What was your price Stronach??????

[Michael Dorosh]

No, but that was largely because it was a matter of housecleaning.   A few people up and decided that the Conservative party was not to their liking, having been Progressive Conservatives for so long...

Did those Conservative MP's campaign to be the LEADER of the party?
Did those Conservative MP's wait until the eve of an important vote to blade their former party in the back?
Did those Conservative MP's give the leader of their former party 20 minutes of warning?
Did those Conservative MP's get a cushy cabinet position as a result?

It's about integrity.   Other MP's crossed the floor because their old party was no longer supporting the principles they supported....Belinda walked into this one with both eyes open, said she supported Conservative principles so much she was prepared to lead the party, then decided that if she couldn't lead the party, she was gonna leave and take a big fat cabinet position into the bargain--in a party whose stated political postion is supposed to be diametrically opposed to the one she held previously.

Don't forget what she did to her boyfriend....also a member of the Conservative Caucus

 

[Marty]

Don't forget what she did to her boyfriend....also a member of the Conservative Caucus

Wow saw him (Peter MacKay ) on the news last night at his Fathers farm ..........he looked gutted , showed some class though , I think he will make a good PM someday.

 

[Zipper]

in a party whose stated political postion is supposed to be diametrically opposed to the one she held previously.

Since when are the various parties diametrically opposed? Yes they have different ideas of how to do things, but to be diametrically opposed is a little harder then what is actually there.

(Peter MacKay ) on the news last night at his Fathers farm ..........he looked gutted , showed some class though , I think he will make a good PM someday.

I think I would agree with you there. I'm was not happy when he decided to not to run for the leadership. I think he would have brought a much greater support base from central Canada if he had won.

 

[TCBF]

"I think I would agree with you there. I'm was not happy when he decided to not to run for the leadership. I think he would have brought a much greater support base from central Canada if he had won."

- I concur.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As an English fellow here at my civvie job tells me - the farthest right party in Canada would be positively liberal in a British context.  The two parties are close on a lot of issues - health care is obviously the priority for Canadians.  The Conservatives profess to want small government, the Liberals obviously prefer large government.  That outlook affects their decisions otherwise.

 

[Pencil Tech]

Peter Mackay? How quickly they forget. Doesn't anybody remember the last federal PC leadership convention when to get David Orchard's support and delegates, and thus win the leadership of the party, he very publicly signed an agreement with Orchard swearing that he would NEVER entertain any merger with the Canadian Alliance. As soon as he won the leadership he immediately went back on his word started merger talks with the Alliance. Never missed a beat. Now everybody feels sorry for him because of Belinda Stronach. What goes around comes around. As far as I'm concerned this is like almost divine retribution for his dishonesty and total lack of integrity. The "I' word again.

 

[TCBF]

" Doesn't anybody remember the last federal PC leadership convention..."

- Nope.  That's a million years ago in politics.

 

[a_majoor]

Some more analysis from the Belmont club. It is terrible that we have to go to US blog sites to get information these days:

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/05/great-white-north-drama-surrounding.html

Thursday, May 19, 2005

The Great White North

The drama surrounding attempts by Canadian PM Paul Martin to hang on to power by ignoring a no confidence vote and then offering a Conservative oppositionist a Cabinet post to switch sides has taken an dramatic turn. Conservative Canadian MP Gurmant Grewal tape recorded an attempt by the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Tim Murphy to bribe him to change his vote. Andrew Coyne highlights some snippets of the recorded conversation which are best heard against the background of squeezebox music playing  'Speak softly, love, so no one hears us but the sky. ...'

    Murphy: "if anybody is asked the question, 'Well is there a deal?' and you say, 'No.' Well you want that to be the truth. ... So you didn't approach. We didn't approach."

A recent Belmont Club post noted that 'victories' won by the Left with these tactics were more properly understood as acts of desperation by those who feared their long term decline, as if in slipping from the pinnacle, they despaired of ever regaining it again.

    The survival of Paul Martin's government, shaken by scandal after scandal, has been bought at the price of violating the spirit of the Westminister system by ignoring what was effectively a vote of no-confidence until they could bribe someone to cross the aisle to square the count. Martin survived but only by bending the rulebook. A Canadian conservative victory without Martin's shennanigans would have been an unremarkable and narrow electoral triumph. But the Liberal Party of Canada's actions now mean that the issues dividing political factions in the Great White North are fundamental. By demonstrating a determination to hold on to power at all costs Martin is increasing the likelihood of a radical, rather than an incremental solution to the Canadian crisis.

Mark Steyn has more in his article A Constitutional Coup

    In the forthcoming Western Standard , I make the point that â Å“the big flaw at the heart of the Westminster system is that in order to function as intended â “ by codes and conventions â “ it depends on a certain modesty and circumspection from the political class.â ? Perhaps it was always a long shot to expect a man as hollow as Paul Martin to understand that. ... But the fact remains: by any understanding of our system of government, if the effect of â Å“an extra week's delayâ ? is to maintain themselves in power by one vote they otherwise would not have had, it's hard to see this as anything other than a constitutional coup. Like Robert Mugabe, Paul Martin has simply declared that the constitution is whatever he says it is.

What characterizes much of the Left today as exemplified by behavior from George Galloway to Paul Martin is the increasing necessity to maintain their position By Any Means Necessary. While that is dangerous and infuriating, it is a reliable indicator that they have lost control of the system. Things just aren't working the way they used to. And that, despite everything, is cause for hope.

The idea that we are victims of a constitutional coup is bad enough, but the thought that only a radical solution exists is even worse.

If there is hope, as the last paragraph suggests, then it is certainly a long term prospect. Political science characterizes "Brokerage" parties like the Liberals as being the sign of a weak or immature democracy, and suggests they eventually are left behind as the electorate and democratic systems evolve and mature, but do we really see any signs of that? Based on the various scandles revealed since 1993, how is it possible the Liberals still lead in the polls?

Last link to Mark Steyn:

http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=23

Read em and weep

 

[Zipper]

Some more analysis from the Belmont club. It is terrible that we have to go to US blog sites to get information these days:

Because that seems to be the only info you desire to hear and/or listen too.

If there is hope, as the last paragraph suggests, then it is certainly a long term prospect. Political science characterizes "Brokerage" parties like the Liberals as being the sign of a weak or immature democracy, and suggests they eventually are left behind as the electorate and democratic systems evolve and mature, but do we really see any signs of that?

I don't think so. If by brokerage you mean a party needs to broker deals with other parties in order to stay in power, then we would see that as the system in any country that has more then 2 party rule. In fact, democracies that are far older then the US have worked on that system for quite some time. Although you could also say the US works on a similar system, except instead of parties jocking for position, its special interest groups with lots of cash that are.

Based on the various scandals revealed since 1993, how is it possible the Liberals still lead in the polls?

Simple. Very few people like Harper and the newest incarnation of the Alliance, nor do they wish to go further left to the NDP and really put the country in a tail spin. Canadians have always liked balance, or at least as close to center as possable. Annoying? Yep. But there it is.

So until the conservatives move closer (not all the way) to what the old PC party was like (just right of center), then you will probably see the Liberal's continuing to be in power. I just wished they be quicker about it.

 

[Infanteer]

I used to like Steyn, but now I find him to be too much of a chicken-little.  Sure, there are politically ugly parts of the last week (Stronach, buying members, "points of procedure") but there are also some good points (Cadman acting as a representative, government actually working and serving Canada, vigorous and sincere debate on the floor).

Canada will survive this, like we've survived political crisis in the past.  During the this week, I've watched political crisis in Parliament and voted in a provincial election - we're alot better off than some of these states like Russia where members are getting into fist fights in the Duma or like Afghanistan or Bosnia where Canadian soldiers have to patrol polling stations (BTDT myself) to make sure that citizens don't off eachother.

 

[George Wallace]

Peter Worthington has an interesting look at the Defections from the Conservative over the years and lately.  A couple of interesting points - ain't hindsight great!

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2005/05/20/pf-1048134.html

May 20, 2005

Tory turncoats nothing new
By PETER WORTHINGTON

It's now three days since Belinda Stronach immortalized herself in the gallery of political duplicity -- or integrity, depending on viewpoint.

Her defection from the Conservatives, whom she once hoped to lead, to join the Liberals, whom she recently despised, is a delicious example of opportunism disguised as principles.

It's fair to say the nation is mesmerized by the sheer audacity embodied in Belinda's defection and betrayal -- not only of her party and her presumed lover, but also the constituents who voted for her.

Personally, while surprised that she jumped ship, I'm not as appalled as some. Belinda was never very convincing that she had a clue about politics or the world beyond the borders of Magna International.

What she had was money and chutzpah. Why else would someone with so few credentials feel she could -- and should -- lead a political party?

While tacky and transparent, it's not Belinda's jumping ship to become the Liberal minister of human resources that's so intriguing; it's the Conservative party that seems to invite such defections from failed leadership aspirants.
Scott Brison presented himself at the 2003 Conservative leadership convention as the one who could unify and revive the party, and be the scourge of Liberals! When the party rejected his assessment of himself he joined the Liberals and became minister of public works -- and point man to snipe at Conservatives.

In 2000, when Keith Martin failed to convince members of the Canadian Alliance that he should be leader, he switched to the Liberals and today is parliamentary secretary to the defence minister and a defender of second-hand British submarines that leak underwater.

Back in 1976, the ultra-rightwing Jack Horner couldn't persuade Tory delegates that he should succeed Robert Stanfield as leader (Horner came fourth in a field of 11 candidates). What did he do? Why, he switched to the Liberals and became Pierre Trudeau's minister of industry.

When Horner crossed the floor, that marvellous, vitriolic renegade John Diefenbaker quipped that the IQ in both parties had suddenly risen.

Oh, for a Dief to remark on Belinda!

Of course, treachery even more repugnant than Belinda's was Lucien Bouchard's 1988 betrayal of his friend and mentor Brian Mulroney, the prime minister who had persuaded him to join the Tories as a cabinet minister and be his Quebec lieutenant.

Bouchard rewarded his friend and party by quitting the Tories to start the Bloc Quebecois, then left the Bloc to lead the Parti Quebecois and become premier of the province.

Belinda says she switched to the Liberals to save Canada from an unholy alliance of Conservatives and the Bloc.

Horsefeathers.

It's the Liberals who have made the Bloc a viable threat to Confederation. The Bloc can't get many more seats than they have now.

They too have had a bellyful of Liberal corruption.

Belinda's decision is akin to joining a mafia that governs by intimidation, deceit and malice when it can't get its way by bribery and blackmail. But she calls it acting on principles and ethics. Some "ethics." Tony Soprano ethics.

Look how she sandbagged that poor twit, Peter MacKay, who didn't deserve humiliation. Still, better that MacKay find out sooner rather than later the character of his ex-lady friend.

Looking back, there's little in this whole scenario that's noble or principled -- but gosh it's fun to see the squirming.

Belinda may have been too smart by half. Had she stuck around, and had the Conservatives lost the next election, it'd likely goodbye Harper. Then, bizarre as it seems, Belinda would have been a leading contender for leader.
There's no way that cutthroat Liberals will sanction Belinda becoming their leader when Martin is put to pasture. Tougher than Conservatives, Liberal insiders will chew her up.

Still, Belinda has added spice to our politics. By comparison, Benedict Arnold was a putz.

 

[a_majoor]

Zipper, you wonder why I like getting my information from US Blog sites like Instapundit or "Captain Ed Morrisy"? This is what Canada's MSM feeds us:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000244.html

May 10, 2005
Media bias?

CBC - House passes motion calling on Liberals to resign - The House passed a motion that opposition parties claim should topple the government � but the Liberals have dismissed it as nothing more than a procedural matter.

Grade: C

Describes what happened. However, gives more credit than necessary to the Liberal position: doesn't convey the controversy of the Liberal position.

CTV - House passes motion asking Liberals to resign - In what could be seen as the beginning of the end for the Paul Martin's minority government, the Liberals lost a vote on a controversial motion in the Commons Tuesday night.

Grade: B+

Describes what happens and gives sense of gravity of the situation. Also describes the 'controversial' motion, but doesn't seek to lay blame.

National Post - As expected, government loses vote - The House of Commons has passed a motion that calls for the government to resign, but Liberals are shrugging it off as procedural. Though the Liberals tried to block the Conservative motion, they are sticking to their view that losing it doesn't mean they've lost confidence of the House.

Grade: A-

Differs from the CBC description and assigns blame to the Liberals for 'shrugging' off the motion. Further blame assigned by the words 'sticking to their view'. Shows controversy of Liberal position. Not a solid A for editorializing by using the words "As expected".

The Globe and Mail - Tories, Bloc overpower Liberals - Opposition MPs managed to force a motion through the House of Commons Tuesday demanding the fragile Liberal minority government step down.

Grade: F

Blames the Tories and Bloc with the word "overpower". Contrast this with the pity generating 'fragile' Liberal government. Also, the description of "force" puts blame squarely on the Conservatives for this mess. Juxtaposition of Bloc and Tories villifies the Conservatives. Other headlines use the word "House" because it was the will of the majority of the House of Commons.

Toronto Star - Liberals lose, ignore resignation vote - The opposition powered through a motion today demanding that the wobbly minority government resign, but the Liberals dismissed it as a dress rehearsal for the real non-confidence vote they promise later this month. The outcome will likely mean more disarray in the House of Commons.

Grade: B-

Headline is straight to the point and assigns blame to the Liberals. Even handed and assigns some blame to the opposition because they "powered through" (does not name opposition by name). Lost points on giving credibility to the Liberals for the "dress rehearsal" position. Accurately describes the current state of the House of Commons.

And before anyone says so: Yes, I am biased in ranking media by their bias. But, I hope that this made for an interesting comparison.

Many of the headlines and stories spin things so the Liberals are the aggivated party, and it is somehow wrong or even immoral to attempt to remove an inept and corrupt sitting government. IF you are content to sit by while they rob you, then that is your choice. IF you want to lift the veil and see what is going on, then widening your information horizons is now only a Google away.

 

[Zipper]

Good post GW, as always.

Worthy would make his dad proud I think.

Majoor - Your correct. And by reading other takes on news worthy items, you can get a different spin on things and thus read between the lines. But I guess its similiar to those papers showing biased views on things and you calling foul, that you also show a distinct bias that needs to be called out from time to time so as to allow people to read between the lines for themselves.

So keep doing what your doing as it brings a different insight into the picture. Making people think is a good thing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Worthington points out a common theme that should concern some people: ambitious politicians (federal, provincial) thwarted in their bids for advancement gravitate toward the Liberal Party.

I am not particularly interested in being governed by people whose primary motivation is self-aggrandizement, any more than I would care to be led by them on military operations.

 

[jmacleod]

Actually from a political perspective, the appointment of the Hon. Belinda Stronach MP, PC to
the Liberal government Cabinet is a well thought out and shrewd political move. Liberal strategists
will be focused on Minister Stronach and grooming her as a leadership contender to replace
Martin, who has become expendable. The Liberal minority government is focused on calling
a general election in 2005, or very early 2006. They will win the election and form a majority
government. This will lead to severe consternation in the Conservative Party of course, and
once the Liberals have a majority, they will do to Layton what they did earlier in political history
to Lewis - once they are not needed, the NDP will be particularly useless in the parliamentry
and government forum. The Hon. Belinda Stronach MP, PC could (think about it) become leader
of the Liberal Party - there is a severe shortage of leadership candidates, Manning and Tobin
are out, Rock will probably not run, and McKenna will keep his options open. The momentum
which will be generated by the Hon Senator Hillary Clinton (Dem.NY) as she seeks a Presidential
candidate nomination will spin off into Canada - theme? "strong, smart women should lead"
Frank Stronach, the billionaire immigrant machinist's daughter, might be a Prime MInister. MacLeod

 

[pronto]

Interesting thoughts Mr. McLeod!. However Manley is just waiting in the wings. I spoke with him a few weeks ago, and although coy, I got the impression he was biding his time. I don't think the Liberals are ready for a woman leader. If they were - Anne McLellan would be their candidate. She is very articulate, has good western contacts, and never forget - she is from Nova Scotia (our favourite province).

Scott Brison (Kings-Hants) is another contender - he was a walk-on when with the conservatives too!.

Lastly, she has not got the contacts into the establishment like the others. She inherited a company from her father (and she HAS done a good journeywoman's job keeping it out of trouble), but even Frank cannot buy entrance into the club. She needs old montreal or old Toronto contacts.

I think Tobin may surprise you and me and everyone else. He, like Brutus, is an ambitious man!

The Liberals learned well from Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives... If you are going down anyway, pick a loser (Kim Campbell) as a lightning rod, and strategise for another election - or the one after that. Belinda may be a good choice as the Liberals' Kim Campbell

Ouch! That hurts

 

[jmacleod]

My late sister went to University with MacLellan who is from Port Medway NS. She in fact is detested
in the Liberal Caucus, responsible for the Firearms Registry Debacle and frequently referred to as
"the Witch of the North" - does not matter however, she will not be relected in Tory land.We all
know John Manley, good man, but preceived as dull - which he is. Manley would be better off out
of politics. Brian Tobin's star has gone out - if you can, find out why PM Chretien fired him (one
of Chretien's favourites). Tobin however is one of the people Mr. Frank Stronach, a major contributor
to PM Martin's campaign would have talked to about the future of the Hon. Belinda Stronach PC, MP
Minister, Government of Canada; not bad for an immigrant machinist's daughter. Hon Kim Campbell
former Prime Minister, was done in by fellow Tories, which is their greatest weakness, destroying
talent (like Martin, Brison, Stronach etc.) Liberals will go to the polls late 2005, or early 2006, they
will form a Majority government - Harper, unfortunately for him will have to deal with his caucus,
and his real worst enemy, Ralph (just call me Ralphie) Kline - my thought for today. MacLeod

 

[pronto]

Listen up folks - JMacleod is correct, and has a nice grasp of the political field! Manlely is pretty bright in the brain department, but god almighty right some dull.

 

[jmacleod]

Reply to Pronto: My late mother's family (Williams-Young) came from Ireland to the Eastern Shore of
Nova Scotia in 1819. The Irish Roman Catholics, Baptists, Adventists etc., all unacceptable to the
NS Tory establishment of 1860's Nova Scotia formed the Liberal Party, which became very powerful
because there were a lot more immigrants then Tories. The familiy produced two MP's and a Senator
-a book was written about the Williams family (A Family of Sea Captains) by a Professor at Dalhousie
University and his wife. We grew up in a political environment, and understand the Party as opposed
to the Politicians; the politicians come and go, the Party goes on. Premier John Savage, a very good
family doctor, great sense of humor, smart and well educated, never understood the Party's motivations
and was forced to resign. The difference in the Liberal Party and all other Canadian political parties is
that the Liberals never loose sight of the ultimate goal, winning the election. PM Trudeau understood
this - learned a great deal from Senator Keith Davey, Toronto, "the rainmaker" and Norman MacLeod
President of the Party when PET was PM. One aspect of the current leadership, is that the PMO
staff, the assistants, flunkies, door openers etc., are not really part of the Party establishment, which
means that Martin's tenure will be short lived. Honorable Belinda Stronach MP, PC is going into the
learning process as I write this; she is campaigning in Labrador NF - let's see what happens there.
MacLeod

 

[pronto]

wow -from now on all political questions (espc. NS and the maritimes) go to JMcLeod! My wife went to school with the Savage kids, and agrees with your point - he definitely didn't understand the party - and he was a fine man. She remembers him fondly. interestingly though - some of the flunkys, politicos etc. who are NOT around Paul Martin were seen recently (by me) with John Manley... I really think he is (as Monty Python says) not dead yet!

You make a very good point for all to consider - never lose sight of the party when discussing politicians. Likewise - never lose sight of the bottom line/business when looking at transnationals.

I think Belinda belongs in the Liberal party. It is a better home for her - do you know if her handlers are party establishment? That would give a hint as to party needs.

Cheers for all the great info.