.

My crystal ball is a bit cloudy right now, but I sort of doubt the Liberals will win the next election -- although I figure they have a good shot at the election after that.

The West should always be "In", we represent a significant chunk of the country by any measure, and our interests should be considered by any government, just as the other regions are.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If it makes you feel any better, our infrastructure here in Calgary could use some work as well...


Well tell Ralphie to get his priorities in order instead of handing out pissant cheques. Somebody just MIGHT release an oil eating bug one of these days and the good times will be over.

As for "sound fiscal management"...pull out your windfall royalties you'll find you would be just as in debt - perhaps more so - than similar provinces and you'd find a similar level of PST imposed to try to stay in the black as others do.



> The oil and gas extraction industry dominates Alberta's economic landscape ¦
> Extraction of oil and gas totaled $17.1 billion (in chained 1997 dollars) in 2004, accounting for roughly 13% of Albertas real GDP. This compares with shares for manufacturing (of which petroleum products account for a modest amount) of about 10% of GDP, construction 8%, and mining 4%. Alberta ™s oil and gas extraction industry accounted for nearly three-quarters of the national sector in 2004 and the oil sands reserves will extend this dominance in the future
> Alberta ™s oil sands contain the second largest deposit of economically recoverable (using existing technology) reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. In 2002, production from the oil sands overtook that of conventional crude. It is estimated that the oil sands will account for three-quarters of Alberta ™s total oil production by 2008. While output from conventional oil reserves is projected to decline in the years ahead, production from the oil sands will more than make up for the loss.
> The Canadian Energy Research Institute and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimate output from the oil sands at 2.6 million and 2.7 million barrels per day, respectively, by 2015, almost triple the current level of output. In terms of total oil production, these estimates suggest that Canada ™s standing would move up from eighth place currently to around fifth spot, though the total of over 4 million barrels per day would still fall well short of either Saudi Arabia ™s
> ...


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ntario+2004&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&client=safari

and Alberta is hardly the poster child for bearing immigration costs either.
So be thankful for the situation - it's no where near where other provinces find themselves trying to juggle priorities and finances and of course Canada as a whole benefits......but nothing like Alberta does in terms of individuals and provincial coffers.

If the resource extraction needed the kind of retro fit Ontario does then I'm quite sure the whining would be *even louder*........hard as that is to beleive.

A bit less self indulgent preening would sit far better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> A bit less self indulgent...


Sorry to interrupt, but we agree on something (albeit out of context) yet again. Just wanted to point that out before we go deciding who's going to cough up the better part of $23 billion.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Somebody just MIGHT release an oil eating bug one of these days and the good times will be over.


The good times *will* be over sooner or later. The boom will turn to a bust, always has, always will. We just don't know when, or why it will happen.


MacDoc said:


> As for "sound fiscal management"...pull out your windfall royalties you'll find you would be just as in debt - perhaps more so - than similar provinces and you'd find a similar level of PST imposed to try to stay in the black as others do.


The "sound fiscal management" was in place *before* the current boom, and you could argue that since the oil windfall the provincial government has started spending like sailors on shore leave.

As far as I am aware, we have *never* had a PST here, even before the boom. Introducing a PST in Alberta would be political suicide, if the oil boom were to go bust I would expect to see services cut before a PST would be introduced.


MacDoc said:


> and Alberta is hardly the poster child for bearing immigration costs either.


Not sure what costs you are referring to here, or if Alberta pays more or less than its share of the same.


MacDoc said:


> A bit less self indulgent preening would sit far better.


Now, now -- there's that pot and kettle thing!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Throughout its 29-year history, the Fund has generated over $28 billion in investment income that has improved the quality of life in the province.
> Following is a summary of critical points in the history of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, from its creation in 1976 to the present.
> 
> May 19, 1976: The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act was given Royal Assent. When the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act was passed in 1976, it set three objectives for the Heritage Fund: to save for the future, to strengthen or diversify the economy, and to improve the quality of life of Albertans. In accordance with the Act, the Heritage Fund received funds from two basic sources during 1976-77. Thirty per cent of the non-renewable resource revenue received by the Government of Alberta from April 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 accrued to the Heritage Fund. This amounted to $620 million. As well, a special contribution of $1.5 billion of cash and other financial assets was transferred from Alberta's General Revenue Fund to the Heritage Fund on August 30, 1976.


How far back do you want to go???



> The History of the Heritage Fund
> 
> *In 1949* the Alberta Social Credit government paid off the provincial debt that was demanded by the federal government and the banks. In 1950, the Heritage Fund was established, with the intention that in 1975 it would start paying each citizen a dividend cheque each month.


http://www.socialcredit.com/subpages_history/heritage_fund.htm

and I certainly recall a few face plants of the Pocklington and other ill considered "management" issues.



> The PC government decided not to pay dividends to the people from the Heritage Fund.* Instead, they used the money to buy businesses and also to help well-connected people get loans to buy businesses. Hundreds of millions of dollars were squandered over the following years. *Additionally, the mandate of the Alberta Treasury Branches was changed to encourage it to act like the large private banks, instead of operating in favour of the people of Alberta. The high interest rate policies of the late 1970's and early 1980's were as devastating as the National Energy Program.
> 
> *By 1994 Alberta had a debt of about $38 billion and only $12.5 billion in the Heritage Fund to cover this*. A provincial income tax was introduced in Alberta for the first time in the early 1980's.


Now admittedly that's a SocCred spin but the poorly handled money is certainly part of the historical record.....and of course...YOU HAD IT SPEND.

There's a few horrendous skeletons lurking in a 30 year gov. ATB and West Edmonton Mall...come to mind and of course there is this......



> *No scandals in Alberta? How would we know?*
> 
> November 7, 2005
> by Ricardo Acuña
> ...


cozy set up..... 

http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/research/perspectives/NeverInAB05OpEd.htm

So what was that about RECENT royalties?? ......and "management quality"


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There's a few horrendous skeletons lurking in a 30 year gov. ATB and West Edmonton Mall...come to mind and of course there is this......


Agreed, and I think you and I both agree that one party with a chance at forming government isn't good for democracy.

Unfortunately in Alberta we only have one viable party -- kind of like the federal Liberals were like until just recently. I would like to see another party have a shot at forming government, but that's not too likely the way things stand now -- the NDP are too "extreme" for most folks around here, and the Liberals haven't won since 1917, and are unlikely to make much headway due to their association (real or imagined) with federal Liberals.

Still, I think fiscal conservatism is just part of the culture out here, and though there are a few high profile wobbles from time to time folks seem to accept that you can't run a deficit year after year. And I'm surprised at how well the provincial Tories have done, considering they are running without much opposition right now, I would expect the abuses of power to be much worse!


MacDoc said:


> http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/research/perspectives/NeverInAB05OpEd.htm


Parkland institute?!? How about some unbiased sources, like the "Western Standard", for example


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

There *are* viable options in Alberta... the Liberals for sure... in Alberta is just a case of people too stuborn to consider anything but Conservative...

The wealth here is not thanks to the Conservatives but in spite of them... no gas and oil... no wealth. Please don't throw the NEP at me again... it's over and done... not an issue anymore... no Liberal government would be dumb enough to try that again! Really!

The $400 cheque... pfffttt! I'd rather have seen it put into something needy like health care.

*Remind yourself of Harper's record of saying things like Alberta should build a firewall around itself, an American gated community on a grand scale. Look at the city of Calgary whose lighted glass blocks are positively eerie at night in a city which virtually empties to the suburbs at five or six o'clock, American-style. No street life, none of the flavor of Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal. A colony of dangerous Dallas.*

http://www.rense.com/general69/canada.htm

So true... I would not go downtown Calgary alone at night... with a bunch of other people yes... but alone? No! I've been in Vancouver and Toronto at night... Calgary does not hold a candle for life and vitality.

There's also another option at least for a strong opposition... the NDP.

Nothing will ever convince me that a "dictatorship" like Klein's is a good thing. He's still got plenty to do... so he says... and who will stop him?

Oh here's the same article just in case someone is allergic to rense.com:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_802.html


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Oh here's the same article just in case someone is allergic to rense.com:
> 
> http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_802.html


Uh, this rubbish makes sense to you?

*Bush usually says it in front of a set of gigantic, eagle-topped American flags, reminiscent of nothing so much as the days when Germany's leader spoke and sputtered in front of platoons of monstrous, threatening flags.

Bush also always wears a prominently-placed American flag pin on his lapel, just in case you forget where he's from. I can never help thinking of the image of Hitler wearing his quiet Iron Cross on an otherwise plain, neatly-tailored uniform. *

Presidents have been wearing pins and speaking in front of eagle-topped flags for decades. Do they remind you of Hitler too? Gimme a break!

(Sometimes, I think "writers" like this were sent by aliens to test how stupid and gullible we earthlings are.)

*Religion in politics violates Canadians' traditional political civility.*

That's why God is mentioned in the Charter? That's why it's found in the Oath of Allegiance and the National Anthem? I love it when self-serving pundits re-write Canada's traditions to suit their own "reality."  Sir, just shut up already.

I am an atheist. But I don't hear the jackboots of fascism every time someone mentions God. I must be free of the necessary delusions held by Mr John Chuckman (and Dreambird, apparently).


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I am an agnostic... so?

Give me a break! It's not the flag or the pins or the eagles... "God Bless America" "God Bless Canada" "Gott Mit Uns"... whatever... it's meant to stir up sentiment.

It *is* rubbish to use that phrase in a political speech... which Harper has... it doesn't belong there... not from Bush not from Harper not from Hitler full stop!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> ...
> So true... I would not go downtown Calgary alone at night... with a bunch of other people yes... but alone? No! I've been in Vancouver and Toronto at night... Calgary does not hold a candle for life and vitality.
> ...


Are you blaming Klein/PCs for that too? Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary all have a crumby nightlife relative to Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. 

We know you don't like Klein, but credible criticism, like your point about the $400, seems better placed.

Alberta is benefiting from good (not necessarily perfect or even intelligent, but it worked) fiscal 'fixin' in the early Klein days and huge oil and gas revenues. Keep in mind that huge revenues require high prices and high production. The very 'non-Parkland' treatment of the energy industry (part of fiscal management) encouraged development of the resources. This set up the province to really benefit if prices shot up, but still do quite well with moderate prices. The province would have been fine with $25 oil, until they started locking in accelerating spending habits in recent years. 

Meanwhile other provinces undervalue their resources and treat big business as the enemy. I'd like the AB government to become more transparent, but if the alternative is the silliness seen in some other provinces, I can see why so many Albertans stick with the PCs.

Just looking at energy prices and ignoring things like long-term economic success, even through the 1998/9 oil price crash, seems to be Klein-bashing just for the sake of it. The problems, from my point of view, seemed to start when Klein reduced his drinking or possibly when Day was Finance Minister.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Uh, this rubbish makes sense to you?
> 
> *Bush usually says it in front of a set of gigantic, eagle-topped American flags, reminiscent of nothing so much as the days when Germany's leader spoke and sputtered in front of platoons of monstrous, threatening flags.
> 
> ...


while not the NY Times;


> Doing some elementary research (image searches on Google) I could not find another picture of an American president regularly wearing an American flag pin. Clinton- no. Bush the 1st- no. Reagan- no. Carter- no. Ford- no. Nixon- no. Kennedy- no. But do a quick search of George W. Bush and virtually every image features an American flag pin.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

From the article posted by dreambird:


> Religion in politics violates Canadians' traditional political civility.


Religious political leaders != Religion in politics.

Just because a leader chooses to practice a religion does not mean that we can't have an effective separation of Church and State.

Both Cretein and Martin are practicing Catholics, IIRC, and I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with Harper's religious beliefs.

If you don't like a leader's policies, it's fair to attack them on those grounds, but to attack someone on the basis of their religious beliefs is an affront to "Canadians' traditional political civility"


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> Alberta is benefiting from good (not necessarily perfect or even intelligent, but it worked) fiscal 'fixin' in the early Klein days and huge oil and gas revenues. Keep in mind that huge revenues require high prices and high production. The very 'non-Parkland' treatment of the energy industry (part of fiscal management) encouraged development of the resources. This set up the province to really benefit if prices shot up, but still do quite well with moderate prices. The province would have been fine with $25 oil, until they started locking in accelerating spending habits in recent years.


Exactly! -- Great post Beej!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> There *are* viable options in Alberta... the Liberals for sure... in Alberta is just a case of people too stuborn to consider anything but Conservative...
> 
> The wealth here is not thanks to the Conservatives but in spite of them... no gas and oil... no wealth. Please don't throw the NEP at me again... it's over and done... not an issue anymore... no Liberal government would be dumb enough to try that again! Really!


If the provincial Liberals *really* want to be a viable alternative in Alberta, they would do well to "rebrand" themselves and distance themselves from the federal Liberals. It would also help if Taft could appear to be something other than an angry man on a rant.

There is enough recent history to keep the Liberals out in Alberta, even without bringing up the NEP and PET -- for example, the sponsorship scandal. Cretein didn't exactly reach out to the West, and while Martin may have been trying to build bridges it was too little, too late.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> Both Cretein and Martin are practicing Catholics, IIRC, and I don't see anything wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with Harper's religious beliefs.


I see nothing wrong with Harper's religous beliefs until he starts with the "God Bless Canada" aka "God Bless America"... it's an obvious tip of the hat to Bush. Agree with me or not... I really don't care... that's how I see it.

Some people in this country don't believe in "our" God... Christianity... whatever... he insults anyone who has a different conception of God. 

As for Alberta and Klein... no I don't like the guy... never have way back from his "bums and creeps from the east" days as mayor of Calgary... but even putting that dislike aside he's been in power for too long... and not JUST in power... we're talking an absurd majority. The rest of this country knows, sees and acknowledges a need for change but not Alberta... nuuhh-uhh... nope!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: good to hear from "insiders" on things Albertan.

as to "wise setting up"........



> George Santayana told us: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Have we learned the lessons of past oil booms and busts? Government spending has become undisciplined. Over the past five years the government has overspent its budget by about $1 billion on average. Last year it overspent by more than $1.5 billion. In 2002, the Financial Management Commission recommended that we save windfall resource revenue over $3.5 billion. Last year, we spent an extra billion of the windfall. This year we are projected to spend almost $4 billion extra. The same Financial Management Commission recommended that we spend 0.9 per cent of provincial GDP on capital. In today's hot economy that equates to about $1.8 billion. Current projections put this year's capital spending at nearly $4 billion.
> 
> Even if some have forgotten the oil price crash of the mid-1980s, almost everyone remembers the massive deficits and corresponding government cutbacks of the mid-1990s. Many people took a five-per-cent cut in salaries. Literally thousands of public sector workers, like nurses and teachers, lost their jobs. Alberta experienced the most painful contraction of the public sector since the Great Depression. It was no fun and no one wants to do it again.


Wisdom..??????????? where....? Not even listening to their own finance people.

http://www.engineering.ualberta.ca/nav02.cfm?nav02=43373&nav01=18430


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Some people in this country don't believe in "our" God... Christianity... whatever... he insults anyone who has a different conception of God.


Folks with different religious beliefs should still be tolerant to the beliefs of others -- taking offence at someone saying "God Bless" is a bit intolerant in my view.


Dreambird said:


> As for Alberta and Klein... no I don't like the guy... never have way back from his "bums and creeps from the east" days as mayor of Calgary... but even putting that dislike aside he's been in power for too long... and not JUST in power... we're talking an absurd majority. The rest of this country knows, sees and acknowledges a need for change but not Alberta... nuuhh-uhh... nope!


Well, I don't share your intense hatred of Klein, but I do agree it would be time for a change - or at least a stronger opposition.

Unfortunately neither the Liberals nor the NDP seem to be prepared to shift their platforms to appeal to mainstream Albertans, but that is what will be required if they hope to make any significant gains. Both parties have their core supporters, but don't have much appeal to the vast majority of the population.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Wisdom..??????????? where....? Not even listening to their own finance people.


Agreed! I hope government spending doesn't get out of control again -- the cuts of the early '90s, while necessary, aren't something I would like to see repeated.

Unfortunately it's hard to preach restraint in a boom -- although I would much prefer to see some money salted away for a rainy day. The $1B injection into the Heritage Fund is a good start, but I would like to see a bit more done.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> I see nothing wrong with Harper's religous beliefs until he starts with the "God Bless Canada" aka "God Bless America"... it's an obvious tip of the hat to Bush.


Or he's saying it because he believes it.

There are several obvious problems in your "logic" Dreambird:

a. You are transposing your hate of Bush onto Harper;
b. You are trying to "read minds" with Harper. You don't know why he's doing this, and suggesting it's a tip to Bush is only in your mind;
c. The simplest solution tends to be the right one.

Drop this. You look foolish.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Since when is pointing out parallels making yourself look foolish?
Bush and Harper do have a lot in common - from religious beliefs to the way they try and run the a campaign. "God Bless Canada" is a message whether you choose to ignore it or not. Changing the way judges are chosen here is another message - either you look at the incremental chances or wake up when it's too late....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> :clap: good to hear from "insiders" on things Albertan.


Well then you'll love this: http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060221.walbertadiscus0222/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt." 

I agree with tolerance for people of other religions... any religion... but I have to wonder if the above Wiccan belief would cause outrage... 
Someone's going to holler at me about "witches"... so... yes I believe Wicca is a religion and no I'm not talking about black magic... more like the Paganism the Native Americans believed in and "our" missionaries decided they needed "saving"... pick *any* other religion's main creed and speak it... would it be as well received as God Bless Canada?

Way too many wars have been started in the name of religion. 

I said I "disliked" Klein and have no fondness for him... where did that translate into "intense hatred"? 

I wonder how well Klein would have done as Premier of another province... more "have not"... say perhaps Newfoundland? 

Read from page 3 of the above link:


> Katherine Harding writes:It was warm and fuzzy, but lacked a lot of hard answers that Albertans are desperately hoping to have answered. While he committed $1-billion to the province's long-neglected Heritage Savings Trust Fund, a rainy day account set up in the 1970s, he didn't give people a sense of how he wants to steward the province's massive wealth in the long-term.
> 
> Mr. Klein also didn't tell Albertans what he's planning to do with the health care system later this year. There are expectations that the legislation, which is expected to be unveiled in April, will allow more private delivery in the health care system. There is talk the government will allow private hospitals, queue-jumping by patients willing to pay for treatments and doctors to practice in both private and public systems, a violation of the federal health act. But that's the problem. *Nobody -- except Klein and his Tory government — know exactly what's in store for the health care system.*
> 
> Mr. Klein also was short on details about his own political future. While the 63-year-old politician has publicly said in the past that he has no plans to step aside until Nov. 2007 at the earliest, many are wondering if he's still the man to lead the province. A leadership race has already sprouted up to replace him, and there are legitimate concerns that nothing will get done politically in this province until the question of Mr. Klein's future is settled. In late March, his party will hold a mandatory leadership vote.


We don't know for sure what he's going to pull out of his hat next... and that seems to be just fine with people... no accountability. He doesn't need to worry about such things when there's no one to oppose him.

Also I don't think I'm transferring any hatred from Bush to Harper as I've been well aware of Harper and his convictions since long before Bush was even President. If he still stands by some of the things he stated and stood for during his tenure with the NCC it will be "God Help Canada"!

John Chuckman who wrote the article I referred to which seems to have caused so much hand wringing is retired from a career in the oil biz:

John Chuckman, a free-lance writer, is a retired chief economist for Texaco Canada. He can be reached at: [email protected]. He contributed this article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from Portland, Maine, USA.

His email is there... feel free to tell him what you think of what he has to say...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I keep checking in on this thread on the hopes that Emerson has indeed quit... only to be dissappointed each time.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


>


Damn city slickers driving trucks.  



MacDoc said:


>


Wow... wasn't like that when I was in TO last fall. Good job editing out the smog though.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

> Doing some elementary research (image searches on Google) I could not find another picture of an American president regularly wearing an American flag pin. Clinton- no. Bush the 1st- no. Reagan- no. Carter- no. Ford- no. Nixon- no. Kennedy- no. But do a quick search of George W. Bush and virtually every image features an American flag pin.


Really?

Clinton wore pins a lot, it seems. I found these in about 60 secs. None are "flag pins" but one of them is a political pin of some sort:
http://www.askmen.com/men/january00/pictures/bill_clinton_150m.JPG
http://a1259.g.akamai.net/f/1259/55...ages/-/Bill-Clinton-Photograph-C10102849.jpeg
http://www.lanl.gov/history/people/images/President Clinton L.jpg

The third one is the first that came up on a Google search.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I keep checking in on this thread on the hopes that Emerson has indeed quit... only to be dissappointed each time.


Me too. The whole mess has grown tiresome. :yawn:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I keep checking in on this thread on the hopes that Emerson has indeed quit... only to be dissappointed each time.


Yeah, I just skimmed this whole thread and it's gone far off track.

Here is an account from Mike Watkins, the chair of the Conservative Campaign for Emerson's Resignation, of the recent sit-in and arrests at Emerson's Kingsway constituency office.

The sit-in was a peaceful and respectful cross-party affiliated action, where several activists agreed to be arrested in negotiations by the police. Their hearing dates will come up around the time that Parliament first sits. Emerson's people have been trying to spread the spin that there was some physical assault that took place, but Watkins claims this is not true. 

There seems to be some indication here that it was Emerson's chief of staff who insisted on charging the protesters, rather than conceding to their completely reasonable request of agreeing to meet with his constituents. Isn't that part of an MP's job description?


> The police seem quite satisfied with the account of events provided by the protesters.
> 
> Both RCMP (due to the office being a federal office) and the Vancouver Police attended. Those that remained within the office called themselves the "Emerson Nine". All reported that the police conducted themselves very professionally, as did everyone that participated in the sit-in.
> 
> ...





> In other words - I have been, and remain to this day, a committed conservative activist.
> 
> I have chosen to speak out in a very public manner over the David Emerson affair because, as a principled conservative, I can not remain silent when my party has violated a fundamental democratic principle and is acting in an unethical manner. I know I speak for many Conservative voices who, for whatever reason be it fear or pressure or their connections to our new found power in Ottawa, are unable to voice their true feelings on the matter. A number of conservative activists who have political pedigrees far longer than mine have contacted me to voice their private support and I thank them for that.
> 
> Regardless of any pressure put upon me by the party leadership, directly or indirectly, I shall continue to be an active participant in this campaign to force David Emerson's resignation.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gotta give Mike Watkins credit
putting aside partisan politics to attack Emerson's betrayal of the trust of the good people of Vancouver-Kingsway
good for him
if the "Emerson 9" need a legal defence fund I'l be writing a cheque
a little civil disobedience now and then is good for the soul and hopefully will get rid of he who "sold out"


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

New de-election sign?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Emerson "apologized" in a letter to his constituents today.


> These past several days have been a difficult time for my family and me. I know many of my constituents are having difficulty with the choice I have made. To those of you who are upset with my decision - I apologize. However, I did not come by this decision lightly and I stand firm behind the decision to become a part of this new government


So he's saying "I'm sorry if you're upset but my decision was the correct one."

Some apology. He just keeps flipping the bird to his constituents over and over.


----------



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

GA, that sounds like a non-apology apology. I would expect that from a child who was told to "Say your sorry to your sister", but not from a person in Parliament.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, not impressive, at all.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Hey! When did people start talking about Emerson in the "Emerson may quit" thread?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

nxnw said:


> Hey! When did people start talking about Emerson in the "Emerson may quit" thread?


 Wow yea, the dolts who hijack a thread really irritate me. This is the "Emerson may quit 
" thread and hopefully soon it will be the Emerson quit thread.

John


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Emerson "apologized" in a letter to his constituents today.
> 
> So he's saying "I'm sorry if you're upset but my decision was the correct one."
> 
> Some apology. He just keeps flipping the bird to his constituents over and over.


yep, Emerson is exactly what is wrong with politicians
i'm sure he flashed that "apology" by his legal beagles just to make sure he wasn't actually promising anything

the man's a pig
the decision was only correct in terms of emerson's self interest and nothing for the constituents he allegedly represents

and throw in the "family" bit to pull on heartstrings
to quote bugs bunny; "What a maroon!"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "What a maroon!"


Gee, thanks for pointing that out. 

I hardly noticed he had changed color from red to blue to maroon!


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

In't maroon what you get when you mix red and blue?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Ethics czar to probe Emerson move
> 
> TERRY WEBER
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060303.wcommiss0303/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The reaction to this is totally disproportionate to the history of other MP's crossing the floor. How many people were this ticked off when Belinda crossed the floor? 

It sounds like a deal in the Softwood dispute was close to being done before the election. Somebody in this thread previously asked me what progress Emerson had done on this file. Well, there you have it. It was almost resolved. This could have played heavily into Harpers decision to pull Emerson into the party.

Now all this talk of Emerson is distracting from the objective of resolving the dispute. 

How many of you actually voted in this riding anyways? Get over it already. 

I think all the protests in his riding are organized by the NDP. They came in second place and think their chances in a bi-election would be good. I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I think all the protests in his riding are organized by the NDP.


So what? 



> I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


Why? Does it matter who they are for some reason?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> They came in second place and think their chances in a bi-election would be good. I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


How about the Cons never had a chance in that riding?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I think all the protests in his riding are organized by the NDP. They came in second place and think their chances in a bi-election would be good. I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


I think they want a By-election. It's the Bi-election (an election where the winner goes both ways) that the voters didn't like.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The reaction to this is totally disproportionate to the history of other MP's crossing the floor. How many people were this ticked off when Belinda crossed the floor?


Dave, the oft-repeated comparison to BS or other floor crossers is bogus, as I believe has been explained here several times. It's a Conservative talking point that has mostly been abandoned because people know otherwise.

Emerson's crossing is unprecedented in the history of floor-crossing MPs, as you should well know. Although I don't doubt for a second that Stronach's defection was nothing more than sheer ambition, she at least could come up with a plausible reason for her switch, she sat in the House as a Con for many months and can cite a history of policy disagreements with Harper and the direction he was leading the party, Emerson's reasons are patently obvious as crap. Emerson contradicted public statement's about the Cons that he made the evening before he made his decision. He spent less than 24 hours as an elected Liberal before he made his decision to switch and never sat one minute in the House as a Liberal MP. The reason for the anger is that people, other than those wearing partisan blinders, grasp that this is fundamentally dishonest.


Vandave said:


> It sounds like a deal in the Softwood dispute was close to being done before the election. Somebody in this thread previously asked me what progress Emerson had done on this file. Well, there you have it. It was almost resolved. This could have played heavily into Harpers decision to pull Emerson into the party.
> 
> Now all this talk of Emerson is distracting from the objective of resolving the dispute.


Many seem to yak about Emerson's competence as if there is no one other than him in this whole country who could make a deal, especially those who want to justify his defection as an imperative for Harper. I highly doubt that he is anywhere near as supremely talented as he is being made out to be. His stupid decision to cross the floor the way he did, shows me that he's not nearly as intelligent as 90% of the public who panned it.


Vandave said:


> How many of you actually voted in this riding anyways? Get over it already.


Are only those who are living in the riding given the right to comment on this issue. Nonsense.

Get over it? :lmao: In Harpo's dreams, but I doubt if that's happening anytime soon. The guy's still afraid to show his face in public, probably out of fear for his life and every little blip to do with the issue provokes national press coverage.


Vandave said:


> I think all the protests in his riding are organized by the NDP. They came in second place and think their chances in a bi-election would be good. I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


Many of the protesters are NDP supporters, but certainly not all, by any stretch. If you check out my post above from a Conservative supporter who was at the riding office sit-in, you will see that. Maybe you should contact him and he can give you pictures so you won't have to sit out in the rain with your camera.

Anyway the NDP supporters have a right to be justifiably angry. Emerson told their supporters during the election that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Cons and that they needed to vote for him to help prevent a Stephen Harper government. He's on the record for that. And many otherwise NDP supporters in the riding who weren't aware that the actual Con candidate had no hope in hell in that riding did vote based on what Emerson and his former party were saying. Don't they have a reason to be somewhat miffed at the guy for such an outrageous betrayal of trust?

What I find interesting is how many Conservative supporters are P'Oed at Harper for this. Was Harper imagining any of this when he had that s**t-eatin' grin on his face while he watched the "Honourable" David Emerson being sworn in?

It's going to be fun watching Emerson take his seat on the front benches. And being chased down the halls in Parliament by scrumming reporters. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Although I don't doubt for a second that Stronach's defection was nothing more than sheer ambition, she at least could come up with a plausible reason for her switch, she sat in the House as a Con for many months and can cite a history of policy disagreements with Harper and the direction he was leading the party


Stronach was quite clear that she did not support bringing the government down - no one except the Cons at that point wanted an election and Harper was doing nothing to govern being totally obstructionist.
SHE spoke to David Petersens wife about her concerns and it went from there.
She's a centrist Ontarian and her riding was closely split - she had her issues with Harper and did not support bringing down the government.
Ambition may have well played a role but in my view it was minor against the other issues.
She had spent time in the Con ranks and run for leadership - knoew what she leaving.

Emerson's move was just plain outrageous and deserves all the protests and investigations it is getting.

That it may be a pragmatic fix does not excuse the way in which it was done and the riding is rightly up in arms about it.
The mess with Ignatief is only slightly less odious for Liberals and hurt them likely more than will ever be known.
That Emerson is an outsider then crosses the floor for a Cabinet post stinks to high heaven and perhaps it's about time some power gets vested back in the grass roots and away from "Ottawa knows best" whatever flavour happens to lurk in the PMO's office.

To their credit - many Cons are equally outraged......as ALL should be.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Dave, the oft-repeated comparison to BS or other floor crossers is bogus, as I believe has been explained here several times. It's a Conservative talking point that has mostly been abandoned because people know otherwise.
> 
> Emerson's crossing is unprecedented in the history of floor-crossing MPs, as you should well know. Although I don't doubt for a second that Stronach's defection was nothing more than sheer ambition, she at least could come up with a plausible reason for her switch, she sat in the House as a Con for many months and can cite a history of policy disagreements with Harper and the direction he was leading the party, Emerson's reasons are patently obvious as crap.


The Liberal talking points. Stronach's crossing was handled better politically by the Liberals and the Conservatives response was handled worse than the current Liberal response. While the Emerson move is great to point out Conservative hypocrisy, trying to advance Stronach's move as more virtuous in any significant way is somewhat of a joke. Some of the Cons here have had the honesty to be disappointed and angered with both moves, despite partisan/anti-partisan preferences.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> The reaction to this is totally disproportionate to the history of other MP's crossing the floor. How many people were this ticked off when Belinda crossed the floor?


You mean, say, angry enough to call her a "prostitute" in public? Who would that have been, Vandave? Oh, that would be the Con MPs who had NO trouble disparaging her. That's the same bunch of hypocrites who welcomed Emerson with open arms as a "good man." That would be the party you favour, Vandave. That's gotta suck for you, being associated with a bunch of hypocrites like that.



Vandave said:


> It sounds like a deal in the Softwood dispute was close to being done before the election.


And according to those closest to the negotiations, it was EMERSON who voiced the opinion that ultimately stopped the deal from being signed. 



Vandave said:


> Somebody in this thread previously asked me what progress Emerson had done on this file.


That was me. And Emerson has still done dick about the issue. Wait, he's possibly done WORSE than dick -- he may have killed the deal or maybe tried to suspend the signing of it.



Vandave said:


> Well, there you have it. It was almost resolved. This could have played heavily into Harpers decision to pull Emerson into the party.


Which is the object of several investigations going on right now.



Vandave said:


> Now all this talk of Emerson is distracting from the objective of resolving the dispute.


Right, because Emerson is very busy hiding from the protesters, when in fact it distracts him from what he's doing right now: hiding from the negotiating table. There are no protesters interfering with his phonecalls at his Ottawa office, are there?



Vandave said:


> How many of you actually voted in this riding anyways? Get over it already.


When I voted federally in 1997 and 2000, I was in Vancouver-Kingsway. So YES it matters to me. What's more important is that it matters to enough people -- regardless of party affiliation -- that there should be more of a response than "sorry, but it's my decision and mine alone, so lump it." That's not representation: that's bull.



Vandave said:


> I think all the protests in his riding are organized by the NDP. They came in second place and think their chances in a bi-election would be good. I am going to take pictures of the people next time they have a protest and find out who they are.


And if a lefty had suggested doing such creepy things, most of the righties on this board likely would have gone crazy -- along with many of the lefties, including myself. But suggesting totalitarian activities like "taking pictures of the people" and "finding out who they are," is OK for you, right?

If you want to know who the protesters are, you don't need to pull Gestapo tactics -- just walk up to them and ask them. Or maybe you prefer to skulk around the fringes with a camera...

Good Night, And Good Luck with that increasing gap in credibility. In the meantime, that "minister" you possibly share a name with remains in hiding in his Ottawa office, with no visible evidence that's he doing anything but continuing to collect big fat cheques -- our money.

Politics As Usual.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Liberal talking points. Stronach's crossing was handled better politically by the Liberals and the Conservatives response was handled worse than the current Liberal response. While the Emerson move is great to point out Conservative hypocrisy, trying to advance Stronach's move as more virtuous in any significant way is somewhat of a joke. Some of the Cons here have had the honesty to be disappointed and angered with both moves, despite partisan/anti-partisan preferences.


Where did I say that Stronach's move is more virtuous? Where did I ascribe virtue to BS? Please don't put words in my mouth, Beej, not what I would expect from you. As you might have noticed, I'm not a Lib supporter and would never make excuses for them. I think I clearly stated my estimation, in my opinion, of her likely real motives. But BS at least can come up with some rationale for her moves and can cite differences of opinion with the Cons policy and Harper.

Emerson's reasons look like crap because he so blatantly contradicted what he had said in public hours before. He lied to voters in Vancouver-Kingsway when he sold many on the idea that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Conservatives, then without even blinking, or digesting the meals he ate when he made those assertions, became one. In that sense his defection was worse than anyone else's.

And yes, the Libs did handle the defection better than Harper and Emerson who have continued to stumble and compound their problem. Which goes to the question of how can Emerson be regarded as some kind of brilliant wunderkind?
I think his career shows he's only talented at knowing who holds power and putting himself in their proximity.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> He lied to voters in Vancouver-Kingsway when he sold many on the idea that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Conservatives, then without even blinking, or digesting the meals he ate when he made those assertions, became one. In that sense his defection was worse than anyone else's.


And probably his defecation, too. 

Sorry, the close to being a pun wasn't intentional, but when I saw it, I just had to go with it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GA so you don't think crossing the floor to enable a fragile minority government to continue to govern when 

a) a huge majority of Canadians wanted nothing to do with an election ( some 83% at that point in time )

b) your original party was COMPLETELY obstructionist in parliament

c) you had ongoing issues with management and direction of said party

d) your riding was closely split between the two parties.

has no merit?? 

What BETTER time could there be to make a difference by crossing the floor?

There was some good and much needed legislation on the go that now may be lost forever. 

and may I remind everyone she was RE-ELECTED in the same riding again by a thin margin even when Liberals were having a tough time in the election.

Emerson wouldn't stand a chance in his riding.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Where did I say that Stronach's move is more virtuous? Where did I ascribe virtue to BS?
> ...
> In that sense his defection was worse than anyone else's.
> ...
> ...


Ok, point taken. You did preface her reasons as plausible, not likely, as well as the ambition comment. My mistake. I should have said 'less disreputable' instead of 'more virtuous', but that still wouldn't have properly characterised your wording.
...
Handled worse politically or, in some material way, more disreputable?
...
Politics and business are very different. You're referring to his political career I suppose? Stronach seems to be learning this much faster than Emerson (Harper took some years). The softwood negotation comments from McKenna do suggest there was good progress, which would support concepts of him being good outside of the spotlight. Either way, for better or for worse (worse), the spotlight is a major part of the job. Can't handle it: go home.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

There is also the point that Emerson lives in a riding which, IIRC, has voted for the left wing parties (that is, NDP or Liberals) in 8 of the 9 elections it's existed for.

Given the left leanings of the constituency, is it that surprising that his switch to the right wing party would be seen as a major betrayal? 

Maybe he was mistakenly thinking that he won by such a large margin because everyone voted for <em>him specifically</em>?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Maybe he was mistakenly thinking that he won by such a large margin because everyone voted for <em>him specifically</em>?


I think he just wanted to get stuff done (power) and doesn't care for the politics part. That, of course, begs the question of why he got into politics. The answer goes back to power. He accomplished a lot as a businessman but certain things require political power. I would like to see more accomplished people interested in getting things done in politics, but not by playing games in the system. The system is a result of the people (not talking about the electoral system GA, just politics in general) so gaming it to get around its flaws is a bad idea, in my mind. In this case the ends don't justify the means to me.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> GA so you don't think crossing the floor to enable a fragile minority government to continue to govern when
> 
> a) a huge majority of Canadians wanted nothing to do with an election ( some 83% at that point in time )
> 
> ...


I was glad there was no election at that time, but I'm not buying Stronach as being a principled defender of Canada, or defender of anything besides herself. That's just my take based on my gut feeling, maybe there was some hint of principle in what she did, but I would be more convinced of that if she had just left the Cons and sat as an independent, where she could have accomplished the same objectives you listed. I don't doubt she had issues with her party, the most believable being her support of same-sex marriage, but my gut tells me issues are not of the same degree of importance to politicians like her than the pursuit of power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You seem to see power inherently evil - Machiavelli would strongly disagree.
You cannot institute change without being in power and her switch to an independent would hardly put her in a position to manage or instigate change. She was after the leadership of the Cons if you recall. 

Sitting as an independent would not put her in the halls of power and clearly her riding supported her by relecting her.

Emerson on the other hand was parachuted into the riding so clearly the riding was voting the party not the person.

Why has no one brought up Charest in this discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was glad there was no election at that time, but I'm not buying Stronach as being a principled defender of Canada, or defender of anything besides herself. That's just my take based on my gut feeling, maybe there was some hint of principle in what she did, but I would be more convinced of that if she had just left the Cons and sat as an independent, where she could have accomplished the same objectives you listed. I don't doubt she had issues with her party, the most believable being her support of same-sex marriage, but my gut tells me issues are not of the same degree of importance to politicians like her than the pursuit of power.


No gut needed. Why didn't she vote for the government as a Conservative or independent? Bad for the political career. Why didn't she vote against the fake confidence motions by the Cons? Bad for the political career. The motions were childish and had cheap 'non-confidence' wording. All the more reason to vote against them, if continued governance had anything significant to do with it.

The reasons cited by Stronach and the Liberal spin machine were good political spin (that's what they at least used to be very good at) but they all suggest either staying with the Cons and voting against them (and losing the important critics' position  ) or sitting as an independent. Negotiated power at a time when the Liberals were willing to pay dearly for it leads to floor-crossing into a cabinet post. 

Emerson and Stronach are virtually the same (spin aside) except Stronach is learning and/or accepting more about political reality; the Liberals handled the issue much better; and the Conservatives hung their coat on credibility...do they want to wear it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bull. 
Totally different situation, timing, riding, government status...... not even close to comparable. You've offered no substance other than YOUR statement which devolves down to personal assessment without a shred of justification other than some vague wavings abut spin.

They're same because you say so?????.......not likely.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bull.
> Totally different situation, timing, riding, government status...... not even close to comparable. You've offered no substance other than YOUR statement which devolves down to personal assessment without a shred of justification other than some vague wavings abut spin.
> 
> They're same because you say so?????.......not likely.


:lmao: 

Your arguments about how it is different have been demonstrated to be 'Bull', to use your wording (they didn't require floor crossing and/or were pure powerplays). The totally different situation argument can play into favouring Emerson, unless you ignore the reasons most of your other reasons were flawed. I expect you to ignore reason. An argument that holds something is that Stronach moved from the winning party to #2, not #3. Not a great foundation for a powerplay, but that's all you've got against the mountain of evidence against there being any non-powerplay reason. And that doesn't address comparing that reason to reasons the Stronach move was worse. 

I haven't been MacDoc'd in a while. Let's agree on something: you hug me, honestly and without malice, and I'll participate in your special process for a bit. Patent it before NTP does!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Beej, 

I dunno. I'm just putting ideas out there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Beej,
> 
> I dunno. I'm just putting ideas out there.


I agree that your first point is important, but not the whole story when looking at both defections.

On the second point, it is quite possible he truly thinks a major share of his votes are personal not partisan. He does seem to have a 'tin ear' for politics. I proposed a more direct and cynical alternative: power, power, power.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Ok, point taken. You did preface her reasons as plausible, not likely, as well as the ambition comment. My mistake. I should have said 'less disreputable' instead of 'more virtuous', but that still wouldn't have properly characterised your wording.
> ...
> Handled worse politically or, in some material way, more disreputable?
> ...
> Politics and business are very different. You're referring to his political career I suppose? Stronach seems to be learning this much faster than Emerson (Harper took some years). The softwood negotation comments from McKenna do suggest there was good progress, which would support concepts of him being good outside of the spotlight. Either way, for better or for worse (worse), the spotlight is a major part of the job. Can't handle it: go home.


Thank you, Beej.

...
Actually Emerson seems to be characterized as a businessman, when most of his career was as a civil-servant, who rose quickly through the ranks, from a beginner in the BC civil service to deputy minister of finance in Bill Bennett's conservative Social Credit government in 9 years. He had a lot of connections that gave him good standing in the business community and with the Vancouver Board of Trade and supported efforts at privatization, so his first and his first job in business was as a CEO, straight out of the BC government.

Then after 4 years as a bank CEO it was back to high positions in the BC government and then when the NDP took over he parachuted to head of the newly privatized Vancouver Airport Authority, no doubt an appointment made because of his history as a privatizer. Then on to CEO of Canfor Corporation (Canadian Forest Products) for a few years before Martin convinced him to become an MP. What did he know about the lumber business before he took over a lumber company?

If he was a businessman, it wasn't in any traditional sense, since he never worked his way up in business or held any position other than CEO. He never created or built any company only took over as head or sat on their boards. He does have a Master of Economics degree however. 

I think his career in government shows that he knew which way the wind was blowing politically and made sure his sails were lined up in the right direction. His brief stint with the Liberals was probably only possible because Martin was dragging the party to the economic right and had no problem with someone like Emerson. The Conservatives are more naturally his home but they used to have that little problem, from Emerson's perspective, of not being the government. Problem solved January 23rd.

A good question, that some have started to ask is: Did Emerson plan this little move as a plan B all along and is that why he never completed the softwood deal? Need a whistleblower on that one.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Thank you, Beej.
> ...
> Actually Emerson seems to be characterized as a businessman, when most of his career was as a civil-servant.
> ...
> ...


You are welcome.
...
Thanks, didn't know the proportion of his non private-sector experience.
...
Aaargh. What can I say? All degrees, professions, ideologies and perspectives have their miscreants.  Personally, I've seen way too many economics majors who used the discipline as a language for their sectarian views, and too few true thinkers. Politics doesn't lend itself to thinkers, it lends itself to promoters. The same can be said of many disciplines, but now is OUR time for POWER! (I'm joking, for those trolling for future quotes)
...
Strangely enough, the party appeared more lefty after he took power. Martin's leadership was just plain strange.
...
Agreed. And Stronach's natural home was the Libs, arguably (PCs, in my opinion, by that's my bias  ). Go figure. I'm not reducing the importance of your comment, just pointing it out because some get a little anti-partisan around here.
...
Possible, although McKenna's comments suggest otherwise. I've heard similar stuff about Stronach (Trojan horse). Either one could be true but either way their actions are on full display, no extra slime needed.

I'm actually not hugely bothered by either. The hypocrisy of the partisan/anti-partisan set is actually more irritating to me. But, then again, I've got a sick little elitist streak.  You may have seen this in our other discussions, especially electoral reform.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> You seem to see power inherently evil - Machiavelli would strongly disagree.
> You cannot institute change without being in power and her switch to an independent would hardly put her in a position to manage or instigate change. She was after the leadership of the Cons if you recall.
> 
> Sitting as an independent would not put her in the halls of power and clearly her riding supported her by relecting her.
> ...


I think the issue of power vs. principle is never black and white. Probably has to be judged on a case by case basis. If you believe what you are writing about Stronach then you should have no problem with Emerson's stated reasons. He _claims_ to be doing it because he needs the power to do good for BC and Vancouver in his new Cabinet post. I believe he has also said that if the Liberals got in he would have stayed with them for the same reasons. 

[sarcasm] Hmmm, given those reasons maybe all the opposition MPs should cross the floor. Then they'd all have the power to do good for their constituents. [/sarcasm]

I think that ideally the pursuit of political power should come out of principles held by the politician. I think that many go into it with ideals, but I think many lose them and learn the game. I think that power corrupts and believe many succumb to it. I think that people like Emerson are so used to having power that they can't bear to be without it. I think the idea of him sitting on the Opposition benches was something he couldn't seriously contemplate.

I think that Stronach is also used to power, but likely more savvy about appearing to be guided by principle. It's just my gut telling me this, I have nothing to point to her stated reasons being fake, other than I just simply mistrust them. After all she started out her political career by being a very wealthy heiress/figurehead CEO who decided to boldly shoot for the leadership of the newly combined Conservative party. She probably hoped that the Red Tories who she had more in common with, would sweep her in and her boldness made it look for a few minutes like she had some serious momentum. When it became clear that she was on the outs with Harper's group she split, at a time when her bargaining power with the Libs was pretty high.

But if her intent was to block an election, because of her stated concern for the country, this could have been accomplished as an independent. She would have actually had more power as an independent propping up the Liberals, than as a member of the government, because they would have had to woo her on every vote. Her vote as Liberal cabinet minister was assured. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

One thing now is that her run for Liberal leader will probably fail, because I doubt if the Liberals could realistically elect a floor crosser, with all that Emerson has done to discredit the practice.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Strangely enough, the party appeared more lefty after he took power. Martin's leadership was just plain strange.


Well I think there are two explanations. His minority government had to accommodate the NDP, which didn't displease me. And secondly, during the election he needed to campaign on the left, a usual Liberal tactic, but he was even more that way than usual, because Harper seemed to be surprisingly crowding into the centre. I don't think that the Liberal strategists or anyone else was prepared to see Harper attempt the "campaign to the left" game and they probably panicked a bit figuring they had to stake out some NDP turf.

Of course the game is always campaign on the left, govern on the right and when a government in Canada gets a majority that almost always what happens. Even Dubya used that tactic in 2000, making people think he wasn't a whole lot different than Gore.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> His minority government had to accommodate the NDP, which didn't displease me.
> ...
> And secondly, during the election he needed to campaign on the left, a usual Liberal tactic, but he was even more that way than usual, because Harper seemed to be surprisingly crowding into the centre.
> 
> ...


Evil! (I'm just joking...I think  ). I respect your approach and that is VERY important to me. I'll still make fun of you though, despite any respect.  
...
The Liberal tactic is power. That has (1960s+) meant acting left. Are you talking about the 2004 election? Harper wasn't very centrist there, and the Liberals seemed to demonstrate uncertainty about which way to lean. Everything was ' very very important'. 
...
A whole different discussion. For example, Kerry faked right, in sports lingo.

Regarding Bush (DERAIL!): the 'compassionate conservative', while being a real and credible concept, was abused in the rhetoric. There are those who would be described as such, although 'Beejist' is the preferred term.

[Edit: I know Gore was 2000 and Kerry was 2004. The point was positioning.]


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The Liberal talking points. Stronach's crossing was handled better politically by the Liberals and the Conservatives response was handled worse than the current Liberal response. While the Emerson move is great to point out Conservative hypocrisy, trying to advance Stronach's move as more virtuous in any significant way is somewhat of a joke. Some of the Cons here have had the honesty to be disappointed and angered with both moves, despite partisan/anti-partisan preferences.


Exactly. I am not defending Emerson's move. I already said I disagreed with it. What makes me angry is the imbalance in people's viewpoints when comparing Emerson to Stronich when both situations are similar.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> If you want to know who the protesters are, you don't need to pull Gestapo tactics -- just walk up to them and ask them. Or maybe you prefer to skulk around the fringes with a camera...
> 
> Good Night, And Good Luck with that increasing gap in credibility. In the meantime, that "minister" you possibly share a name with remains in hiding in his Ottawa office, with no visible evidence that's he doing anything but continuing to collect big fat cheques -- our money.
> 
> Politics As Usual.


If you are making a protest in public, guess what.... it's public. It goes with the territory. 

The easier way to find out how many NDPers are there would be to create a fake petition that an NDPer would support (e.g. raising minimum wage to $30, banning corporations in Canada, etc...).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In that sense his defection was worse than anyone else's.


The point isn't which defector was worse. They were both wrong.

The backlash against Stronich wasn’t anywhere near that to what Emerson is getting. The response is not proportionate in any way.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Vandave said:


> If you are making a protest in public, guess what.... it's public. It goes with the territory.
> 
> The easier way to find out how many NDPers are there would be to create a fake petition that an NDPer would support (e.g. raising minimum wage to $30, banning corporations in Canada, etc...).


:lmao: 

Well... *that* has to be one of the dumber things I've heard/read lately... "NDP'ers" don't support a raise in minimum wages to $30 although I suppose it would be nice... sheeesh a lot of people in unions don't make that much! 

Nor do they want to "ban corporations in Canada" and I have no idea what "etc" means...

I've got to assume you're kidding here but having seen what you post I'm not so sure...  

In any case... it's still just plain rude IMO to stick a camera in someone's face but not illegal I suppose... but a number of those protesters might just be Conservatives or Liberals... in other words... residents in that riding who are pissed off with Emerson's actions...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Well... *that* has to be one of the dumber things I've heard/read lately... "NDP'ers" don't support a raise in minimum wages to $30 although I suppose it would be nice... sheeesh a lot of people in unions don't make that much!
> 
> ...


Yes I am joking. I am also joking about taking pictures, but I suspect it was lost on most people. My point is that I think most of these people are NDPers and I wish I had a way to prove it.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Yes I am joking. I am also joking about taking pictures, but I suspect it was lost on most people. My point is that I think most of these people are NDPers and I wish I had a way to prove it.


So let's say, for the sake of argument, that you prove your contention. What then? What's the point you're trying to make here?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> My point is that I think most of these people are NDPers and I wish I had a way to prove it.


Again VanNutt, trying to label protesters to somehow make it fit into your twisted little view that somehow Emerson's defection was a good thing?
Emerson ran under the Liberal banner and won. A Con candidate had no chance there. 

Now, Harper refused to co-operate with the Grewal investigation, and he now refuses to do so for this one:


> "We're not going to cooperate," said Sandra Buckler, the prime minister's director of communications.


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/...6229d-3e66-46a9-b616-267577d3bc81&k=16351&p=1
Seem that Harper has his own definition of "transparent" and "accountable" 

Now, to be fair, the Globe does have a valid point - if Harper had not campaigned on his higher ethics platform


> The former Liberal could probably have avoided all this if he had done the right thing and agreed to resign his seat and run again as a Tory. He claims he could win such a contest, so why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and try?
> 
> By one estimate, Parliament has seen 166 party "switchers" since 1921. Mr. Emerson's case was a particularly egregious example because he crossed to the Tories just weeks after campaigning ferociously against them in his Vancouver riding. That was a betrayal of his constituents, no doubt. But a breach of parliamentary ethics?


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060304.EEMERSON04/TPStory/Comment

Harper, the good Con that he is, will obvious try to attack the commissioner, thus deflected the attention. 
Why would Harper not want to subject himself to:


> Cleaning up government by enacting and enforcing the Federal Accountability Act;


is anyone's guess, he has already weakened:


> Supporting parents’ child care choices through direct assistance and by creating more daycare spaces; and
> 
> Delivering the health care Canadians need, when they need it, by addressing the fiscal imbalance and establishing a patient wait times guarantee with the provinces.


http://pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?featureId=5

There is a new term in Canadian politics: Harpocrisy

Harper should show his real values (if he really has some) and participate. Does he have something to hide? Instead of welcoming the investigation, he prefers to attack the Ethics commissioner trying to taint him with the corruption of some Liberal members. Nothing new from the Cons.....

His new director of communications will try and spin this - but the fact is that Harper has double standards.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> - but the fact is that Harper has double standards.


Must have picked it up from Paul Martin, do ya think?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Might have picked it up from Ralph Klein; he has double standards too. No, wait -- make that double scotch. My bad.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The backlash against Stronich wasn’t anywhere near that to what Emerson is getting. The response is not proportionate in any way.


Perhaps BECAUSE THEY WERE VERY DIFFERENT.

Sometimes applying Occam's Razor actually is a good idea.......most times in fact.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Must have picked it up from Paul Martin, do ya think?


where are the the cries of "mr. dithers" from albertans?

so harpo is just another dyed the wool slezy politician?
i thought alberta didn't grow them like that out there?

oh, sorry, forgot about the Klein junta


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> The point isn't which defector was worse. They were both wrong.
> 
> The backlash against Stronich wasn’t anywhere near that to what Emerson is getting. The response is not proportionate in any way.


1. it's "Stronach"
2. has anyone MP called Emerson a "bimbo" or a "whore" just yet?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> So let's say, for the sake of argument, that you prove your contention. What then? What's the point you're trying to make here?


My point is that I think they see an opportunity to get their person in.

If these protests are being organized by the party, or key NDP riding members, then they are doing it more for political points, rather than real anger or outrage.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again VanNutt, trying to label protesters to somehow make it fit into your twisted little view that somehow Emerson's defection was a good thing?


Do I really have to say it again? I don't support what Emerson did. 

I am saying the response to this and the supposed outrage is not proportionate to the Stronach defection.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Perhaps BECAUSE THEY WERE VERY DIFFERENT.
> 
> Sometimes applying Occam's Razor actually is a good idea.......most times in fact.


Yes they are different situations.

I live by Occam's Razor. What's your point? That Emerson did the move for personal gain? If so, I agree. But, the same could be said of the Stronach defection.

You can't downplay that Stronach ran for leadership of the Conservative Party. That makes her different than a typical MP or even Cabinet Minister.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

While I don't care for Emerson's actions, I don't see them as being significantly different than Stronach's.

While neither floor crossing passes the "sniff test", I doubt either represents an ethics violation, as floor crossing is permitted in our system. I expect the *real* motivation for the investigation of Emerson can be found here:


> The decision to launch the probe ensures that the issue, which had begun to recede from the public mind, will be resurrected and almost certainly stay in the news for months to come.


source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060304.wxczar0304/BNStory/Front/home

Unfortunately politics is a dirty business, and we have to put up with the likes of Emerson and Stronach from time to time. Before the NDP supporters chime in with "Liberal, Tory same old story", it's worth pointing out that NDP governments in BC weren't exactly squeaky clean, and the same would no doubt happen if they were in power federally. It's pretty easy for any party to look perfect whilst in opposition, but all this changes as soon as they get power!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> My point is that I think they see an opportunity to get their person in.
> 
> If these protests are being organized by the party, or key NDP riding members, then they are doing it more for political points, rather than real anger or outrage.





> Feb. 19, 2006
> VANCOUVER (CP) - Dozens of constituents were joined by Liberal party faithful who worked on embattled MP David Emerson's re-election campaign Sunday in yet another protest calling for his resignation.


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/19/1451851-cp.html



> updated Feb. 13, 2006
> Meanwhile, Ontario Conservative MP Garth Turner defended his decision to speak out against former Liberal David Emerson's jump to the Tories.
> 
> Turner said Sunday on CTV's Question Period that the situation could easily be cleared up if Emerson just did what voters want: run in a byelection and seek a mandate from the people in his riding.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...12/emerson_protest_060212/20060213?hub=Canada

from conservative "pundit" Stephen Taylor


> However, David Emerson should run in a by-election as a Conservative before he assumes his duties in cabinet. Concerning Fortier, Stephen Harper should immediately start his elected senator appointment process and Michel Fortier should run to become elected.


cached page
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache...ive+protests+emerson&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=9


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> While I don't care for Emerson's actions, I don't see them as being significantly different than Stronach's.
> 
> While neither floor crossing passes the "sniff test", I doubt either represents an ethics violation, as floor crossing is permitted in our system.  I expect the *real* motivation for the investigation of Emerson can be found here:
> 
> ...


from the same linked article above
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060304.wxczar0304/BNStory/Front/home


> Mr. Harper and Mr. Shapiro already have a history, after the Prime Minister — who was then opposition leader — refused to meet with Mr. Shapiro to discuss the case of former Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal.


yep, Harpo just doens't want to respect the office that Shapiro represents


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

From reading the entire article, it looks like there is some evidence that Shapiro isn't exactly non-partisan himself -- even Ed Broadbent is calling for Shapiro's resignation:


> But Ms. Buckler noted that former NDP MP Ed Broadbent has asked for Mr. Shapiro to step down.
> 
> She also referred to the fact that Mr. Shapiro was found in contempt of the House of Commons last year when a parliamentary committee ruled that he made inappropriate comments during an interview.


While this is cerctainly no worse than the garbage we have seen from the Liberals, this whole thing stinks from all angles. I agree with this part:


> “I think that politically it's a wake-up call that Stephen Harper cannot govern the way the Liberals governed,” Mr. Julian said.
> 
> “People were expecting more and they haven't seen it.”


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Do I really have to say it again? I don't support what Emerson did.
> 
> I am saying the response to this and the supposed outrage is not proportionate to the Stronach defection.


Apparently you have to say it again and again and again. 
...
Emerson pissed off more people and his move was during very slow news. New governments have about 2 dead weeks, announce cabinet, and then a few more dead weeks filled with staffing announcements and some small directional statements generally consistent with their platform. Giving the media anything to latch on to during this time guarantees good coverage. Giving them something like that to latch on to is strange.

It was fun to watch the spin doctors tone down their usual righteousness initially, because even they knew how hypocritical they were trying to be. They tried a little here and there to draw fake moral lines, evidently with some success, but it came down to bad politics. The Cons had badly screwed up the Stronach defection and never fully paid the price for their behaviour. As the story dragged on, the spin doctors got more gutsy in their hypocrisy, but their initial sheepishness (as far as that word can ever apply to them) was very telling.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

The Doug said:


> Might have picked it up from Ralph Klein; he has double standards too. No, wait -- make that double scotch. My bad.


:lmao: 

Wait til you see what he has planned for Albertans with his "Third Way" in health care... one might think he's been soaking in the scotch... 

But that's for another topic.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> My point is that I think they see an opportunity to get their person in.
> 
> If these protests are being organized by the party, or key NDP riding members, then they are doing it more for political points, rather than real anger or outrage.


And what would be your reaction if this situation had happened to you? Would you just sit there and say, "move on"? 

People who would just passively accept this kind of screwjob don't deserve democracy. People fought and died in wars to preserve the kinds of democratic protests seen outside Emerson's office -- with participants of every political stripe. 

Our soldiers died thinking they were helping to preserve our way of life. Did those people die for nothing, then, Vandave?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What's your point?


 .....woow ...fixated.



> I am saying the response to this and the supposed outrage is not proportionate to the Stronach defection.


If you live by the Razor then the response to Stronach is far less because the level of "trespass" is far less.

On Emerson's part, the trespass is far greater and so is the response....not due to some NDP conspiracy but because *the nature of HIS act warrants far greater indignation and protest.*

Simple straight forward explanation - *the level of protest matches the level of the mischief*...no conspiracy needed. Occam at it's best.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> And what would be your reaction if this situation had happened to you? Would you just sit there and say, "move on"?
> 
> People who would just passively accept this kind of screwjob don't deserve democracy. People fought and died in wars to preserve the kinds of democratic protests seen outside Emerson's office -- with participants of every political stripe.


Nobody is debating the right of people to protest this. I have a right to my opinion as well. 



Mac Yak said:


> Our soldiers died thinking they were helping to preserve our way of life. Did those people die for nothing, then, Vandave?


Give your head a shake.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave sees leftist conspiracies everywhere, chalked up as "opinion"

like don cherry said tonight; "Fins, Swedes - same thing"
more "opinion"
and my tax dollars pay for this bigot?


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

I can't believe that guy still hasn't resigned. What an outrageous insult to the democratic process in Canada.

You only have to ask yourself if he would have crossed the floor if the Liberals had come out ahead again. We all know the answer.  
We've now given justification to all those folks who don't vote since they think their vote doesn't matter.

Who woulda thunk the scum would have risen to the top so quickly. 

The party system is important to our democratic process. It's virtually impossible to get elected in this country without the backing of a party ticket. An elected MP should have the right to vote their conscience, but that doesn't mean that vote should be without consequences. As an elected MP Belinda has the right to vote as she wishes, but if that vote results in her being booted from the party then there should be a byelection called. This crossing the floor stuff implies that the voters don't matter. Political cynicism is now at "11".


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Nobody is debating the right of people to protest this. I have a right to my opinion as well.


So what would you do if this had happened to you in your riding? Would you just bend over and take it, or would you try to do something about it?

Answer that, and I'll give my head a shake -- or, more likely, I'll be shaking my head at your non-response, since you've ducked my question twice now.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

You sure he doesn't already qualify by virtue of his years as a Liberal?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> So what would you do if this had happened to you in your riding? Would you just bend over and take it, or would you try to do something about it?
> 
> Answer that, and I'll give my head a shake -- or, more likely, I'll be shaking my head at your non-response, since you've ducked my question twice now.


I am a Conservative so I can only complain so much. If I met him, I would tell him I didn't agree with his move and that he should call a byelection. I would also withdraw my support for that riding until he did.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am a Conservative so I can only complain so much. If I met him, I would tell him I didn't agree with his move and that he should call a byelection. I would also withdraw my support for that riding until he did.


I commendably polite response, and fair enough. I am deeply troubled by your opening sentence, though. Does party discipline extend to the members, too?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I commendably polite response, and fair enough. I am deeply troubled by your opening sentence, though. Does party discipline extend to the members, too?


I am not a member of the party.

I also didn't help the Conservatives in the last election for a few reasons. I didn't agree on the same sex marriage issue, my candidate didn't have much of a chance and I didn't have much time to spare.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I am a Conservative so I can only complain so much.


And you have the cheek to accuse the NDP of "trying to make political points"? But now he's on "your" team so it's OK if democracy "takes one for the team," and it's OK as a result to tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they should basically STFU and GBTW.

And you're the one telling me to give *my* head a shake. Well, here I am, shaking my head yet again at one of your responses  



Vandave said:


> If I met him, I would tell him I didn't agree with his move and that he should call a byelection. I would also withdraw my support for that riding until he did.


How does a voter who already voted then "withdraw" their support "for that riding"? Isn't it kinda like closing the barn after the horses escape? Or are you the Prime Minister now? What are you talking about?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> And you have the cheek to accuse the NDP of "trying to make political points"? But now he's on "your" team so it's OK if democracy "takes one for the team," and it's OK as a result to tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they should basically STFU and GBTW.


Nobody's taking one for the team. That's our system. He did what our system allows people to do. Don't like it, then change our system.

Sometimes forcing change from the inside is easier than doing it from the outside. If a person were to protest too much, they are forced to the outside. 



Mac Yak said:


> How does a voter who already voted then "withdraw" their support "for that riding"? Isn't it kinda like closing the barn after the horses escape? Or are you the Prime Minister now? What are you talking about?


I am not talking about voters in general, I am talking about myself (it was your question). I would withdraw my support by not doing work for the Conservatives had that been my riding.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

0


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Hi.
> 
> He was first elected in 2004.
> 
> ...


there actually may be a God

but let's not forget all the high profile contacts Emerson will make with that portfolio
when he does get turfed next election, just look for which boards of directors he gets appointed to...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If I met him, I would tell him I didn't agree with his move and that he should call a byelection.


You would never get a chance to meet him. He refuses to meet with any of his constituents, is not responding to any communication from them, even those who are long-time Conservatives, like Mike Watkins, mentioned above. He has not set foot in his constituency office since before the election when it was a Liberal MP constituency office, according to the office staff.

So how are any of his constituents to make their views known to him, if he's not answering communication or responding in any way, or showing up at any public events?

The only official communication he has had with those who he is working for is his "apology" letter, which was mailed to households in his riding. The non-apology where he said, "Sorry if what I did made you mad, that's really too bad, but my decision was right and I'm not resigning." A friend in the riding used it to line the cat box.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and how is he serving his riding and his constituents by refusing to meet/communicate with them?
isn't he supposed to represent them?
how does he know what they believe?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> ... I would withdraw my support by not doing work for the Conservatives had that been my riding.


And yet you're the one who's too busy "tiling the kitchen floor" and "going to the Canucks game" -- those were the ultra-lame excuses you used last fall for not responding to my points when we were discussing Gordon Campbell and some laughably simplistic perceptions of his "leadership."

So you've withdrawn nothing, then, because you could never offer any support because you're "too busy". That seems to equate to what Mr. Emerson has done for the unfortunate constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway... in other words, nothing.

No wonder you think he's a "good man"...

Politics As Usual


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and how is he serving his riding and his constituents by refusing to meet/communicate with them?
> isn't he supposed to represent them?
> how does he know what they believe?


He doesn't care about that, in my opinion, the whole serving his constituents thing is merely a convenient rationale. If you look at his career you can see the man always had power and connections and lots of it. There was no way he was was going to be sitting there in opposition twiddling his thumbs. 

My gut feeling about him is that he's an elitist who is addicted to power. The rather quaint notion of an MP working for the folks who elected him is utterly lost on him.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

my questions were of course rhetorical
Emerson has proven that his only allegiance is to himself and his need for power, influence and money
I would certainly say that Emerson's actions call for a little civil disobedience from the good people of Vancouver - Kingsway
(uh oh, who's that knocking at my door?)

to your reply
:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> While I don't care for Emerson's actions, I don't see them as being significantly different than Stronach's.
> 
> While neither floor crossing passes the "sniff test", I doubt either represents an ethics violation, as floor crossing is permitted in our system.


I'll attempt again to try and articulate why I think Emerson's and Stronach's floor crossings are different. 

I agree that neither passes the sniff test, and that floor crossing is permitted (although I would like to see legislation to change that somewhat). Traditionally it has been something that was done when the MP came to a fundamental disagreement or impasse with their former party, usually after some time of serving under that party. 

Although I question Stronach's real motivation, I can't point to any evidence that her stated reasons for leaving, - she wanted to prevent an election, she disagreed with Harper on several important issues, were not true. I don't buy them as her primary reasons, but that's just my opinion, based on my reading of her character, and doesn't really amount to much.

In Emerson's case, he had no beef with Martin or the party that he mentioned. He even stated that he would have served in Martin's cabinet if he had prevailed. Unless he completely repudiates the statements he made only days before when he was busy trying to convince Vancouver-Kingsway's voters to vote for him in an attempt to forestall what he was characterizing as a repugnant Conservative agenda, then he obviously was lying to them on a grand scale. He hasn't spoken about this, but then he hasn't spoken about much.

But that's just a difference in the inconsistencies of the stories each has given. I doubt if that's worthy of an ethics violation. Where the potential ethics violation lies and why complaints have been made, is that Harper and his buddy, former Conservative MP John Reynolds, have publicly stated that they wooed Emerson and offered him a cabinet post. In Reynolds words, "a deal was done." This is potentially an inducement, exactly what both Reynolds and Harper were sputtering and red-faced about during the Grewal affair.

Emerson didn't contact them, state he had a problem continuing to support Liberal policies and ask to join the Conservative caucus. He was recruited by Reynolds on Harper's orders with a Cabinet offer in hand.

We all recognize that this affair has been extremely badly done politics on the part of Harper and the Cons, but it is also potentially illegal politics.

Now Harper's new tack is to attack the independence of the office of the ethic's commissioner, which is a function of Parliament. I don't know if he'll succeed in this, I think there are likely legal ramifications here that Harper can't easily dismiss.

Anyway, I think Harper has likely shot himself in the foot with his cabinet appointments and I think that the wound has now developed a fair bit of gangrene.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

no better justice for Emerson than say an election call in 1.5 - 2 years
I wonder if he would even run
his career in politics is finished
fool me once.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> his career in politics is finished
> fool me once.....


Guess like Bush, you don't know the rest either?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Guess like Bush, you don't know the rest either?


So you're the representative for Diebold voting machines in Canada, are you?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Guess like Bush, you don't know the rest either?


I have much more faith in the good people of Vancouver - Kingsway than the electorate voting for president of the USA


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> And yet you're the one who's too busy "tiling the kitchen floor" and "going to the Canucks game" -- those were the ultra-lame excuses you used last fall for not responding to my points when we were discussing Gordon Campbell and some laughably simplistic perceptions of his "leadership."
> 
> So you've withdrawn nothing, then, because you could never offer any support because you're "too busy". That seems to equate to what Mr. Emerson has done for the unfortunate constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway... in other words, nothing.


I actually found the time to help in the provincial and municipal elections in my riding last year.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to say no to Canuck tickets that I win and that are given to me to continue an internet debate. When I tiled my floor I had to do it all at once because we live in a 1 BR apartment and we can't lose that space for very long. I had a weekend to do it and basically worked straight through from friday night till sunday night.

Why are those lame excuses? Lame would be saying I had to watch TV or something. 

I am answering every question you throw at me. I haven't dodged anything.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

My general inkling is that Vandave might be right: the Van-Kingsway NDP folks might be behind all the protests, and if they are I would not be surprised to find out that their motives are not against floor crossing, or even Emerson in particular, but rather to have a by-election they think they might win. If the NDP are that opposed to floor crossing, I think we would have heard something about it when it happened last time, too, right?

In other words, it's not outside the realm of feasibility that the NDP might be behind it all, and not for the greater good but rather for their own gain. 

I dunno whether it's true or not, I'm just saying that it's not difficult to picture the situation being exactly that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> My general inkling is that Vandave might be right: the Van-Kingsway NDP folks might be behind all the protests, and if they are I would not be surprised to find out that their motives are not against floor crossing, or even Emerson in particular, but rather to have a by-election they think they might win. If the NDP are that opposed to floor crossing, I think we would have heard something about it when it happened last time, too, right?
> 
> In other words, it's not outside the realm of feasibility that the NDP might be behind it all, and not for the greater good but rather for their own gain.
> 
> I dunno whether it's true or not, I'm just saying that it's not difficult to picture the situation being exactly that.


PB, I don't know if you saw my earlier postings about Mike Watkins, a Vancouver-Kingsway Conservative and party activist who has been one of the main organizers involved in the campaign to get rid of Emerson. He was at the office sit-in and at this weekend's activities. He says he is involved not because it would be an advantage to his party or his ideology, but that he is a democrat, as he claims many in his party are and that it's the right thing to do. Mike Watkins' blog

The original howling about this issue and the Fortier appointment came from many within the Conservative party, who couldn't believe that Harper was pulling this stuff. Garth Turner went public, but there were quite a few who spoke to the press but kept their names off the record.

I listened to CKNW radio (mostly right-wing perspectives) a few times the week following the Emerson and Fortier appointments and conservatives were expressing as much disgust with Harper as were others.

I know that it's tempting to be cynical about any political action that people take, but their are some real principles here that have people in the riding riled up. This is grass roots stuff within the riding and a lot of people see this issue as an affront to democracy. Many of those people are naturally NDP supporters, but they aren't just putting on a show because they are party hacks, they have every right to be pissed off with what happened.

I met a lady in the Granville Island Market who had voted for Emerson. She heard about some of the petitions on the radio, went to a meeting, got some forms and was down at Granville Island gathering signatures. She said she had never done anything like this before, but she was angry.

And incidentally, the NDP did speak out about the other floor crossings last time. NDP MP Peter Stoffer put a private members bill before the House last November seeking to put restrictions on floor-crossing and is planning on re-introducing it in the next Parliament.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GA,

I mostly skimmed over this thread so I didn't see your post. I was mostly responding to the vitriol that has been thrown Vandave's way.

Personally, I think Emerson has pissed everyone off, and that there are people from all contingents protesting his switch-hitting (ha ha! double entendre.[1])

<small>[1] it's a <em>joke</em> people. It'd bad enough I feel I have to point that out.</small>


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Anyway, I think Harper has likely shot himself in the foot with his cabinet appointments and I think that the wound has now developed a fair bit of gangrene.


Dosanjh said it on the infamous (and brutally mishandled) tapes: plausible deniability. The Libs made sure they had some, the Cons didn't.

Now we're going to see how the Cons handle the fiscal stuff. They can't implement their platform and keep around all the things Martin implemented (by definition -- their platform included ending a couple things). It's going to be an interesting balance, but if the Liberals get frisky then things could get very interesting...unless there's yet another large surprise surplus.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just thought some of you might want to read this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/stronach060310.html

<blockquote>The ethics commissioner's investigation into David Emerson's defection to the Conservative party should be widened to include the floor-crossing of Belinda Stronach to the Liberals last year, the NDP says.

"We believe that the similarities between the Stronach affair and the Emerson affair are part and parcel the same," said NDP MP Pat Martin.</blockquote>


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

investigate them both
but will harpo lower himself to actually speak with the commissioner?
he still has to speak on the grewal affair, or are petty things like "truth" beneath this prime minister?

never mind, it was rhetorical


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


> Brothers charged after manure dumped outside Emerson's office
> Last Updated Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:53:13 EST
> CBC News
> Two men are under arrest in Vancouver in connection with an attack on the constituency office of Conservative cabinet minister – and ex-Liberal MP – David Emerson.
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

a little civil disobedience is good for the democratic soul


----------



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

"a little civil disobedience is good for the democratic soul". Sounds like someone has been reading "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. It is a great read, and as relevant today as it was back in 1849. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

...or the sixties....


----------



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

MacDoc, I remember those sorts of posters. My two favorite signs at various peace rallies were "Support our boys in Vietnam -- Bring them home NOW" and the best sign ever was "Enough".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> "a little civil disobedience is good for the democratic soul". Sounds like someone has been reading "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. It is a great read, and as relevant today as it was back in 1849. Paix, mon ami.


haven't read it, but may look for a copy, now that it has been referenced by the good dr.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Smearing manure? Says a lot about their motivation and thought. Would that we all smeared poop when we didn't like things, it would ease the strain on our municipal drainage systems and add an earthly aroma to our cities, not to mention demonstrating oneness with our feces-flinging brethren.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Clearly you didn't see the Tommy Douglas movie - there's a powerful precursor that I'm sure the current instigators were FULLY aware of.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There are many ways to voice disatisfaction, many better ways. Many, many. I'm not sure if poop smearing played major roles in democratic sea-changes of the past, but there may have been some flingers. There may also have been some important work being done. Maybe they'll take a page out of the anti-globalisation set and start smashing stuff. More clear statements from the distraught.


----------



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

Michael, I read that over and over again prior to my trial for my Conscientious Objector status in June, 1970.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> There are many ways to voice disatisfaction, many better ways. Many, many. I'm not sure if poop smearing played major roles in democratic sea-changes of the past, but there may have been some flingers. There may also have been some important work being done. Maybe they'll take a page out of the anti-globalisation set and start smashing stuff. More clear statements from the distraught.



what is more oderous is the refusal of said MP to meet with his constituents, so they take to more creative ways to make their voices heard

besides bullsh*t seems very apporpriate for Emerson


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Better a manure dump than a molotov.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Better a manure dump than a molotov.


Always good to set high standards for Canadians.


----------

