Who needs transparency and accountability? Not the Tories!

[longsuffering]

Harper and the Conservative Party disqualify Garth Turner as a party candidate in the next election, despite the fact he's a card-carrying member of the party and decline to provide any explanation or evidence for this ban.

So this is how the Party that promised to bring transparency to Ottawa treats an MP who has represented the Party as a member of Parliament twice, who has served as a Conservative cabinet minister, and been a leadership contender for the Progressive Conservative party.

Maybe the Tories are trying to hand Parliament back to the Liberals - this latest mis-step following so closely on the heels of the 'dog' and 'bone' controveries.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

We're beginning to see a real pattern of arrogance and bad decision making by the Conservative leadership.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by fotze

I thought they did this a month ago?

They suspended him a month ago. They've made it official and announced he is ineligible to run as a Tory again.

[CaptainCrunch]

Turner is so full of crap that you could plant a rose garden on his butt and it would grow

He got booted not only because he was publishing closed door meeting information on his blog, but he got caught lying on his blog as well.

You can't have a guy in your party that you can't trust.

There's transparency, then there's stupidity.

[Bobblehead]

I think it is the "No reason given" that is creating the issue. They also said that in the Rob Anders/Calgary West thing.

Why aren't they willing to gove out their reasoning? If CaptainCrunch is correct and those are the reasons, then those reasons sound reasonable to me. Why won't the party say that?

[The Goon]

The question came, not from Turner, but from his riding association. The only answer they got was "it was an internal decision."

Not good enough.

[Hack&Lube]

Everybody knows Turner is a ****, I don't think an explanation would be required. It would just give Turner more to counter with.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Everybody knows Turner is a ****, I don't think an explanation would be required. It would just give Turner more to counter with.

IF the Tories knew he was an "a$$" then why did they allow him to run in the last election?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF the Tories knew he was an "a$$" then why did they allow him to run in the last election?

Because how could they not let him run and still let Rob Anders run?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Turner is so full of crap that you could plant a rose garden on his butt and it would grow

He got booted not only because he was publishing closed door meeting information on his blog, but he got caught lying on his blog as well.

You can't have a guy in your party that you can't trust.

There's transparency, then there's stupidity.

Cap'n Crunch - it seems as you as as blind to the foibles of the Tories as you accused Liberal supporters of being with the Martin government.

Turner has already addressed the smears by unelected Conversative backroomers, so at best this is a he said/she said situation.

This government operates at a level of secrecy unprecedented in Canadian politics. It routinuely muzzles candidates, as well as MPs, breaks its own rules to handpick candidates, often overriding the wishes of the riding associations and limits media access to even cabinet ministers.

This is democracy?

Leaving aside the question of whether what they are doing is good for Canadian politics, and Turner has some interesting thoughts on that on his blog, I suggest you take off your blinders and examine what is happening inside YOUR party.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Cap'n Crunch - it seems as you as as blind to the foibles of the Tories as you accused Liberal supporters of being with the Martin government.

Turner has already addressed the smears by unelected Conversative backroomers, so at best this is a he said/she said situation.

This government operates at a level of secrecy unprecedented in Canadian politics. It routinuely muzzles candidates, as well as MPs, breaks its own rules to handpick candidates, often overriding the wishes of the riding associations and limits media access to even cabinet ministers.

This is democracy?

Leaving aside the question of whether what they are doing is good for Canadian politics, and Turner has some interesting thoughts on that on his blog, I suggest you take off your blinders and examine what is happening inside YOUR party.

Granted and sure, but I was absolutely more concerned with the Liberal's history of corruption, outright public lies and incompetance. The one thing that I really liked/disliked about the Liberals is that thier stupidy and corruption was out there for anyone to see.

My issue with Turner is that he would take information from closed door meetings and publish them on his blog, and in some instances modify the information to suit his own agenda. That to me is a problem.

Lets say that I'm in a meeting with my collegues, and I bring up the discussion that we should lay off the accounting staff. No decision is made, but one of the members posts a sign in every office in the branch that states that management is looking to lay off the accounting staff. It errodes the trust of management, and kicks the credibility legs right out from under them.


In every business, and in government there has to be a certain amount of secrecy involved since a completely open policy will guarantee that no decisions will ever be made through paralysis by fear. Turner also broke the trust given to him by his party.

Conversely I like some of the ideas that Turner has been talking about. I've always said that independant MP's should have a bigger role in government, and I think the donation protocals for independants are a joke and need to be revamped. But Turners, histrionices and his grandstanding, and to me his snake like nature make him unworkable in any party.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In every business, and in government there has to be a certain amount of secrecy involved since a completely open policy will guarantee that no decisions will ever be made through paralysis by fear. Turner also broke the trust given to him by his party.

This isn't CSIS we're talking about here, this is an MP who suddenly is banned from the party without explanation.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF the Tories knew he was an "a$$" then why did they allow him to run in the last election?

Simple, they were trying to get the majority vote, they didnt and got a miniority so they no longer have to pander to him cause his vote doesnt really matter.

Its a culling of the policial heards if you will.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Cap'n Crunch - it seems as you as as blind to the foibles of the Tories as you accused Liberal supporters of being with the Martin government.

Turner has already addressed the smears by unelected Conversative backroomers, so at best this is a he said/she said situation.

This government operates at a level of secrecy unprecedented in Canadian politics. It routinuely muzzles candidates, as well as MPs, breaks its own rules to handpick candidates, often overriding the wishes of the riding associations and limits media access to even cabinet ministers.

This is democracy?

Leaving aside the question of whether what they are doing is good for Canadian politics, and Turner has some interesting thoughts on that on his blog, I suggest you take off your blinders and examine what is happening inside YOUR party.

Muzzles candidates - I see you convieniently left out the proof.

Handpicks candidates - the overal body politic is allowed to override the riding association in all 3 English Federal Parties - ala the Liberals placing visible minorities and women in party ridings.

Limiting Media Access - again you convieneintly left out proof, if you mean that no one spilled the beans about the Income Tax structure change well then its a good thing no?

You seem not to know about what affect the media has on political parties - especially the right of centre ones.

In a perfect world yes, that yahoo with the hat from Lethbridge would be able to mouth off on Mansbridge Live about how he is against gay marriage, and blah blah blah.

In a perfect world he would be seen as one man with one opinion, in our world he is seen as the mouthpiece face of the party so Harper tells him to shut up and dont show up at events in Toronot so he shuts up because the Conservatives made a choice, its better to bend your morales and be in power than be true to them on the outside looking in. Has the Conservatives done one thing the Liberals said they would do:

Do we see Canadian Jeeps and Tanks running down Centre Street patrolling for crime - NO

Have they converted public medicare into private - NO

Have they banned abortion - NO

Have they banned gay marriage - NO

While the last too may be desired by alot of grassroot Conservatives, Harper knows Cons have no chance if they go down that road and so nothing has been passed - is a proposed law likely for both - I would say yes but he would do so knowing it wouldnt pass - either in a minority Gov or in a Majority you would see a number of absentees. That is the main difference between Harper and Bush, Bush is all grassroots, Harper uses the grassroots to get what he wants then justifies it by winning.

When you play the political game you must also play the media game, that game is underhanded and backstabbing but thats how the game is played so you play by the rules.

The proposed legislation is aimed more at corruption ala the Heritage Fund thing.

MYK

[Cheese]

Respondents to a new national poll placed the federal Liberals ahead of the Conservatives for the first time in almost a year. However, the narrow Liberal lead in the Decima poll was within the three-percentage-point margin of error, which means it's too close to say who's really ahead. The Grits had the support of 33 per cent of respondents nationally, while the Tories had 31 per cent, the NDP had 15 per cent and the Green party had 10.


Somewhere a tree is heard to shudder in the foothills of Alberta.


Poll

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

This government operates at a level of secrecy unprecedented in Canadian politics. It routinuely muzzles candidates, as well as MPs, breaks its own rules to handpick candidates, often overriding the wishes of the riding associations and limits media access to even cabinet ministers.

Well, unprecidented in the last 18 months, at least.

[Red Mile Style]

There's something to be said about blind patriotism...

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Muzzles candidates - I see you convieniently left out the proof. Handpicks candidates - the overal body politic is allowed to override the riding association in all 3 English Federal Parties - ala the Liberals placing visible minorities and women in party ridings.

So, I guess disqualifying Turner and not allowing other candidates to run against Anders isn't muzzling? How much proof do you need? They have only been in power for ten months!!!! Regardless of what is "allowed" - it's still what it is - muzzling.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Limiting Media Access - again you convieneintly left out proof, if you mean that no one spilled the beans about the Income Tax structure change well then its a good thing no?

Since you've apparently been living under a rock for the past ten months, here's what the CPC have been up to in regards to banning the media:

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/c...dia-Policy.php

Freedom of expression is of great importance to a representative democracy. Political speech and freedom of the press are fundamental parts of what is protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. A government media policy that restricts the free flow of information and impairs efforts to question politicians and report on current political events is certainly at odds with Charter values. In order for Canadians to make informed political decisions and understand what their elected representatives are doing, it is essential that the press is able to gather and report political news. If the government is unwilling to provide this opportunity, one has to wonder... who will?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You seem not to know about what affect the media has on political parties - especially the right of centre ones.

You do not seem to realize the impacts of a non-transparent government. Hiding issues that do not threaten national security is dangerous. Who cares what the media does with the information, if the information is never presented in the first place? What exactly is Harper trying to hide? What is he so afraid of? Oh, yes, but the liberal bias in the media... always a good excuse not to provide the real agenda of the government... who cares about the freedom of the press in the charter. I personally love it when people throw out the slant of the media - especially when all the newspapers and television stations in the country are owned by huge corporations that would definately benefit from a Conservative government. Liberal bias my ass!

Originally Posted by mykalberta

In a perfect world yes, that yahoo with the hat from Lethbridge would be able to mouth off on Mansbridge Live about how he is against gay marriage, and blah blah blah.

That would be pretty far from a perfect world, as since sexual orientation can not be used as grounds for prejudices in Canada, I'm pretty sure whatever that yahoo would say, would be derogratory.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

In a perfect world he would be seen as one man with one opinion, in our world he is seen as the mouthpiece face of the party so Harper tells him to shut up and dont show up at events in Toronot so he shuts up because the Conservatives made a choice, its better to bend your morales and be in power than be true to them on the outside looking in.

aha ha, spoken like a true Conservative. Believe it or not, some people hold their morales in higher regard than that.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Has the Conservatives done one thing the Liberals said they would do:

Do we see Canadian Jeeps and Tanks running down Centre Street patrolling for crime - NO

Maybe not OUR center street, but there are definately Canadian Jeeps and Tanks running down streets. 42 Canadian soldiers dead since the Conservatives took power - there's something else that the CPC has accomplished in a short ten months... too bad there is a media ban on the coffins of the soldiers by Harper.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Have they converted public medicare into private - NO

Have they done anything to better the health-care system? NO. It would be political suicide to axe medi-care - but by cutting funding and making the system worse, changing people's attitudes towards a public health system, well, that is definately on the agenda. The health-care system will not be axed, but I can guarantee the amount of Canadians that disagree with a public healthcare system will rise while the Conservatives are in office.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Have they banned abortion - NO

Not yet...

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Have they banned gay marriage - NO

Well, actually, Harper has called for a free vote on the issue with intentions to introduce a bill to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/13648

Originally Posted by mykalberta

When you play the political game you must also play the media game, that game is underhanded and backstabbing but thats how the game is played so you play by the rules.

You also have to play the law game, which includes upholding the Charter, including the part about freedom of the press. But, I guess as long as you're in power, you're allowed to bend your morales, right?

Allowing Canadians to know what their government is doing is what responsible government is all about. Hiding what is going on behind closed doors is not democratic, and is definately something that seperates us from places like North Korea.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Not yet...

So the answer is no then?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

So the answer is no then?

Way to respond to my post!

First of all, I don't recall abortion being an election issue, so I don't even know where you're coming up with the whole "the conservatives are going to ban abortion" concept. Secondly, they haven't even been in power for a year, so who knows what they will do if they have a long tenure. Third, as you mentioned, it's a minority government and I doubt the Conservatives would lose confidence in the house over a non-issue like abortion. And finally, women's rights have been established for a long time. It is much easier for society to establish rights, than take them away after they have been upheld for decades. This is no longer a parliamentary issue, but an issue for the courts.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Way to respond to my post!

First of all, I don't recall abortion being an election issue, so I don't even know where you're coming up with the whole "the conservatives are going to ban abortion" concept. Secondly, they haven't even been in power for a year, so who knows what they will do if they have a long tenure. Third, as you mentioned, it's a minority government and I doubt the Conservatives would lose confidence in the house over a non-issue like abortion. And finally, women's rights have been established for a long time. It is much easier for society to establish rights, than take them away after they have been upheld for decades. This is no longer a parliamentary issue, but an issue for the courts.

Uhh YOU did. By responding to the question of "did conservatives ban abortion" you replied, "not yet".

Which implies that you think it is somewhat impending, since you implied a timeframe, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding to it.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Uhh YOU did. By responding to the question of "did conservatives ban abortion" you replied, "not yet".

Which implies that you think it is somewhat impending, since you implied a timeframe, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered responding to it.

First of all, I didn't bring it up, I responded to it.

Secondly, my response was clearly sarcastic... I guess it's my fault for not putting an emoticon after it. So, here.

Third, please read my entire response, not just the one line you highlighted. I think that pretty much makes it clear that this point is bunk.