Belinda Stronach joins Liberals!

[Evie]

That might be taken more seriously if you weren't such a known Conservative fanboy, trooper.

And as for Stronach not being a leadership hopeful? Stronach is a leadership hopeful everywhere she goes, IMO. She's a moderate who can rally the strong Canadian center - economically conservative to please some of the provinces, but at the same time, socially progressive (pro-gay marriages) and more nationalist than Captain "Bow-to-Bush" Harper (ie, anti-missile-shield) to rally Québec and to a lesser extent Ontario. She's a rich, famous, well-connected woman. And, more importantly perhaps than any of those, she's *young*. Not even forty yet IIRC ; she is someone who can appear as a sign of renewal for the party, especially a party like the liberals.

 

[Goonie]

I didn't say that's what he is, I said that's the image he has east of Manitoba, which only gets worse the further east you go (you know, the clsoer you are to the main population centers of Canada, in the St Lawrence/Great Lakes area).

Which may have to do with the fact that he keeps appearing as - like it or not - the Canadian representative of the Republican Party, and the Dubya/Delay wing of that particular party to be specific.

His demands that we support the war in Iraq, the missile shield, that we reject the "activist judges" and ban gay marriage despite various supreme courts rulings, etc, make him sounds like he's just videotaping the religious republican' speeches on a variety of issue, changing a few name, and sprouting them himself in turn.

He's not going to have all that much luck from Ontario eastward with that sort of image. The very fact that EVEN with the liberals hit by a media-hyped scandal AND Stronach still seen as a "moderating" influence among the conservatives he struggled to pass the liberals in nation-wide polls should be painfuly clear about that.

And now the liberals looks like they might actually survive the Gomery storm until the final report is out (by which time the hype will have died down, and the report isn't too likely to attack present leaders from what we know so far), and the single most powerful moderating voice in his party just jumped ship.

I'm thinking Harper's chance to ever become a prime minister *seriously* hang on thursday's vote.

Good job displaying your ignorance, and showing us how you can succumb easily to the power of propaganda.

Firstly I want to say, that if people such as yourself look at Harper and see religious fanatic, they are diluted and should not be voting. I live in the biggest city centre in the country, and most people I know, regardless of whether they support Harper or not, do not view him as a religious fanatic.

Secondly, the Canadian and American political spectrums are not at all in line. Harper is nowhere near in line with the Republicans. The American's are further to the right in general. The tories wanted to see a plan on missle defense before they decided whether or not to support it. Don't take their willing to look at the options as immediate acceptance. And is it really such a crime that Harper believes elected officials should be making laws and judges? That's an acceptable view point in my mind. On top of this, you cannot look at four issues and simply state based on your erroneous conclusions that Harper is the Canadian equivalent of a Republican.

If Canadians re-elect the liberals, they deserve a scandal plagued corrupt government.

Vive la révolution.

 

[Goonie]

That might be taken more seriously if you weren't such a known Conservative fanboy, trooper.

Wrong. No one should ever take that comment seriously. It's completely unconsitutional.

What is with the fascination of certain board members to give the keys to the country to un-elected officials?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Maybe she actually was sick of all the anti-gay marriage crap, and the Conservatives dealing with the separatists.

The Conservatives are whining about the Libs making a deal with the "devil" in the NDP? Come on, the BQ believes much of the same as the NDP, but throw in breaking apart Canada.

Good job Stronach.

 

[pboily]

Firstly I want to say, that if people such as yourself look at Harper and see religious fanatic, they are diluted and should not be voting. I live in the biggest city centre in the country, and most people I know, regardless of whether they support Harper or not, do not view him as a religious fanatic.

Whether Harper is a nut or not (which I don't believe for a second), he's gotten in bed with plenty of them. So we get to (realistically) choose between the Tories (now with 20% more whack jobs!!!) or the Liberals (contains less honesty than competing brands!!!)

Which one sounds better? ... ... ........................ .......

crooks or nuts? nuts or crooks?

 

[RedWolf]

I hope that just possibly Canadian female voters take note of where the ugly anti-Belinda anti-female misogynist comments are coming from and realize that the political right doesn't actually represent them or their beliefs.

But somehow I doubt it will happen.

 

[newfangle]

Not too surprising she did this. She no doubt felt alienated by the social conservative dinosaurs that still pull the strings in the Conservative party.

But the real question is whether or not she is justfied in having a vote tommorrow. Her constituents voted for a Conservative candidate, not a Liberal. I do not believe she reserves the right to flip sides whenever she pleases. If I was in her riding I would be pretty peeved, especially if I wanted the Liberal government to come down (as I'm sure a good chunk of her constituents do).

 

[RedWolf]

But the real question is whether or not she is justfied in having a vote tommorrow. Her constituents voted for a Conservative candidate, not a Liberal. I do not believe she reserves the right to flip sides whenever she pleases. If I was in her riding I would be pretty peeved, especially if I wanted the Liberal government to come down (as I'm sure a good chunk of her constituents do).

Thats not really a question at all as TECHNICALLY you are voting for the MP who then represents you in the house of commons and not the party.

You and I both know that we all vote for the party anyway (many people barely know who their MP is) but at the end of the day thats the theory behind the system.

On a side not I've heard that many of her constituents that support her have never really been happy with her original choice of parties but voted for HER anyway.

 

[newfangle]

So really the only way to be sure is to force a bielection whenever an MP decides to flip parties, which is what SHOULD be done.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

That might be taken more seriously if you weren't such a known Conservative fanboy, trooper.

Nobunaga, if I am a Conservative fanboy you must sit so far to the left you make the Green Party look Tory.

Captain "Bow-to-Bush" Harper (ie, anti-missile-shield)

This is plausible at best! Are you that worried about a system that could protect major Canadian cities from missle attacks? The Americans are going through with this project whether us insignificant Canadians like it or not.

This is what "Super Socialists" would call an attack on our sovergnity. But to them, everything American is.

 

[RedWolf]

So really the only way to be sure is to force a bielection whenever an MP decides to flip parties, which is what SHOULD be done.

I disagree - the system is set up the way it is - everyone knows the rules and should be voting for the MP and not the party. If you ignore the MP and vote for the party (I admit I do this) then you do so at your own peril.

As long as it works both ways (ie: left winger defects to the right) then it shouldn't really matter.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Maybe she actually was sick of all the anti-gay marriage crap, and the Conservatives dealing with the separatists.

The Conservatives are whining about the Libs making a deal with the "devil" in the NDP? Come on, the BQ believes much of the same as the NDP, but throw in breaking apart Canada.

Good job Stronach.

Don't get too bent out of shape over Quebec. Have you ever been there? Heck, they can have it. I am sick of dealing with seperatists and their tactics will never change.

If they don't get every penny they want from Ottawa they'll turn around and elect a Bloc Government. Then after four years they realize what a bad decision they've made and re-elect liberals. It's a never ending cycle and that province and its people make a circus of this country.

The Conservative mission is simple; get elected. A Bloc government is nothing to worry about because truth be told, they'll run tanks and fly planes over that province before it seperates.

Liberals on the other hand would go cry in a corner and ignore the world like usual.

 

[Evie]

First off, Québec is never going to elect a Bloc government, because Québec alone cannot elect a federal government, and the Bloc is a federal party, not a provincial one.

Second off, the *actual* pro-independance party, the Parti Québécois, is presently in the opposition, true. They were, however, in power from something like 1994 to 2003 - a bit more than "four years before they grow sick of them".

Third off, your vaulted provintial liberal, who are presently in power, have a catastrophic approval rating, and looks almost certain to lose the next elections - and they barely even get some splash water from Gomery et al. There have been protests this far in 2005 involving tens of thousands, close according to some newspaper to a hundred thousand even, against said government. There was a petition gathering several signatures asking the Québec lieutenant-governor to follow your idea for mrs. Clarkson dismiss the present liberal government and convene general elections already - two years ahead of schedule, and again, for no reason other than the fact that this government is on top of everybody's hate list in Québec, even more than with any other usual governments.

Perhaps you don't understand Québec as well as you think you do?

 

[cidknee]

Perhaps you don't understand Québec as well as you think you do?

i will admit I dont either,and who cares, cmon its quebec... the only good thing about it is that thats where most of our prime ministers have come from in the past and well they were great at stopping the british way back when. Since? montreal canadians is the only semi decent thing. no wait rimouski. they are the only child of the provinces, "i dont get what i want im gonna cry" they scream and cry when they dont get the lions share of the funding.
As far as im concerned they should pay just as much as the rest of us, but getting back on topic, stronach is a backstabbing powermonger. i wouldnt trust her as far as I could throw her.

 

[newfangle]

I disagree - the system is set up the way it is - everyone knows the rules and should be voting for the MP and not the party. If you ignore the MP and vote for the party (I admit I do this) then you do so at your own peril.

That's not logical. There are many instances where a candidate may be crappy, but a person still wishes to have their party in power. Personally I like my MP, but there are other conservative MPs in Calgary that I dispise, but would probably still vote for.

As long as it works both ways (ie: left winger defects to the right) then it shouldn't really matter.

The issue here is not how votes a party gets in the House, so it does actually matter. This is about the nature of representative democracy.

 

[pboily]

As far as im concerned they should pay just as much as the rest of us.

That's funny because me and my buddies here think they should pay absolutely nothing.

let's get back off-topic for a second.

As far as I can tell there are 3 provinces that put more into Confederation than they get out of it: BC, Alberta and Ontario; I'm not even sure about BC.

but here's a funny little tidbit about Equalization:

"[...] Ontario is the only province that has never received equalization, although if revenue from oil and gas had not been diminished in the formula, Ontario might have become a "have not province" with Alberta being the only "have" province. (Who knew Ontarians and Albertans had something in common?)

[...] receiving equalization merely means that some of the federal tax revenue received from a province is returned to that province. In the most extreme cases, revenue received from one province could be redistributed to another (But that has yet to happen...)"

I'm not sure which Don Cherry tape you were watching, but Québec finds itself in the same boat as 7 other provinces, and the money they're always "asking for" is actually theirs. And that's only today. No doubt over their more than 125 years in Confederation, they've "paid" more than every other province but Ontario (and again, maybe Alberta)

Besides, we'll be glad to have them in the fold when fresh water becomes a rationed quantity (in 20? 40? 100? 200? years), even if they could be a pain in the backside in a Constitutional sense.

EDIT: Forgot the reference http://www.strategicthoughts.com/record2002/havenot.html and realized that no one ever reads my posts anyway so I might as well tell you about the size of my ah, forget it.

 

[Goonie]

I agree with NewFangle. The system is setup badly. Changes are necessary so that voters are ensured they get what they vote for.


And can we all please remember that the Liberal ad-scam re-ignited sovreignty, not the Conservatives.

 

[pboily]

I agree with NewFangle. The system is setup badly. Changes are necessary so that voters are ensured they get what they vote for.


And can we all please remember that the Liberal ad-scam re-ignited sovreignty, not the Conservatives.

well, to be fair, it did re-ignite the Conservatives ...

 

[Evie]

I agree with NewFangle. The system is setup badly. Changes are necessary so that voters are ensured they get what they vote for.


And can we all please remember that the Liberal ad-scam re-ignited sovreignty, not the Conservatives.

Granted. The liberals reignited the sovereignty movement, but the conservatives have been busily dumping slick black albertan oil over the fire, and are about to start using those Canadair water-bomber to do just that if they manage to get themselves elected.

 

[RedWolf]

That's not logical. There are many instances where a candidate may be crappy, but a person still wishes to have their party in power. Personally I like my MP, but there are other conservative MPs in Calgary that I dispise, but would probably still vote for.

The issue here is not how votes a party gets in the House, so it does actually matter. This is about the nature of representative democracy.

Edit: Clarity

It doesn't matter whether you think it's logical or not. In fact I even agree with you and would like to see some kind of proportional representation like system where your vote counts for the party and and not the MP.

But that's not the theory behind the current system - the point is that a group of people in a riding elect sombody to represent their interests in the house of commons who may or may not have a party affiliation.

Again - I'm not disputing the fact that most people vote for the party - I do as well. BUT if the theory behind the current system was to vote for the party then we would do so - we'd just pick a party on a ballot, the votes would be tabulated at a national level and the seats assigned proportionally to the number of votes received. However that's not how it works which is why I claim that a bi-election is not currently called for. Logically according to the current system it should not matter which party Belinda belongs to - her political beliefs are essentially the same.

That being said I'm going to be the first one to vote yes for true proportional representation at which time I would agree with you - an MP switching sides should trigger a bi-election because the voters essentially "lost" a vote for their chosen party.