Will the government fall?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Lurch@May 19 2005, 03:41 PM

Isn't this exactly how a minority government is supposed to work, i.e. one party has to play give and take and can't just dictate policy. I could be wrong, but I would think given Martin's track record in politics, that he would have preferred to deal with the PC's on the budget. I can't state things in absolutes like most do in these threads, but IMO it was Harper that didn't want to play ball and try to accomplish some of his goals through working with Martin, not vice versa.

No question Harper dropped the ball on this. Big time.

I'm not prepared to pin this mess on Harper because I don't want to let the sheeple off the hook.

Harper is responsible for the fact that his party couldn't get their act together.

We're responsible for the fact that the government is still standing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mccree@May 19 2005, 10:27 PM

Not that It matter now. BUT does she switch sides if she DOES NOT get a Cabinet positing?

If you can answer yes then I have no problem with her switching.

I, for one, am not sure she does so and that bugs me big time.

To be honest, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I think it is likely that Stronach was considering switching for a long time but was afraid to do it before. With everything that was going on now, she knew if she switched now, she could negotiate for some perks. Hence, both opportunistic and ideoligic. Maybe she wouldn't have switched right at this moment without the cabinet position, but I think it was likely to happen at some point regardless.

I see nothing wrong with it personally. Most of us would do something similar in our lives. For instance, if you were unhappy at the company you worked at and were offered a better position at a different company that you did like , wouldn't you take it? Stronach wants to be a policy maker and Martin offered her that job.

[Natt]

Originally posted by browna+May 19 2005, 10:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (browna @ May 19 2005, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Natt@May 19 2005, 03:59 PM
He voted for his constituents. If his constituents want "bribes and corruption" then it his job as an MP to deliver what they want. Most people are aware of what is going on with the Liberals seeing how it is splashed in our faces everywhere. In spite of this all, poll after poll have shown that the majority of Canada is against an election right now. Also, they may be informed and realize that this corruption happened more than 10 years ago with an almost different Liberal Party than the one today.

Not to open this can of worms again, but did Belinda Stronach ask her consitituents to vote what they wanted before her move?

[/b][/quote]
Actually, Stronach said that she was in support of the proposed budget of the Liberals/NDP because it it "contained measures on municipal funding that were of great importance to her constituents."

[browna]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 19 2005, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 19 2005, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mccree@May 19 2005, 10:27 PM

Not that It matter now. BUT does she switch sides if she DOES NOT get a Cabinet positing?

If you can answer yes then I have no problem with her switching.

I, for one, am not sure she does so and that bugs me big time.

To be honest, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I think it is likely that Stronach was considering switching for a long time but was afraid to do it before. With everything that was going on now, she knew if she switched now, she could negotiate for some perks. Hence, both opportunistic and ideoligic. Maybe she wouldn't have switched right at this moment without the cabinet position, but I think it was likely to happen at some point regardless.

I see nothing wrong with it personally. Most of us would do something similar in our lives. For instance, if you were unhappy at the company you worked at and were offered a better position at a different company that you did like , wouldn't you take it? Stronach wants to be a policy maker and Martin offered her that job. [/b][/quote]
If it was moralistic reasons, or constituency reasons, then she could've left the Conservatives weeks or months ago.

Even then, or even two days ago, she could've gone Independant and still voted for the Liberals. Then held a constiuency vote asking if they wished her to join the Liberal party or not.

But no, it turned about to be weak link hoodwinked by Paul Martin. I'd be very surpised if she does any policy making, other then maybe updating the female dress codes on Parliment hill. She got the glory and attention she craved...when all this dies down and the smart Liberals see what they actully got, she'll be editing the Liberal newsletter until she decides she's bored and goes somewhere else.

And the Conservative/Bloc voting alliance is directly on par with the NDP/Liberal alliance, where Belinda and her mates give the NDP an extra 4$billion. The Liberals wouldn't have any part of it if they had a majority.

All the Conservatives did was play the game too, but it didn't cost every Canadian an extra $125 each like the Liberals cost every Canadian.

[Natt]

Originally posted by browna@May 19 2005, 11:14 PM


Even then, or even two days ago, she could've gone Independant and still voted for the Liberals. Then held a constiuency vote asking if they wished her to join the Liberal party or not.

I'd be very surpised if she does any policy making, other then maybe updating the female dress codes on Parliment hill. She got the glory and attention she craved...when all this dies down and the smart Liberals see what they actully got, she'll be editing the Liberal newsletter until she decides she's bored and goes somewhere else.

Well, saying when she should have left is unimportant when you boil it down. The end result would have still been the same. Also, decisions like this aren't exactly easy to make.
As for your second comment and MANY others regarding Stronach, I'm getting pretty sick of these sexist remarks that have no factual basis other than be completely classless and of poor taste. If you want to attack her, at least have the decency to have a real reason and facts to back up yourself up rather than resorting to making sexist and/or cruel remarks.

[browna]

Originally posted by Natt+May 19 2005, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Natt @ May 19 2005, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-browna@May 19 2005, 11:14 PM


Even then, or even two days ago, she could've gone Independant and still voted for the Liberals. Then held a constiuency vote asking if they wished her to join the Liberal party or not.

I'd be very surpised if she does any policy making, other then maybe updating the female dress codes on Parliment hill. She got the glory and attention she craved...when all this dies down and the smart Liberals see what they actully got, she'll be editing the Liberal newsletter until she decides she's bored and goes somewhere else.

Well, saying when she should have left is unimportant when you boil it down. The end result would have still been the same. Also, decisions like this aren't exactly easy to make.
As for your second comment and MANY others regarding Stronach, I'm getting pretty sick of these sexist remarks that have no factual basis other than be completely classless and of poor taste. If you want to attack her, at least have the decency to have a real reason and facts to back up yourself up rather than resorting to making sexist and/or cruel remarks. [/b][/quote]
Fine... but its not meant to be sexist.

She and Ken Dryden can set up a commitee to re-do the male dress code too, as well as well as whatever other make work projects the Liberals give the famous figurehead twosome to do. What I am getting at is that Stronach's pretty much already peaked in importance within her career in the Liberal party as of today.

Point being, she doesn't have the experience in politics. More importantly, she doesn't have the ambition or drive to gain the experience like is needed to make a career in politics. The youth, pretty face and smooth talking only goes so far and so long (and she doesn't have the smooth talking), and behind that, hard work and paying those dull dues has to be a part of the experience to be able to sustain and succeed if you want to stay in politics as a career. Peter McKay is a perfect example of that currently. There has to be steak to the sizzle, as well as patience in playing the game to climb the ladder.

A year or so in the Conservatives, it seems she expected to be second in line for leadership already, simply because she finished a distant way behind over a year ago. Things don't work that quick in Politics, like maybe they did in her father's business. When Harper got annoyed, he stopped *$#@!footing around and told her the truth that she'd never be leader.

She'll coast along like many politicians do, but when she gets bored and starts nagging and other senior long time Liberal members, Paul Martin will tell her the same thing...that this token cabinet position is pretty much where your stuck in, unless you want to committ to this for the next 10 years.

No need to feel sorry for her, she'll go back to making more $$ then 10 of us here on the board combined at her fathers company.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by browna@May 19 2005, 06:09 PM

Point being, she doesn't have the experience in politics. More importantly, she doesn't have the ambition or drive to gain the experience like is needed to make a career in politics. The youth, pretty face and smooth talking only goes so far and so long (and she doesn't have the smooth talking), and behind that, hard work and paying those dull dues has to be a part of the experience to be able to sustain and succeed if you want to stay in politics as a career. Peter McKay is a perfect example of that currently. There has to be steak to the sizzle, as well as patience in playing the game to climb the ladder.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you know anything about her prior career or life? No ambition or drive? She could have sat on her ass, and her children on theirs, and her children's children's children's children on theirs as well, forever.

"In 2002 and again in 2003 Stronach was ranked number 2 by Fortune magazine in its list of the world’s most powerful women in international business. "

Under her leadership, Magna International, employing 72,000 people in 22 countries, had record sales of almost $20 billion. In three years its share value nearly doubled.

In February 2003, Stronach joined the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial...eyword=stronach

I think her resumé would look pretty good beside anyone in the CPCs, dear leader included. Compared to some of the chimps they have in that bunch she looks like Margaret Thatcher.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 20 2005, 12:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 20 2005, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-browna@May 19 2005, 06:09 PM

Point being, she doesn't have the experience in politics. More importantly, she doesn't have the ambition or drive to gain the experience like is needed to make a career in politics. The youth, pretty face and smooth talking only goes so far and so long (and she doesn't have the smooth talking), and behind that, hard work and paying those dull dues has to be a part of the experience to be able to sustain and succeed if you want to stay in politics as a career. Peter McKay is a perfect example of that currently. There has to be steak to the sizzle, as well as patience in playing the game to climb the ladder.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you know anything about her prior career or life? No ambition or drive? She could have sat on her ass, and her children on theirs, and her children's children's children's children on theirs as well, forever.

"In 2002 and again in 2003 Stronach was ranked number 2 by Fortune magazine in its list of the world’s most powerful women in international business. "

Under her leadership, Magna International, employing 72,000 people in 22 countries, had record sales of almost $20 billion. In three years its share value nearly doubled.

In February 2003, Stronach joined the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial...eyword=stronach

I think her resumé would look pretty good beside anyone in the CPCs, dear leader included. Compared to some of the chimps they have in that bunch she looks like Margaret Thatcher. [/b][/quote]
And not to go after her anymore, but she may have been all that, but she's never done anything awe inspiring for the Conservative party.

She's a terrible public speaker which surprises me.

Lets be honest, non of the leaders in any of the parties are exactly awe inspiring, and they certainly don't fire me up or get me excited.

I've said it before, our universities are doing a terrible job of teaching leadership skills.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 19 2005, 06:41 PM
And not to go after her anymore, but she may have been all that, but she's never done anything awe inspiring for the Conservative party.

She's a terrible public speaker which surprises me.

Nobody has done anything awe-inspiring for this current incarnation of the Conservative Party.

I suppose the fact that nobody in the CPCs can do anything right is awe-inspiring, but I don't think that's what you meant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 20 2005, 12:41 AM

Lets be honest, non of the leaders in any of the parties are exactly awe inspiring, and they certainly don't fire me up or get me excited.

I thought Jean Charest was pretty good when he was leader of the PC.

Too bad he's a Liberal now too!

[kn]

Gomery has no mandate to assign blame or criminality and most Canadians will have forgotten about Gomery come election time. Most will also be pleased with the $4.7 billion in additional spending.

It's been clear since the formation of the Reform Party that Canadians are not interested in principles in government and take the approach 'what can it provide for me?' Canadians continue to vote for no vision, no principles, just a party that caters to the mushy middle handing out false promises, patronage appointments and money to secure votes. The Conservatives refuse to play that game and as such will never be elected.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by kn@May 19 2005, 06:47 PM
Gomery has no mandate to assign blame or criminality and most Canadians will have forgotten about Gomery come election time. Most will also be pleased with the $4.7 billion in additional spending.

It's been clear since the formation of the Reform Party that Canadians are not interested in principles in government and take the approach 'what can it provide for me?' Canadians continue to vote for no vision, no principles, just a party that caters to the mushy middle handing out false promises, patronage appointments and money to secure votes. The Conservatives refuse to play that game and as such will never be elected.

Yep that's it in a nutshell. Harper and the Gang are just too principled for their own good.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 20 2005, 12:33 AM

I think her resumé would look pretty good beside anyone in the CPCs, dear leader included. Compared to some of the chimps they have in that bunch she looks like Margaret Thatcher.

No doubt.

Time Magazine also conisders her to be in the top 100 most influential people in the world. One would think that ANY politcal party would want someone like that.

In 2001, the National Post named Stronach as the most powerful businesswoman in Canada; and, in the same year, the World Economic Forum named her a "Global Leader of Tomorrow." Fortune Magazine ranked her #2 in its list of the world's most powerful women in business in 2002. She was also named one of Canada's "Top 40 Under 40". In April 2004, Time Magazine ranked her as one of the world's 100 most influential people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach

[Flame On]

Cadman votes in favor of his constiuents wishes.
For those crying about the results you'll probably get your wish and another vote down the road. Maybe even the big vote you're after and an election. I don't think the results will be any different, but perhaps. Get rid of Harper and stick in McKay for starters.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 20 2005, 12:41 AM

And not to go after her anymore, but she may have been all that, but she's never done anything awe inspiring for the Conservative party.

I never heard any conservatives complaining about her when she was in their party.

http://www.umass.edu/aesop/foxgrapes/palic...rapes_trad.html

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Flame On@May 20 2005, 01:31 AM
Cadman votes in favor of his constiuents wishes.
For those crying about the results you'll probably get your wish and another vote down the road. Maybe even the big vote you're after and an election. I don't think the results will be any different, but perhaps. Get rid of Harper and stick in McKay for starters.

This is one thing that I don't get. And again, its just a question - not being mean, kind or anything else.

But isn't Cadman voting how he did exactly what the Conservatives propose?

Hear me on this. The Conservatives propose a) free votes; and b) listening to their constituents and voting on what their riding wants.

You can argue if the right question was proposed, but as stated earlier in this thread, you have to watch for bias. And, I think any question that was chosen to be asked would result in bias, people complaining, etc.

But anywho, didn't Cadman, in essence, do exactly what the Conservaitves (effectively his former party) themselves advocate for? Or am I missing something?

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 19 2005, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 19 2005, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 20 2005, 12:41 AM

And not to go after her anymore, but she may have been all that, but she's never done anything awe inspiring for the Conservative party.

I never heard any conservatives complaining about her when she was in their party.

http://www.umass.edu/aesop/foxgrapes/palic...rapes_trad.html [/b][/quote]
To be fair, I always thought she was rather pretentious to come in with a pretty face and no political experience and expect to win the leadership. To me, a leader has to pay their dues, at least a couple of terms as an MP, or an MLA, or something. That always rubbed me the wrong way about her.

That being said, aside from that underlying notion of power hunger, I was happy to have her, and angry to see her go under these circumstances. To me, if it was about all that junk she talked about, she would've gone Independent, like Kilgour.

[browna]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 19 2005, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 19 2005, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-browna@May 19 2005, 06:09 PM

Point being, she doesn't have the experience in politics. More importantly, she doesn't have the ambition or drive to gain the experience like is needed to make a career in politics. The youth, pretty face and smooth talking only goes so far and so long (and she doesn't have the smooth talking), and behind that, hard work and paying those dull dues has to be a part of the experience to be able to sustain and succeed if you want to stay in politics as a career. Peter McKay is a perfect example of that currently. There has to be steak to the sizzle, as well as patience in playing the game to climb the ladder.

Where do you get this stuff?

Do you know anything about her prior career or life? No ambition or drive? She could have sat on her ass, and her children on theirs, and her children's children's children's children on theirs as well, forever.

"In 2002 and again in 2003 Stronach was ranked number 2 by Fortune magazine in its list of the world’s most powerful women in international business. "

Under her leadership, Magna International, employing 72,000 people in 22 countries, had record sales of almost $20 billion. In three years its share value nearly doubled.

In February 2003, Stronach joined the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial...eyword=stronach

I think her resumé would look pretty good beside anyone in the CPCs, dear leader included. Compared to some of the chimps they have in that bunch she looks like Margaret Thatcher. [/b][/quote]
Sorry if it got lost in there, but I was talking about political ambition to have the paitence that is needed for a long political career.

Of course she's done well for herself...and her life is and has been more exciting to this point, so why should she care about sitting in on junior caucus meetings about safer sprockets in Inuvit for 2 years like other MP's must go through. And, like someone said, she hasn't gone through that, and that rubs fellow MP's the wrong way I am sure.

Thus, I don't think she has the paitence to stick it out the time it takes to have a long (possibly sometimes boring) career in politics with a whole wack of other opportunities at her beckon call. Things move a lot slower in Ottawa, business efficiency and career wise, in comparison to the corporate world she's more accustomed to. She wanted more power in the Conservatives only a year after being in the party and won't be too long until she expects to move up within the Liberals. It doesn't happen that quick in politics usually.

Plus, if she wanted to be politically ambitious, she could've taken on the task of turning around the Conservatives single handedly if they're in such a mess, instead of taking the easy way out and being blinded by the big cubic zirconia Martin offered.

[kn]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 19 2005, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 19 2005, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kn@May 19 2005, 06:47 PM
Gomery has no mandate to assign blame or criminality and most Canadians will have forgotten about Gomery come election time. Most will also be pleased with the $4.7 billion in additional spending.

It's been clear since the formation of the Reform Party that Canadians are not interested in principles in government and take the approach 'what can it provide for me?' Canadians continue to vote for no vision, no principles, just a party that caters to the mushy middle handing out false promises, patronage appointments and money to secure votes. The Conservatives refuse to play that game and as such will never be elected.

Yep that's it in a nutshell. Harper and the Gang are just too principled for their own good. [/b][/quote]
Reform tried to bring integrity and democratic accountability to government and was laughed at for doing so. These ideals are cornerstones of western populism and part of the CA and incorporated into the CPC. Obviously they have failed to resonate with voters outside of the west.

[shoestring]

It's too bad parliament ends in June ??
A lot of money might be worried.
I 'm joining the liberals!

25 mill an hour,wait till BC gets wind of this.
Alberta declined ,stupid buggers.

The Liberals are stooping to everyunderhanded trick in the book.AGAIN
and forever I would think.
I can't vote for these guys ever again.
How could anybody trust this guy who ,
Sold his shipping company to his sons,(for a buck probably),who registred them in a foreign company to save $430 milion dollars in Can. taxes.
Why? Cmon I would like to save that many millions too but I am the PM and should have enough faith in my company built in Canada to stay.

He knew everything and hated it but he grabbed the power and is now wielding it.

Disgraceful.