Belinda

[JayWay]

Analyst,

Will the Bloc increasing their power at the Federal level really help them push for separation? If so, how?

I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely curious. I see this brought up a lot, especially when people complain about the Conservatives jeapordizing national unity by allying with the Bloc. But no one really ever explains it in full. It's possible I'm missing something totally obvious - it wouldn't be the first time.

[JayWay]

On a lighter note,

what's with Ducceppe's pronounciation of "Federalist"?

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by JayWay

Beaver and others,

I agree with you, the right in this country has rarely cared much about the Quebec question, nor the consequences of its actions in that regard. But I disagree that the Conservatives have a monopoly on dangerous politicking in the face of heightened sovereigntist sentiment.

I agree with you JayWay, and one of the reasons that so many people have become apathetic about the political process is that politics is now mostly about fear or being "against" something. It started in the 40s with the attacks on CCF, and has grown now to include just about everyone. Fear, not values nor vision, has become the vote determiner for too many. It preys on the increasingly short attention span and general laziness of the average voter.

Parties now take every effort to obstruficate what their agendas are when they do make an effort to discuss policy simply because the desire to win outweighs any real desire to provide good government. And frankly, the more someone desires power, the more I think it should be denied them. As much as I did not like the Preston Manning Reform Party, they were up front about their values and policies. These values and policies were out of touh with most of Canada, but, like the CCF/NDP, they were having an influence on the polies and governance of this country. But they could not be satisfied with that and have moved to obstruficate and deny. You can't trust them as a result, and it adds even more to the effectiveness of fear tactics against them.

One thing the liberals have done very well over the decades, is move to where the Canadian people are politically. While that may be frustrating to those like me, to the left of where most Canadians are, or DoyleG, to the right of where most Canadians are, I am not sure that it hasn't worked out for the best. While I'd love to see an honest, policy driven election, that will not happen until Canadians collectively reject the negative approach at the ballot box. Since we show no inclination of doing so, it will get much worse.

[redhat]

Politics,politics. Belinda, you go girl!

I'd vote for you for ALL the reasons.

[Reza]

It's a bittersweet event. For one thing, maybe an election that would let bloc take a stranglehold of Canada will be avoided.

But on the other hand, this is the 2nd right winger to become instant Liberal (Scott Brison being the other). Belinda is a supporter of two tier health openly and was just until a month ago openly criticizing the budget and much more (http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm).

I understand that there are complexities in politics, but to switch sides this quickly looks bad. It also looks back as she is now the 2nd right wing person taking cabinet positions in a liberal government while 100 other liberals who busted their balls getting elected sit on the outside.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Reza

I understand that there are complexities in politics, but to switch sides this quickly looks bad.

It looks even worse when you join a corrupt party to become a cabinet minister & help to defeat a non-confidence vote.

[The Beaver]

I would find it highly suspect if it was somebody OTHER than Stronach leaving the Conservatives to join the Liberals. Like it has been pointed out, she is very much a red Tory in a party that is arguably more "right" than any other federal opposition party in Canadian history. Paul Martin and Stronach are not so different ideologically. Remember, rumour has it that Martin himself considered opening the health care debate to see if a two tier system wouldn't be better for all Canadians.

And yes, as some of you pointed out, her defection will only make many feel even less confident in the current process and the current cast of nuts on Parliament Hill, but today alone I've heard from dozens of individuals who applaud her move and are very excited and interested to see what happens. And it should be no surprise that most of these individuals are professional women. She is sort of the poster chick for the professional woman, which is not something we really have in politics right now, and which is not something that fits particularly well with the current Conservative "corporate culture." She is young, attractive, rich and very bright. The odd thing is that her move seems to be garnering more attention than she gained at any time with the Conservatives, even in the leadership race. There could be many reasons for this, of course, but when you think that the majority of women with post-secondary education tend to vote "progressive", one could quickly see how her manouevre is suddenly interesting. To be fair, in terms of fiscal policy, the Liberals and Conservatives are NOT even nearly as far appart as the Conservatives or the Liberals would like you to believe.

Hey, could somebody post the link to the Chantal Hebert article about Martin and Separatism. I value her analysis and would love to see this. It is true that the worst thing the Liberals or Conservatives can do about potential Separatism is talk about it as if it is bound to happen. Until the Gomery Commission, support for Separatism had hit a long time low (I can't remember the exact number of years).

Anyhow, I find all of this very interesting. Winning Stronach is a coup for the Liberals, even if they lose the Thursday vote.

[Gian-Luca]

The other thing that annoys me about our political system is that people tend to vote for either a specific candidate or a party (sometimes both). Those people in Aurora who voted for her because they were voting for the Conservatives just got screwed. They've now discovered that they actually voted Liberal after all!

Yes, I know this isn't unique to Stronach, but it just seems silly, and wrong, that you can effectively change people's votes after the fact & against their will. It shouldn't be allowed. Any MP that wants to leave the party should effectively cause a bi-election.

I think I want to become an anarchist.

[BC supporter]

quote:Hey, could somebody post the link to the Chantal Hebert article about Martin and Separatism.

I believe it's the April 29 column.

[Reza]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

It looks even worse when you join a corrupt party to become a cabinet minister & help to defeat a non-confidence vote.

Everything is relative though. The Conservatives don't have that much moral authority and that is one of the problems out there. The party was born out of a broken promise, wanted to enter a war that was based on fiction, has some members who always say controversial crap like calling Mandella a terrorist, have 2 high profile former leadership hopefuls (Brison-PC and Belinda-Conservative) as Liberals now, etc...That track record doesn't bode very well, when you are an opposition party only.

Plus, over a million more voted for the ND/Liberal combo than the Conservative/Bloc combo, so if we had a real system, this wouldn,t even be a confidence vote issue (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/fvc/Current_News/#confidence).

Anyhoo, all and all, it's been bizzare lately.

As for Martin and health care, I am not sure. I always found it difficult to believe that considering the fact that he regarded his father quite highly, he would destroy a legacy of his, as his father was instrumental in establishing national medicare.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

The other thing that annoys me about our political system is that people tend to vote for either a specific candidate or a party (sometimes both). Those people in Aurora who voted for her because they were voting for the Conservatives just got screwed. They've now discovered that they actually voted Liberal after all!

Yes, I know this isn't unique to Stronach, but it just seems silly, and wrong, that you can effectively change people's votes after the fact & against their will. It shouldn't be allowed. Any MP that wants to leave the party should effectively cause a bi-election.

I think I want to become an anarchist.

Well they were not screwed any worse than the people who voted Liberal or NDP or Green or for any other party in the election. Frankly, I think Stronach did more for the conservatives in Ontario than they ever did for her. Maybe every Conservative In Ontario should resign and run again witout Stronach's coat tails . Nevertheless, Stronach had a plurality, not a majority, and her shift in allegiances probably means the views of Aurora are more accurately represented than they were yesterday. I know, I know, that is not the way it works in first past the post. In any event, there will be an election soon enough, even if the Liberals get the budget passed. I figure Stronach will be returned with a bigger margin of Victory the next time Aurora goes to the polls.

[The Beaver]

Gordon, I wrote pretty well exactly what you just said above, but deleted it because I gave myself a non-confidence vote.

My feeling, too, is that Belinda will not suffer for this next election. She should have a much larger margin of victory than the fewer than 700 votes last time out.

It is vital to our democracy that MPs have the ability to move if they feel such a move is in the best interests of their constituents (all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them). There is likely more to Stronach's move than just the Separatist issue and craven ambition. This reflects poorly on Harper, I'm afraid, and a panel of pundits on CBC Newsworld earlier today--including the Conservative--said they felt Harper would not recover from this. And, if this is true, then this may be great news for Canada. We need a viable opposition to the Liberals. Hell, I voted Liberal last election and mostly support Mr Martin and still feel that we need a proper Progressive Conservative party in this country. We need the Liberals to face a party that does not carry the "scary" persona of the Harper Conservatives. If given a credible foe, the Liberals MAY have to start working on vision and real political debate (as will their opposition.) The Liberals have done some good stuff over these past many years--and some of them have done some criminal stuff, too--but I think we'd all agree that part of the reason we're experiencing real political stagnation is because the Liberal brand has been the dominant one for too long. The problem is that the Conservatives have shown that they are NOT the alternative, and not enough people are brave enough to vote NDP (the one party that IS somewhat visionary).

Can't help but feel that Stronach's leap to the Liberals--rather than sitting as an Independent--reads like a slap in the face to Harper. Insult to injury.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Reza

Everything is relative though. The Conservatives don't have that much moral authority and that is one of the problems out there. The party was born out of a broken promise, wanted to enter a war that was based on fiction, has some members who always say controversial crap like calling Mandella a terrorist, have 2 high profile former leadership hopefuls (Brison-PC and Belinda-Conservative) as Liberals now, etc...That track record doesn't bode very well, when you are an opposition party only.

Plus, over a million more voted for the ND/Liberal combo than the Conservative/Bloc combo, so if we had a real system, this wouldn,t even be a confidence vote issue (http://www.fairvotecanada.org/fvc/Current_News/#confidence).

Anyhoo, all and all, it's been bizzare lately.

Exactly! One's just as bad as the other. Pointing out flaws with one in no way condones the actions of the other. That's why I've been so apolitical recently, because none of the parties represent me, none of them any good and none of them behave properly. I'm one of the least cynical people around by nature, and yet I can't help but be cynical about the Canadian political system. Its usually why I don't bother posting in these political threads but this move in particular makes the whole system look even more like a joke.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Well they were not screwed any worse than the people who voted Liberal or NDP or Green or for any other party in the election.

How so? The people who voted NDP or Green still voted for their parties. Their votes haven't been changed behind their backs the way the people who voted Conservative in that region have been. It makes a mockery of the democratic system (thought it could be argued that we don't really have a democracy but an oligarchy).

Elected officials are supposed to represent the views of the people who elected them, not jump to the nicest looking party when its convenient for personal power, like a lawyer deciding to switch law firms. Of course I'm sure she will claim that she's doing it for her constituency, but if people believe that I have some land in Florida I can sell them.

[torontosupport]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I think I want to become an anarchist.

Come join the Darkside, chum. I'm 20 years ahead of you on that one.

[torontosupport]

quote:Originally posted by The Beaver

It is vital to our democracy that MPs have the ability to move if they feel such a move is in the best interests of their constituents (all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them).

And that, brave souls, is the question. The sum bloody total of the question. Did she really do it for her constituents?

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

How so? The people who voted NDP or Green still voted for their parties. Their votes haven't been changed behind their backs the way the people who voted Conservative in that region have been. It makes a mockery of the democratic system (thought it could be argued that we don't really have a democracy but an oligarchy).

Elected officials are supposed to represent the views of the people who elected them, not jump to the nicest looking party when its convenient for personal power, like a lawyer deciding to switch law firms. Of course I'm sure she will claim that she's doing it for her constituency, but if people believe that I have some land in Florida I can sell them.

You are assuming, that everyone who marked Belinda Stronach, Conservative on the ballot box was only looking at the Conservative part. Dubious at best Gian-Luca. She won by less than 700 votes so the views of the majority of her constiuents were not reflected on election night any more than they are reflected by her defection. Her constiuents will get a chance to pass judgement on her one way or another soon enough.

Have you noticed the number of independents sitting in the house the last 6-8 years? Most of them got that way by being kicked out of their party. Some by the Conservative Party. Lets say Stronach stayed, voted for the budget, and for gay marriages and basically flouted party discipline on key issues. What do you think would have happened to her? Do you think Steven Harper would be so concerned about the riding voting for a Conservative as he tossed her out?

The Conservative Party took advantage of Stronach as much as she has taken advantage of them. I don't see her constituents as losers because a clear majority of them voted against the conservatives and ended up with a Canservative MP anyway.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

quote:Originally posted by Reza

As for Martin and health care, I am not sure. I always found it difficult to believe that considering the fact that he regarded his father quite highly, he would destroy a legacy of his, as his father was instrumental in establishing national medicare.

Just don't mention how Martin uses a private clinic for his own health...the Liberals don't like the truth.

[devioustrevor]

What I don't understand is why Stephen Harper thinks Canadians want him to be Prime Minister? In the last election the Conservatives got something like 28% of the vote, any sane and intelligent man would realize that what that number means is that over 70% of the population in fact DOESN'T want you to be Prime Minister.

What I really find strange is why he's so determined to call an election when all the poll numbers I've seen have indicated that the Liberals are rebounding and any seats they lose in Quebec look to be made up in Ontario, BC and the Maritimes. A few weeks ago I seen polls that indicated that the Liberals and NDP would get enough seats to form a majority governing coalition.

[Andrew W]

Where's the Natural Law party when you need it. I feel like levitating.

[Grizzly]

Some very good posts in this thread. My opinion is regardless of your side on politics Harper has shown himself to be a very poor leader, obviously power hungry, putting himself before the country and preferring personal attack politics to actual sincere idealogical debate. The fact that the Liberals are probably going to survive this vote is proof of the poor performance of Mr. Harper. We need an opposition with a leader that people can stomach even if they don't agree with his politics.

Martin has definitely been a disappointment and only looks good in comparison with Harper's performance, i.e. a decent Conservative leader should be way ahead in the polls at this time. To be fair to Martin much of the baggage he has to bear was given to him by Chretien but there is still the debate about how much Martin should have or did know. Still quite a poor performance in his first year as PM. Layton has done quite well in recent times and looked like the best of the leaders recently even though I thought his election campaign had more grandstanding than substance, i.e. he was the Stockwell Day of the left. If he can continue on this track he may make some inroads.

Stronach makes a strong point in her refusal to deal with the Bloc. However, I like many others might be more convinced if she had not received a major political appointment in return for voting Liberal. I do think she has improved immensly as a politician since he poorly run and overly scripted campaign (she speaks quite well off the top of her head but terrible from written answers). As far as being ambitious I think a good argument can be made that she had a better chance of becoming Conservative leader in the near future than the Liberal leader. I think the better and more honourable solution would have been for her to remain a Conservative but vote her conscience against the non-confidence motion and then allow the chips to fall as they may. Free votes should be the norm in Parliament anyway (this was actually an early Reform Party policy which Manning conveniently forgot once they actually had a number of sitting MPs). She probably would have been kicked out of the Conservatives but then it would have been at Harper's peril and would have left less of a bad taste.

Another disappointing thing today is that the BC election reform to have proportional voting seems to have failed to reach the numbers required to come into law even though it did pass the 50% barrier and the Green party did not manage to elect its first member of a provincial parliament. We need both political reform and some other options than the poor ones we currently have.

As far as the Quebec scandal goes, the corruption involved is for me incidental to the principle behind the whole thing. At some point we have to stop paying Quebec to be part of Canada. At some point there has to be an honest discussion by both sides about what the price is of separation (how is the debt divided, what becomes of pensions, whether there will be a special economic association, division of Quebec is as feasible as the division of Canada, etc.) and an honest discussion of whether both sides want to remain together. At the moment both sides are being dishonest, i.e. Canada is bribing a certain number of Quebecers to stay while the separatists are holding referendums with unclear questions and hoping to separate based on a percentage unfeasable for starting a new country while refusing to discuss real consequences. At the moment it a bit like a prostitute-john relationship which is disrespectful to both sides. As a current Quebec resident I hope Canada remains united but I certainly hope we can change the nature of our relationship.

P.S. I second the motion about Belinda in lingerie!

[juaninho]

On first glance yesterday, I didn't think that this topic would ferment to such a size so quickly!

I for one am disappointed in the fact that in concert with Stronach's defection, a cabinet post greeted her arrival. I feel for many of the true Liberal MP's who have been passed up for cabinet posts because they did not explicitly toe the party line and share the exquisitly milquetoast vision of our waffling PM, Paul Martin.

It was interesting in that in the aftermath of the disaster of the Bay of Pigs, someone did an audit of why such a poorly planned calamity was allowed to happen. It seemed that all the individuals giving council to President Kennedy at the time were essentially confederates, keen to toe the party line for fear of reprisal. It was concluded that only once you have dialogue and discussion that contains some degree of dissent, made healthy by allowing differing opinions within an institution, can the most fruitful dialogue progress and prevent such calamities. The Liberals have not had a Bay of Pigs problem, the Sponsorship Scandal points in a somewhat similar direction, though the problem of a confederacy of opinion holds true within the party. The Liberals have been churning out the same tired platform and once someone dissents, they are given the old heave ho, allowing for a very fertile soil of intellectual inbreeding and stagnance to prosper. This allows the monolithic mantra, again milquetoast in nature, the zenith of mediocrity etc., of the Liberals to keep pace. If you want an example of the dislike of dissenters, please see the example of P. Martin running the much maligned S. Copps, a lifelong Liberal, essentially out of the party by having a Cabinet Minister with influence run for the Liberal constituent's seat in the Hamilton something-or-other-riding against Sheila. Also, see how other candidates essentially dropped out of the running for PM for fear of a Sheila Copps-esque fate. The politics of the liberal party is not for the few who are brave, but for the many who are univocal cowards. Belinda Stronach fits perfectly within the current construction of the modern Liberal; find those willing to toe the party line and they will be welcome with open arms.

My fear about politics in the modern age is that people more akin to Belinda Stronach are running for office. People who are successful in business believe that their success can translate well into public office. Why? I think it is because we live in an age in which the paradigm 'ideals' for government are no longer the principles of maximising freedom and justice, but rather the ideals desired match those of a business model of efficiency, balancing budgets, and economic growth. Don't get me wrong, the budget needs to be balanced, but I don't think it should be the central justification for political governance decisions as it is now. In a sense, Belinda Stronach, Jean Charest, and others who have switched sides have done so to balance their own fiscal budgets, by moving to a side more likely to prolong their careers in order to be an MP/MPP long enough to gain a lucrative pention. Not that B. Stronach needs it though. Methinks it's vanity driving her political ambitions, or the desire to be her own person and not just Frank Stronach's daughter. It could be the topic of a fruitful Freudian themed discussion, of the desire of Belinda to step out of the shadows of Herr Frank to be her own person.

As an aside, what the hell do some people see in her? Her cheeks/jaw are akin to a squirrel's, one who is gathering nuts for the winter time. Maybe I'm just not a 'women-who-look-like-nut-foragers' kinda guy and I'm missing the point. To each his own.

[River City]

quote:

Everything is relative though. The Conservatives don't have that much moral authority and that is one of the problems out there. The party was born out of a broken promise, wanted to enter a war that was based on fiction, has some members who always say controversial crap like calling Mandella a terrorist, have 2 high profile former leadership hopefuls (Brison-PC and Belinda-Conservative) as Liberals now, etc...That track record doesn't bode very well, when you are an opposition party only.

Plus, over a million more voted for the ND/Liberal combo than the Conservative/Bloc combo, so if we had a real system, this wouldn,t even be a confidence vote issue

I agree with Reza's summation of the Conservatives. As a former federal PC (John Crosbie where are you?) I'm still ticked that Belinda was one of the architects of our demise. But, she did the right thing regardless of what her personal motives might be.

Canada does't need an election that isn't going to change much. Canada doesn't the Bloc to gain any more power or momentum. Harper is trying to do what Mulroney did in working with Quebec, but there's one huge difference. Mulroney believed that by bringing Quebec into the Constitution, the separatist threat would go away. Harper is simply content to use them to gain power without further thought for what hapens next. At least the Liberals had a strategy - they were trying to buy the separatists.[8D]

As for Belinda's ambitions, every politician to be successful needs two things - cojones and ambition. For Harper to say that Ms. Stronach is motivated by ambition is like saying Canada gets cold in the winter.

Don't ever trust a politician who claims he's not running for personal gain. Anyone guided solely by ideology is more dangerous to democracy than any 'corrupt' politician could ever be.

[Guest Ed]

All Fredericks of Hollywood references aside, a bit of a stunner yesterday. Watching Ms. Stronach crossing the floor brought back an image of the infamous nose on legs crossing over to Blue Eyes back in '84. Who started this custom of preceding politicians' names with the word Honourable? Must have had a twinkle in his/her eye.

[Reza]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

Just don't mention how Martin uses a private clinic for his own health...the Liberals don't like the truth.

I can't say what his motives were in 2003, but I just drew a projection based on his relationship with his father (i.e. the day of his swearing in, he brought the Canada flag that was on parliament hill, the day his father died in 1992).

It is without a doubt that his 14 years battle for power after losing quite badly to Chretien and the way he dealt with his opponents (Copps, Manley) afterwards were sad. It is also possible that he may have had right wing tendencies as a billionaire in 2003. But he is constrained by a grassroot that has a heavy left/center tilt as demonstrated by various resolutions coming out of the liberal convention in '03 and '05 (ballistic defence missile being one) and he is now stuck in a minority for the forseeable future (next 1 day or next X years), which is not a bad thing IMHO.

Like it or not, at this point in time, the only party that probably can claim some moral authority are the NDs, based on past performance, ideas, MPs roles. The Grits and Tories can definitely not make that claim.

The trouble is that power will always corrupt some and difficult political situations will force people to do things that they normally wouldn't. But I think, we need to bring in some changes which will help modify the structure so the reality of politics is a little more checked.

Here is hoping that BC STV will go through and will set the tone for a national change.