Stronach crosses the floor

[octothorp]

I don't see this as being a matter of power for Stronach, as much as a matter of self-preservation. She won her last election by just 600 votes. Her re-election was far from a sure thing. It's easy for Harper or Art Hanger or Chuck Strahl to say that they want an election--they don't need to worry about losing their seats, but many Ontario Conservatives were very cautious about endorsing an election. It is no coincidence that Stronach never expressed any hesitation about the possible election until the week off when Tories were instructed to go talk to their constituents. Obviously, she heard something during that time that scared her--something that made her think that this was an election that even a high-profile, moderate candidate would lose, were she Conservative. I think her political career hinged on her jumping ship this week. Self-interested, definitely. But more about preservation than ambition--she and the other Ontario Conservatives were being asked to risk their jobs while their own concerns were not being considered. I don't really blame her for doing what she did.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

As you know full well I think our current electoral system is part of the problem. First past the post not only keeps the Liberals as strong as they are but it concentrates their power in the most populous region of the country. They are overrepresented in Ontario because of our electoral system and underrepresented in most other places. NDP should be more powerful than it is.

That's exactly my point.

If our current system keeps the liberals in power and they can do whatever they want to keep it, how do you suppose anything will ever change?

I disagree. I think people really care about the scandal. But that doesn't mean someone will change their votes to a party that has opposite beliefs to their own.

The NDP is hardly opposite the Liberals. The liberal budget is in fact the NDP budget right now.

If the NDP should indeed be more powerful than they are as you said above, then I don't see why they aren't a viable option right now.

seems like some Conservative supporters believe the Liberals should automatically be voted out.

I'm actually a pretty p*ss poor conservative supporter, but on this I'll agree. People who steal and lie should be voted out. It's absolutely black and white IMO.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

A related question:

If the newfies and a few other cons jump ship, how long do you suppose this government lasts?

I'm thinking 4 or 5 cons will be enough to give is the liberal/ndp alliance for 2 years or more.

Does the government last till Martin's promised election date? If it does, does Martin actually call the election if he's running along smoothly?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 17 2005, 09:11 PM
Saying that you support traditional marriage does not mean that your intolerant of homosexuals. I don't know where you get that from. It dosen't mean that they are against Homosexuals getting married, they just don't want to call it marriage. In fact Harper talked about a social union, the same as marriage in every way but name. Ohhhh what a boogie man.

I completely disagree. Having two definitions for the same thing is discrimination. The hetero's get the "real" marriage while the homos get the "civil unions." What is the point in that? To appease Christian fundamentalists? All it does is say you're not good enough for the real marriage. We can't ban you completely from marrying so we've been forced to give you this other version of it. We won't allow you to share our term because we don't agree with your lifestyle and still want you to be considered sub-standard, we don't want to be seen as condoning your lifestyle.

Some people value equality. They want gays to feel normal, they don't want them to be discriminated against. They want to be tolerant of them and allow them to have the same status, privileges and rights that hetero's have. Allowing the "traditional" definition of marrige for hetero's and "civil unions" for gays does not do that. It segregates. It divides. It is discriminatory.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 17 2005, 12:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 17 2005, 12:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

We can only hope Martin is that stupid. But it is one of the things I have thought of as well. If I am the Conservatives, I am paying very close attention to Manga International.

Oh please. Somebody call Scully and Mulder. [/b][/quote]
You are right. It is right out of the realm of fantasy that one could possibly believe that the Liberal Party of "Canada" would give Canada's money to individuals and companies willing to sell their souls to the Liberal party.

It'd never happen in a million years, right?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 17 2005, 09:19 PM
That's exactly my point.

If our current system keeps the liberals in power and they can do whatever they want to keep it, how do you suppose anything will ever change?

The NDP is hardly opposite the Liberals. The liberal budget is in fact the NDP budget right now.

If the NDP should indeed be more powerful than they are as you said above, then I don't see why they aren't a viable option right now.

Things can change if people demand change. If enough people cared and were vocal about electoral reform, it would happen. If the people demanded that the system be revamped, it would happen. Right now I don't think there is the awareness on the issue. People are frustrated with the regionalism we can see that on our board with the Alberta separation topics and obviously people are frustrated that the BLOC can get so much power in our political system despite being only popular in one province and having an agenda of separation. I just don't think people know what the answer is and therefore they become disillusioned with the whole thing. Well there are solutions and we should be talking about them. A LOT.

The NDP struggles to get any sort of power because of the current electoral system. Our current system favours parties that can gain a huge following one region (like the BLOC). The NDP has a high vote share nationally (15.7% of the country voted for them last election) but they did not get anywhere close to 15% of the seats, they only got 19 seats. Contrast that to the BLOC who got 54 seats with only 12.4% of the national vote. That's not right. That's not fair. I'm not sure why we allow that to happen. Why people aren't upset about it.

Our first past the post system encourages the big parties to stay in power, gives regional parties a disproportionate amount of power and in general it fosters some of our regionalism problem. Based on the percentages of people who voted for them, there should be more Conservative MP's from across the country and less in Alberta and there should be more Liberal MP's in the west and less in Ontario. If that happened Alberta would have more of a voice in a Liberal government, the Conservatives would be seen less as the "Western" party, the BLOC would lose seats and the NDP would gain.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 09:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 17 2005, 09:11 PM
Saying that you support traditional marriage does not mean that your intolerant of homosexuals.# I don't know where you get that from.# It dosen't mean that they are against Homosexuals getting married, they just don't want to call it marriage.# In fact Harper talked about a social union, the same as marriage in every way but name.# Ohhhh what a boogie man.

I completely disagree. Having two definitions for the same thing is discrimination. The hetero's get the "real" marriage while the homos get the "civil unions." What is the point in that? To appease Christian fundamentalists? All it does is say you're not good enough for the real marriage. We can't ban you completely from marrying so we've been forced to give you this other version of it. We won't allow you to share our term because we don't agree with your lifestyle and still want you to be considered sub-standard, we don't want to be seen as condoning your lifestyle.

Some people value equality. They want gays to feel normal, they don't want them to be discriminated against. They want to be tolerant of them and allow them to have the same status, privileges and rights that hetero's have. Allowing the "traditional" definition of marrige for hetero's and "civil unions" for gays does not do that. It segregates. It divides. It is discriminatory. [/b][/quote]
I'm not going to get into the whole gay marriage debate, I'm pretty clear that its an issue that I don't really care about. However the fact that people are equating inequality and discriminatory policy with a democratic free vote in the house of commons is an outright silly statement.

But its funny how easy it is to whitewall over a corrupt liberal government by throwing out words like intolerant, and hate, and KKK, and hidden agenda.

I guess I just don't get it, because everything is coming from one party.

I can only hope that the Liberal government falls on Thursday.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 02:47 PM
Well there are solutions and we should be talking about them. A LOT.

I'm not sure why we allow that to happen. Why people aren't upset about it.

That's all I was driving at. For you it's electoral reform. For me it's supporting theives. Different issues, but utlimately leading to the same questions.

Why do we have to accept the status quo? Why don't people care?

Things can change if people demand change.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 17 2005, 09:54 PM
I'm not going to get into the whole gay marriage debate, I'm pretty clear that its an issue that I don't really care about. However the fact that people are equating inequality and discriminatory policy with a democratic free vote in the house of commons is an outright silly statement.

Ummmm not when you already know how the majority of a party would vote in this "free vote". That's a smokescreen man, and one that most people see right through.

Your believe that the candidates would vote the way their riding would vote is a little naive IMO. I think a lot of candidates will vote their personal beliefs on the matter.

If you truly want a free vote on it, we need a national referendum.

[Shawnski]

In a small
dimlight restaurant
far, far away......



Darth Martin: "Come to the dark side, Belinda!! We will give you a post."

Stronach: "A bedpost?"

Darth Martin: "No, a cabinet post."

Stronach: "Hmmmm. OK, it will have to do.... for now. But Darthy baby, I DO so want that bedpost too. I am soooooo... eager, I guess is the politically correct word.... lately, as I have been surrounded by small "c" men, err conservatives. I need a big "l" Liberal to fill my void."

Darth Martin: "Well, well. I must say I DO like your, err, 'human resources'... allot, actually.... I do have a trip coming up to the G-spot. I mean G8. You can come along and explore what positions you can have under me now."


Power sluuuutttttttttttttttt.

[metallicat]

I'm not going to read this entire thread, mostly because I can't stomach it right now. I feel like puking. Stronach has sold out to the liberal party and her constituents, and she has completely betrayed her entire party and all that it stands for. And to think, she tried to become leader. What an absolute disgrace. I'm glad she's gone, but I feel SICK that had she become leader of the CPC, she would have completely fataed it up. She can rot in hell.

[FlamesAddiction]

Stonach for PM!!

I don't know much about her, excpet she shares my concern about the Harper-Duceppe alliance. Like Stonach said, the country must come before blind partisanship.

A woman with both some conservative and some liberal beliefs may be what this country needs for leadership. I hope she considers pursuing it.

And she is foxy!! (Hopefully single too soon!! )

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 17 2005, 09:59 PM
Why do we have to accept the status quo? Why don't people care?

For the first question I bet you can guess my answer. I think the status quo (especially in today's political climate) is encouraged by our electoral system.

Why don't people care?

I think it's because they feel like their votes don't count and in a lot of regions they don't. Due to the current electoral system which is basically a tyranny of the majority. Dissenting voices are not heard at all. I can vote Green or NDP this election and so can thousands upon thousands of Albertans and it still won't make any difference. No NDP or Green candidate will be voted in. It's the same situation in a lot of other parts of the country, just change the names of the parties. At least 30% of Albertans have NO voice at all in parliament. Our views are not represented by anybody. How can we change things? How do we get a voice?

So for me, it really does boil down to electoral reform. I see that as the base issue.

[metallicat]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 17 2005, 04:05 PM
Stonach for PM!!

I don't know much about her, excpet she shares my concern about the Harper-Duceppe alliance. Like Stonach said, the country must come before blind partisanship.

A woman with both some conservative and some liberal beliefs may be what this country needs for leadership. I hope she considers pursuing it.

And she is foxy!! (Hopefully single too soon!! )

Bill Clinton beat you to her.

She is just a power hungry BITCH.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by browna@May 17 2005, 06:21 PM
Selfish. Plain and simple. Call a spade a spade. She knew the Conservative moral ideological structure regarding same sex marriage long before she pulled this stunt. Using weak excuses like minor issues in her own riding, was just a cover for the wooing that has probably been going on for a couple months, and a slap in the face to her consitiunents.

It probably has been going on for a couple of months, and Harper likely knew it was coming.

It would explain why he was so desparately obstructing parliament to try and force a election call before the budget vote on Thursday.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois@May 17 2005, 09:59 PM
Why do we have to accept the status quo? Why don't people care?

For the first question I bet you can guess my answer. I think the status quo (especially in today's political climate) is encouraged by our electoral system.

Why don't people care?

I think it's because they feel like their votes don't count and in a lot of regions they don't. Due to the current electoral system which is basically a tyranny of the majority. Dissenting voices are not heard at all. I can vote Green or NDP this election and so can thousands upon thousands of Albertans and it still won't make any difference. No NDP or Green candidate will be voted in. It's the same situation in a lot of other parts of the country, just change the names of the parties. At least 30% of Albertans have NO voice at all in parliament. Our views are not represented by anybody. How can we change things? How do we get a voice?

So for me, it really does boil down to electoral reform. I see that as the base issue. [/b][/quote]
I think it is rather simplistic to state that if people want change, change will happen.

This is Canada. If Ontario wants change, change will happen. How long has Alberta been fighting to have the simple first step of electing senators with no movement?

I agree with you. Canada's electoral system needs to be completely overhauled. The House, at worst, needs to be elected on a hybrid system that heavily features proportional representation, and the senate needs to be elevated in power, and balanced regionally.

However, either measure takes power away from Ontario, and moves it into the hinterland. Why would Ontario want that?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 17 2005, 03:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 17 2005, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Oh please. Somebody call Scully and Mulder.

You are right. It is right out of the realm of fantasy that one could possibly believe that the Liberal Party of "Canada" would give Canada's money to individuals and companies willing to sell their souls to the Liberal party.

It'd never happen in a million years, right? [/b][/quote]
Sure it's believable that the Liberals would give preferential treatment to their friends. They are a political party after all.

What is not believable, but was suggested more than once, is that this whole thing was just an elaborate ruse to get a sweetheart deal for Dear Old Dad's manufacturing business.

The joke about Scully and Mulder was about these conspiracy hints -- as if they planned the whole thing from the run at the CPC leadership, the skin-of-teeth election, the romance, all that stuff, and were just waiting for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to flip sides in exchange for preferential treatment for what is already a phenomenally succesful business.

They are pretty smart people. If the goal all along was to help out Magna, I think they might have come up with a more efficient (although far less creative and exciting) way of doing it.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 03:34 PM
I completely disagree. Having two definitions for the same thing is discrimination. The hetero's get the "real" marriage while the homos get the "civil unions." What is the point in that? To appease Christian fundamentalists? All it does is say you're not good enough for the real marriage. We can't ban you completely from marrying so we've been forced to give you this other version of it. We won't allow you to share our term because we don't agree with your lifestyle and still want you to be considered sub-standard, we don't want to be seen as condoning your lifestyle.

Some people value equality. They want gays to feel normal, they don't want them to be discriminated against. They want to be tolerant of them and allow them to have the same status, privileges and rights that hetero's have. Allowing the "traditional" definition of marrige for hetero's and "civil unions" for gays does not do that. It segregates. It divides. It is discriminatory.

African American
n.
A Black American of African ancestry.

Oh dear, this'll never do at all. A term that is obviously blatantly discrimitory against caucasians as they are not included in the definition.

Caucasian
adj.
Of or relating to the white race of humankind as classified according to physical features.

Hmmmm, well it is a word the caucasians get to themselves. Except it discriminates against the African American.

Homosexual
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex

What about the straight people?

Heterosexual
adj.
Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.

What about the gay people?

Seems to me many other definitions need to be redefined after marriage is re-tooled as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or even (eeep!) race. Unless...

Marriage
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

and then, perhaps...

Civil Union
n.
The legal union of adult parties of the same sex.

I dunno, I just see this as a decent enough compromise for both sides in settling the issue all together. The 'holiness' and 'sanctity' of traditional marriage is preserved for those that want to see it that way, and then homosexuals can recieve legal union and recieve all the same benefits of marriage, but i'm sure there will be other, different, benefits as well. My two cents on a possible resolution anyways.

But not to get off-topic here, I agree that the motivation behind Stronach's floor crossing is clearly power. She has a better chance of acheiving more of it within the Liberal party, in my opinion. Obviously, i'm semi-enraged about the whole thing as I want the Liberal's roasted for the sponsorship scandal (among other things) and this makes that harder to do.

Interesting to see how it plays out though...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 10:16 PM
However, either measure takes power away from Ontario, and moves it into the hinterland. Why would Ontario want that?

Well it might surprise you but not everybody in Ontario is only looking after their own self interest. Not every Canadian or Ontarian would put having a greater voice in government ahead of fairness. I think most Canadians would respond to a rational argument as to why the current electoral system is not fair and how it encourages some of the regionalism that most of us are unhappy with.

IMO it doesn't have anything to do with your average Ontarian. It has to do with the fact that the Liberal party itself would be against proportional representation being the most popular party out there. They have a lot to lose. As does the BLOC obviously. The NDP and the Greens would be all over proportional representation because it helps them greatly.

In the end I think the only way we can get proportional representation is if the consituents of the elected Liberals demand it vocally enough. That or if by some miracle the NDP had enough power to demand a referendum on it at some point. Neither of those will happen while this issue is on the backburner. It needs to be raised in profile in everyday discussions and in political commentary in the media (TV, papers, websites, etc.)

The good thing is that a lot of people are dissatisfied. That means they are searching for something better, a solution to some of our problems. The most popular party right now has alienated a lot of people, abused their trust. I think a lot of us would like to see them punished, we just don't know how or can't support the alternatives. I think this makes us question the electoral system and thus raise the awareness. This disatisfaction will likely increase after the next election when the crooks are voted in yet again.

Obviously anybody who feels strongly about it can speak up and try and raise awareness. Personally I feel strongly about it and am looking for new ways to raise awareness.

[Resolute 14]

At the risk of completely derailing this topic, the government should just strike the word "marriage" altogether and call everything a union. Let people decide on their own what a "marriage" is, and pull the rug right out from under the lobby's pushing the definition of a word as a major politial issue in a nation that has far, far, far more important political crises to deal with.