Belinda

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

You are assuming, that everyone who marked Belinda Stronach, Conservative on the ballot box was only looking at the Conservative part.

No, I specifically did not assume that. I even stated that. Please go back and read what I wrote. Actually don't bother, I'll repeat it here: "Those people who were voting for her because they were voting for the Conservatives just got screwed". If you are in Aurora and voting for the Conservative Party & gave Belinda your vote because she was a Conservative, you effectively have had your vote changed for you by her actions. Which in my opinion is ridiculous, but unfortunately its allowed to happen in our system.

People vote for two reasons - some like myself tend to vote specifically for an individual regardless of what party they are in because they specifically want that person to represent them in the government. I find that these people, including myself, are in a minority - a tiny one. Most people vote for the other way - for political parties & who they would rather have as a PM. The former people haven't been screwed by this ship-jumping but the latter most certainly have. People who voted NDP or Green in that riding have not had their votes effectively changed for them in the same way. So I don't see how those people can be seen to have been screwed in the same way as those who were voting specifically for the Conservative party have been. You can respond to this once again by simply trashing the Conservative party, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm arguing . I'm not interested in the Conservatives, I just hate the idea that somebody's vote can effectively be changed behind their backs due to the ambitions of a politician - regardless of who jumped to what party. It makes a mockery of the political system, in my view.

[The Beaver]

Gentleman, some excellent discussion. Nice to see all of you arm chair pundits out there. You've all raised excellent points.

Now, on that note, it has been barely 24 hours since Belinda bolted, and I am already starting to change my assessment of her. I watched the National last night, saw her interview with Mansbridge, and must admit I was not particularly impressed. yes, she is still new to the political arena, but what I did not see in this brief interview were any signs of the sort of star talent that will launch her to the fore of the Liberal party. Not that this is why she claims to have crossed the floor. And let's be honest, it would have been damned tough to usurp some of the Liberal's heavy hitters anyways. You can have loads of cash but if you do not have charisma and political verbal accuity, you won't go far. Which makes her appointment to a cabinet position all the more dubious. I'd imagine this was part of the deal; I'll come to the Liberals if you give me a cabinet posting. Perhaps it was the other way around; perhaps Martin offered the post. If he did, then I wonder if his head is on straight. It does not take too long to see that Belinda is far from being ready to take on big political responsibility. My prediction that in two elections' time she will sit as the Finance Minister for one of the Liberal stars in waiting was, in hindsight, one of the stupidest things I've ever said. She needs to learn one big heap of political sh.it if she wants to rise within the Liberal ranks.

Mind you, none of this diminishes the lingerie fascination. Me and B will always have that.

[juaninho]

Well Beaver, it's nice to see that you've started to reason a bit more lucidly after a day's respite from Frau Stronach fantasizing. Me thinks the assorted clips, clasps, and ties of numerous pieces of fine french lingerie clouded your judgment.

If Milquetoast Martin offered a cabinet post to Frau Stronach on the pretense of her successfully crossing the floor to join the L-Funk Blundership, then Martin's political acumen and savvy is built more around Q Quotients, red-herrings, and the ruse of marketability. Being out in BC as you are, I am not sure you had the pleasure of watching Frau Stronach's attempts to divorce herself from her own Gipetto while running for PC leadership, but her mannerisms, rhetoric, and articulation resemble some of the poorest attempts to animate wood. She has about as much chance of convincing me of her politcal acumen as a Mao Tse Tung in the prime of his youth had of swimming the English Channel.

My beef with the B. Stronachs of the world is that they are not running for political office for the intention or sake of bettering our country, but do so for the cache that revolves around holding political office. It looks good on their CV that they've received validation from the general public, and this validation justifies their own inflated sense of themselves. I suspect that she entered the political fray because now she can obtain a quorum large enough to satisfy her ego and the fruits of her aid-guided efforts will no longer be distilled through the filter of her father.

[canso]

She was described in an article I read as one of the few politicians who could get the House to calm down and pay attention when she spoke.

Likely they were probably just imagining her in lingerie as well.

That still might be enough to get her all the way to the top, as long as Mansbridge doesn't embarass her by asking her to think too much.

Still it's a rare commodity to have a female politician with sex appeal. It is a very short list:

1) Yulia Tymoshenko - smokin!

2) Belinda

3) Condoleeza Rice? Ya see, I'm already scraping bottom.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

No, I specifically did not assume that. I even stated that. Please go back and read what I wrote. Actually don't bother, I'll repeat it here: "Those people who were voting for her because they were voting for the Conservatives just got screwed". If you are in Aurora and voting for the Conservative Party & gave Belinda your vote because she was a Conservative, you effectively have had your vote changed for you by her actions. Which in my opinion is ridiculous, but unfortunately its allowed to happen in our system.

People vote for two reasons - some like myself tend to vote specifically for an individual regardless of what party they are in because they specifically want that person to represent them in the government. I find that these people, including myself, are in a minority - a tiny one. Most people vote for the other way - for political parties & who they would rather have as a PM. The former people haven't been screwed by this ship-jumping but the latter most certainly have. People who voted NDP or Green in that riding have not had their votes effectively changed for them in the same way. So I don't see how those people can be seen to have been screwed in the same way as those who were voting specifically for the Conservative party have been.

Alright, I withdraw my first statement. Nevertheless, my point Gian-Luca, is that their votes were not changed. Only Stronach's political affiliation. There end result is exactly the same as everyone who voted NDP or Green or for any losing candidate of any ilk in any riding. Their MP is of a different political stripe. What the Conservative voters lost, was an MP of their political affiliation. Their votes did not change.

Ms. Stronach probably would have won the riding as a Liberal, given her profile, and the previous incumbent status of the Liberals. She probably would not have won as a Green or an ND, but both would almost certainly have polled better than they actually did. Ms. Stronach was a "star candidate". Star candidates bring as much to the party in terms of credibility, in this case particualry. We could just as easily argue that the Liberal incumbent was screwed by having a star steal his riding. A vote is a vote is a vote. Look at the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. The number of Conservative votes is not modified.

I am of the opinion that Stronach would have won the Riding as a Liberal, that her vistory was due in significant enough measure to her personal stature - deserved or undeserved - to say that the "Conservative" voters in Aurora are ahead of the game by virtue of having an MP of their political affiliation for 8 months that they would not normally have had otherwise. Therefore, I do not see them as "screwed".

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

You can respond to this once again by simply trashing the Conservative party, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm arguing . I'm not interested in the Conservatives, I just hate the idea that somebody's vote can effectively be changed behind their backs due to the ambitions of a politician - regardless of who jumped to what party. It makes a mockery of the political system, in my view.

No I specifically did not trash the Conservatives in my last reponse to you. Since you have given not indication of you political affiliation I have not assumed the Conservatives mean anything to you. Your position is not partisan and is cited by supporters of all parties when someone crosses the floor.

I simply pointed out that there are number of independents who have been stripped of their party affiliation by the party when it was politically expedient to do so. If Stronach is "screwing" the partisan voters of Aurora and their votes are being "changed behind their back", then Martin (I'll use a Liberal example this time, just to keep things clean) screwed the voters of Carolyn Parrish's riding by stripping her of her Liberal membership. All parties have done this at one point or another in one forum or another, so it is not a partisan observation.

We can work on the premise that all voters are screwed all the time, or we can work on the premise that voters have some reponsibility for how they vote. Liberal voters were "screwed" when the GST was not eliminate, yet most of them turned out and voted Liberal in several elections after that. So were they really screwed? David Kilgour screwed the voters of Edmonton by joining the Liberals, but they re-elected him as a Liberal the next chance they got. Maybe these voters were not so much "Conservatives" as Kilgour supporters? Did he screw them again by leaving the Liberals? I don't think so. We elect people, not parties to be MPs. With that comes some associated risk.

A lot of voters use partisan affiliation as a substitute for diligence when it comes to casting their vote. And a large number vote for a party because they like the Platform and would vote for a chair if it had the right party banner. But the vast majority of voters of all parties are in the position of voting for for candidates and parties that do not 100% reflect their political views: The Conservative voters in Aurora, for example, who voted for Stronach but have a deeply help opposition to gay marriage. Or the ardent trade unionist who voted NDP in BC last night.

We need to be clear on responsibility and obligations for voters and politicians. Those of the politician are well established as being ambiguous in nature. Voters are the ultimate arbitor: But we exist in a system in which parties are allowed to dump politicians elected under their banner, incumbents can cross the floor and the supreme court has ruled that election promised are mere "puffery". We know that going into the voters booth. So we are hardly "screwed" when it happens. We just may have to wait 4-5 years before we get to pass judgment.

[juaninho]

quote:Originally posted by canso

That still might be enough to get her all the way to the top, as long as Mansbridge doesn't embarass her by asking her to think too much.

For f!ck sakes, please God, no.

Just because she has a cabinet post does not entail that the royal road to Prime Ministerhood has her in the fast lane. If Canada was so profoundly, insatiably, and unequivocally dumb enough to vote for her for PM, then we would most certainly get what we properly deserve, a leader that would match our collective stupidity.

[Massive Attack]

I just want to give a little background on Stronah's riding, Newmarket-Aurora. There were no incbumbents for this riding in the 2004 election. The election map was redrawn for this area. In the 2000 election, the Aurora portion of this riding was in the Vaughan-King-Aurora riding, which was split in 3 for the 2004 election (Vaughan getting its own riding and King joining the Oak Ridges riding). The Vaughan-King-Aurora incumbent ran in Vaughan in 2004. The Newmarket portion of the riding was in the York North riding in 2000. The incumbent, Karen Kraft Sloan didn't run in 2004.

Its also interesting that the Liberal who ran against Stronach, Martha Hall Findlay, was earmarked by Martin to run in this riding and was suppose to be a future 'star' for the Liberals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having a day to think about this, despite all the really bad things being said about Stronach for jumping ship, in the end, this makes the Conservatives look much worse in Ontario than they already did. If I were running the Conservatives right now, I'd let the budget pass, get rid of Harper, get a new leader, and take the next 6 months to regroup and start re-builing in Ontario and Quebec.

[The Beaver]

"some of the poorest attempts to animate wood."

Yes, but perhaps that is why I was interested in her in the first place--her ability to animate wood.

Okay, that was cheap and marginally sexist. And yet I can't help but feel that the Liberals at least have improved their aesthetic.

Okay, that was equally cheap etc.

If Belinda has entered the political arena out of hubris or ego--not the first to do so, of course--the bigger question will be "does she have the chops to make it, or will she have to fake it all the way?" Taking this step puts her firmly in the spotlight, and immediately. If she needed a good four years to come into her own politically, then she may have screwed the pooch with this move. I doubt she has four years to prove her mettle now that she's made this sort of committment. The media will be watching closely, as will the pundits and her constituents. This is only the beginning of her political manouevring, and if she doesn't get some excellent assistance and guidance quickly, the good people of newmarket-aurora will quickly sniff a rotten fish and dump her faster than J-Lo dumped Ben. She MUST prove herself, and must do it leading up to the next election. That is a very short time, likely. At most, eight months. Very possibly, a month and a half.

And what does she have to prove? Tonnes, but Juaninho has hit it on the head: Is this simply an attempt to satiate some ego-needs? Or is she truly in this for the betterment of the country and for the sake of ALL her constituents. Forget about the ambition. Like it has been wisely pointed out, the politician who claims that he/she is not seeking public office partially because of ambition is a fool and a liar. Mind you, the politician who admits publicly that they are ambitious in this regard is also a fool, but that is neither here nor there. (Whatever the hell that means. To be honest, the pull of the panties is still strong. I am not the Jedi I used to be.)

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Alright, I withdraw my first statement. Nevertheless, my point Gian-Luca, is that their votes were not changed. Only Stronach's political affiliation. There end result is exactly the same as everyone who voted NDP or Green or for any losing candidate of any ilk in any riding. Their MP is of a different political stripe. What the Conservative voters lost, was an MP of their political affiliation. Their votes did not change.

Technically you are correct - but I wasn't speaking technically, I was speaking practically. I used the term "effectively" for a reason. For all intents & purposes those people who were voting for the party rather than the person have had their votes changed. I think the practical way of voting is typically what happens (even if I don't do it myself) and therefore its silly to pretend that the practical effect of their vote hasn't changed.

As another example, in my riding years ago a number of people voted in Jag Bhaduria. He resigned from the Liberal party and people here got upset & wanted him to resign as an MP since, and I quote "We voted for the Liberals, not for you". I don't agree with voting on that basis, but it would be silly for me to pretend that this isn't how people vote, even when the candidate is a star candidate.

quote:

I am of the opinion that Stronach would have won the Riding as a Liberal, that her vistory was due in significant enough measure to her personal stature - deserved or undeserved - to say that the "Conservative" voters in Aurora are ahead of the game by virtue of having an MP of their political affiliation for 8 months that they would not normally have had otherwise. Therefore, I do not see them as "screwed".

You are probably right that she would have won as a Liberal, and she probably would win a re-election in the same riding - but once again that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. It isn't a question of which party she would have won with, the point of the democratic process is to make people's voices heard. If you change what those voices are saying, then what's the point? People who vote for the Green Party (ie. the majority of the V-board regular posters by the sounds of it) don't vote expecting that they'll win, but they presumably still want their voices heard, and that doesn't mean that their votes should effectively be changed after they have been cast.

As for whether the people in that riding who voted for her feel screwed, I have several people in my office who would strongly disagree with you about that. They do feel cheated, and I don't blame them. And telling them that its okay, because you get to vote again in 4 or 5 years time trivializes the election process, in my view.

quote:

No I specifically did not trash the Conservatives in my last reponse to you.

Well it seemed implied to me in one of the comments, but fair enough. What you say about other independants and people getting stripped is also technically true - but I don't see how pointing out other flaws in the political system makes this blatant one acceptable, or makes a less of a mockery of our system.

[juaninho]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

....As another example, in my riding years ago a number of people voted in Jag Bhaduria....

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Not to be a pendant, but shouldn't one speak of Jag Bhaduria in the proper light?

That is, Jag Bhaduria BA, BEd, BComm, MA, MSc, MBA, MFA, LLB, MPhil, PHd, MBE, Esq.

Am I missing something?

[Gian-Luca]

Yeah, it addition to those letters after his name he sent some notorious letters to a board of education.

Yeah, suffice it to say that I thanksfully wasn't one of those people who voted for him. Yes, he was essentially forced to resign for some comments he made that became public & people felt angry because they claimed they voted for the Liberal party, not him as a person. But it just serves to demonstrate that most people have no clue about who it is they are actually voting for most of the time at the MP level - they care mainly about party & party leader. People Its probably less the case with high-profile star candidates like Ms. Auto Parts, as I'm sure more people than usual were voting for her specifically than is typically the case, but it still is the case by & large that its party & party leaders that people are voting for, not Harriet Jones MP, Candidate Flydale North.

Now how many fans of great television will get the above reference?

[Loud Mouth Soup]

I'd need to verify this, but it was sent to me today.

No one, no party can claim any moral superiority in this Parliament. We get the garbage we elect...

=====

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

30 have been accused of spousal abuse

9 have been arrested for fraud

14 have been accused of writing bad cheques

95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

4 have done time for assault

55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

12 have been arrested on drug related charges

4 have been arrested for shoplifting

16 are currently defendants in lawsuits

62 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Such is the record of the 308 Members of the Canadian Parliament.

[BC supporter]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

I'd need to verify this, but it was sent to me today.

No one, no party can claim any moral superiority in this Parliament. We get the garbage we elect...

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

30 have been accused of spousal abuse

9 have been arrested for fraud

14 have been accused of writing bad cheques

95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

4 have done time for assault

55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

12 have been arrested on drug related charges

4 have been arrested for shoplifting

16 are currently defendants in lawsuits

62 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Such is the record of the 308 Members of the Canadian Parliament.

Also, I've heard 78 MPs are on day parole, 92 have been contestents on Canadian Idol, 156 believe the earth is flat, and 204 are personal friends of Todd Bertuzzi.

I'll need to verify this.

[Reza]

I am not sure if those stats are enterily right, especially since 62 drunk drivings in the last year would have received a fair amount of media coverage.

If you take a snapshot of 100 Canadians on the street, you will see all kinds of things and the parliament is no different. It's not all nice and wonderful and it's not as bad as above. I know for a fact that surveys for random checks in many well known firms would surprise many in terms of drugs and alcohol related stuff.

Some of the stats up there are also misleading. Between 80-90% of business ventures go down in Canada.

As for the fraud and assault related stuff (4, 9, 14), that amounts to be about 3-10% of a firm and you would again be surprised that those are not off the statistical norms in a firm either.

There are some under all banners who are rotten. There are some under all banners who are quite dedicated. There are some who are just average joes.

[Joe Concacaf]

quote:Originally posted by BC supporter

Also, I've heard 78 MPs are on day parole, 92 have been contestents on Canadian Idol, 156 believe the earth is flat, and 204 are personal friends of Todd Bertuzzi.

I'll need to verify this.

Yes, that is correct. As well, it is a fact that 257 MPs believe Kevan Pipe is doing a great job.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by Loud Mouth Soup

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

30 have been accused of spousal abuse

9 have been arrested for fraud

14 have been accused of writing bad cheques

95 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

4 have done time for assault

55 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

12 have been arrested on drug related charges

4 have been arrested for shoplifting

16 are currently defendants in lawsuits

62 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Such is the record of the 308 Members of the Canadian Parliament.

I'm sure I can find 308 average Canadians with the same system.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

People who vote for the Green Party (ie. the majority of the V-board regular posters by the sounds of it) don't vote expecting that they'll win, but they presumably still want their voices heard, and that doesn't mean that their votes should effectively be changed after they have been cast.

But how are the conservative voters sitting any worse than the voters of the NDP or Greens or any other parties that might have contested the riding? They are in exactly the same position: they have an MP of a different political stripe. If voting Green, win or lose, is making your voice heard, then isn't voting Conservative win or lose doing exactly the same thing? The vote hasn't been changed, only the outcome. A vote for the Conservatives is still a voice for the Conservatives. I can see how they might feel that defeat has been snatched fromt he jaws of victory - and be ripped about that. But unless one holds the view that only a winning vote counts I can't make the jump to your contention that Conservative votes have been changed or become meaningless.

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Well it seemed implied to me in one of the comments, but fair enough. What you say about other independants and people getting stripped is also technically true - but I don't see how pointing out other flaws in the political system makes this blatant one acceptable, or makes a less of a mockery of our system.

I believe that if something happens that the system allows, then one can not cry foul, or claim to have been screwed, if it in fact happens.

I believe that Parties should have the right to strip a sitting representative of their party membership. I believe that a politician has the right to change his or her views or affiliation, and I believe a voter is responsible for the outcomes of his or her vote. I also believe that a Politician has to provide a level of consideration that goes beyond the narrow confines of his/her party, or riding (I despise regionalism, and sometimes what is good for Saskatchewan is not good for Canada) In order for that to be possible under our current system then we have to allow the potential for abuses - as this specific case may or may not be.

Now if you want to argue that this makes a good case for electoral reform, then I am all for that discussion. Change the rules. Every system has its flaws though. Lets say Stronach did the honourable thing and resigned. Well then Aurora is w/o representation for up to a year under the current system, and up to 8 weeks even if you put in place rules that resulted in resignation instantly triggering an automatic by-election. Of course, nobody is ready for a by-election so quickly so all of the parties who may be struggling to pay off the last election or don't have nominated candidates can't even get started for a few weeks, and the poor Greens may not even be able to run a campaign at all even if they have a candidate. And what do you do about the MP being stripped of his party membership? Does that trigger an by-election? If it does, it gives an incredible amount of power to a party leader to punish disenting views. Isn't one of the problems with our current system the slavish devotion to party discipline? Don't we want to encourage our politicians to do what is right even if it is at odds wiht party? And doesn't that get harder if they have to put their job on the line to do so. One of the reasons the right has become unified and a total putz forced out as leader of the opposition was, partially at least, because some of his MPs left the party. Would a series of by-elections achieved the same result? And if it (stripping of membership) doesn't trigger the by-election, are we not allowing the party to screw the voters?

And proportional representation, in which every vote has some influence, comes with its drawbacks. How about some party hack being in the house of commons without ever being voted for directly because his party put him at the top of their list? Or majority governments being uncommon. Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but if this go round is any indication, we would be having elections every 12 months. No thanks!

Its like a lot of thing Gian-Luca, with the good comes the bad. With solutions and fixes come new problems and abuses. And while it would bother me to have to wait 4 years to toss out some miscreant who ran as an ND then immediately crossed the floor, it bothers me more when an ND governement is elected on one set of promises and doesn't go about fulfilling those promises. Of course, it would bother me more, if a Conservative government had to resign for not fulfilling those promises when the reason they could not fulfill them was that the state of governement finances were not honestly reported by the previous government.

[Gordon]

Re: Jag & Company. I think when a tide of change come along, like the ones that swept Mulrooney in and Cambpell out, you get a lot more people voting for parties and candidates they know nothing about. You get a lot more opportunists joining up and there are greater issues of corruption. Like the Mulrooney Tories in Quebec: lots of corruption in that crew, but most of them were nominated as no hopers and rode a wave in. I know a lot of people at my workplace who are rational people who voted for Jim Pankiw and were appalled when he revealed himself. Had they done their homework, and fulfilled their reponsibilities as voters they would never had voted for him. Because his views were no secret if you paid attention. But they were really voting for change and Reform seemd to offer that.

[Andrew W]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

People who vote for the Green Party (ie. the majority of the V-board regular posters by the sounds of it) don't vote expecting that they'll win...

Exactly. In fact my Green affiliation is very much akin to my Canadian soccer fan status; I don't put on either hat expecting to win.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

But how are the conservative voters sitting any worse than the voters of the NDP or Greens or any other parties that might have contested the riding? They are in exactly the same position: they have an MP of a different political stripe.

Quite simply because at least the people who voted Green or NDP can still say that they have voted for their party after the fact, rather than having to qualify their statemens with "I voted Green but it was turned into a Liberal vote a few months later by the ambition of my MP". Which is how some people understandably react and feel has happened to their vote. Not everybody is obsessed with whether the person they voted for won - some take pride that they voted true to their conscience & for what they believe in, and its understandably disconcerting to those people when their vote is de facto changed after the fact by somebody else. Is this really not an understandable view to have?

quote:

I believe that if something happens that the system allows, then one can not cry foul, or claim to have been screwed, if it in fact happens.

And I disagree completely - getting screwed by a flawed system does not change the fact that one has gotten screwed. It happens all the time, and not just in politics. What you say about the other flaws re: proportional representation is also true - but again, that's another argument that strengthens the reasons for not taking the political system terribly seriously. The more flaws that are pointed out, the more cynical I get about the political system - particulary since I also feel that none of the parties really represent my views at all. But as I've come full circle to the point where I first entered this stating why events like this have helped to keep me apolitical in recent times,and I don't really feel going deep into philosophical & political discussions would serve much purpose, wouldn't it be easier to agree to disagree on this?

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

...wouldn't it be easier to agree to disagree on this?

Sure.

[Reza]

quote:

And proportional representation, in which every vote has some influence, comes with its drawbacks. How about some party hack being in the house of commons without ever being voted for directly because his party put him at the top of their list? Or majority governments being uncommon. Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but if this go round is any indication, we would be having elections every 12 months. No thanks!

I disagree on this point. There are many forms of proportional votes, including the mixed which is used quite nicely in Germany.

It does not mean that it will fix human problems like corruption, but it will definitely be a step forward towards fixing some of the issues our current system has infliced. Those issues include a total of absence of voices of differing views from different regions and creation of various kinds of alienations throughout the nation.

The current system allows the Conservatives to be the only voice of west, the Liberals the only voice of center and east and Bloc to be the prime voice of Quebec, all with merely 50% or less of the popular support in those regions. Maybe, just maybe, if people in rural areas see a liberal MP or some urban guy in TO or Quebecors sees a Conservative MP, maybe they realize things aren't as scary as some make it to be. But as it stands, southern Alberta hasn't had a sniff of a non-Conservative MP in 40 years and the same issue can probably be seen throughout the country.

Will it fix all of the problems? No. But in human evolution, we have never been able to fix anything forever. We have devised solutions to our current shortcomings, only to face new ones which need fixing.

[DoyleG]

quote:Originally posted by RealGooner

Amen Massive Attack. What the conservative party needs is a John Tory type of character at the Federal level. A reasonable person who can make decisions by evaluating situations and making common sense decisions. Not this one-right-wing size fits all approach of Harper. The Ontario Conservatives have seen the light, its time the Federal Reform oh sorry Conservative party does the same. Belinda SHOULD have been the perfect Conservative leader but as usual they blew it with their hardline partisan wannabe-Republican approach to everthing. Will they ever learn?

Translation: A leader who's from Ontario

Nice thinking.[}]

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by DoyleG

Translation: A leader who's from Ontario

Nice thinking.[}]

Gavin, there have been plenty of Conservatives from Alberta, the west generally, Atlantic Canada, and Quebec as well who meet this criteria. Don't be so paranoid (to steal one of your lines)

[The Beaver]

Well, as unfortunate and as unfair as DoyleG and many others will find this, it is pretty clear that the Conservative Party has not done a good job of changing how Canadians in general perceive them, and as a result need to do more to change this perception, which means electing a leader who is not from Alberta for starters, and likely not from anywhere in the west unless you pick some interesting character from urban Vancouver--none of the existing BC Conservative MPs fit the bill--somebody like the Premier, Gordon Campbell. Problem with Campbell is that he barely has the chops to pull it off in BC; he won't succeed at the Federal level. He's too thin.

So, if how the Conservatives are perceived cannot be truly mended by electing a leader from the West--and I cannot see how it can, unfortunately--then I'd recommend that the party look to Ontario or the Maritimes. I know this may seem really unfair, but we are dealing with the realities of perception. Remember, despite the weak leadership so far from Martin, and the Sponsorship Scandal and the Gomery Commission, Harper's Conservatives have not made any real gains in the polls. And the biggest reason--perhaps the only reason of heft and merit--is because Canadians say they do not trust or like Mr Harper and what he represents. It doesn't even matter that the Conservatives are trying to take a moderate stance, nobody believes Harper and thus they do not believe the party. They feel that this is an Alberta party focussed on Alberta values. That is the perception. And people vote based on that alone: perception.

This is damned simple stuff: Harper needs to step down soon and the party needs to find somebody like Bernard Lord or some other non-Western, respected Tory. Stronach could have been that. McKay does not have the je ne sais quoi to be it. Harper is a dead wrong choice. David Orchard would have been a very interesting leader: The sort that would make both the Liberals AND NDP nervous. But the Conservatives showed him what they thought of his brand of moderate (and often visionary) Conservatism. Too bad; he could have been interesting.