Belinda (the gambler!) crosses the floor!

[Mitch Cronin]

Oh my... don't the plot thicken now!

[handyman]

Actually it's thinned out...game over...game, set, match! No more summer election and a big fat reward to the Canadian Liberals for surviving the worst scandal in Canadian politics. I guess they can get away with virtually anything now!

PS. You must have beat me by seconds…my two fingered typing failed me again!

[deicer]

It goes to show that politicians are akin to prostitutes...

They go where the price is right.

What does this say about the Conservatives, and especially Harper, when the highest profile Conservative member from Ontario can be bought so easily???

Are the rats leaving the ship???

Are there bigger developements to come???

Stay tuned film at 11!

Iceman

[Mitch Cronin]

Not knowing the lady, it's hard to tell whether she's done this for personal gain... Her stated motives make perfect sense, in one light. She claims she had difficulty with the notion of the Conservatives being "beholden to the Bloc" [did I say that right?] ... which makes sense... and she claims her interests were for integrity and what's best for Canada.... I know, what else would she say, of course.... But I don't know if she's believeable....

However, in another light... She may well have just saddled Canadians with no opportunity to rid ourselves of a bad government that we dearly NEED to dispose of!

I'm still in the WTF??? stage of thought.

[deicer]

Things that make you go Hmmmmm???

What part did Daddy have in Belinda's decision?

[Mitch Cronin]

So can the Conservatives get one to cross their way before Thursday?... Will Carolyn Parrish change her vote?... By my count, it's a dead heat now isn't it?

[Guest Cargodawg]

Don't worry, this is just like survivor. She's a mole and going to flip back on Thursday haha.

[GDR]

So can the Conservatives get one to cross their way before Thursday?... Will Carolyn Parrish change her vote?... By my count, it's a dead heat now isn't it?

Hi Mitch

It means that both of the independents, (Cadman and Kilgour), will have to vote with the Conservatives. If that doesn't happen it probably means waiting until the NDP see their chance which could be anytime after the budget is passed.

[ccairspace]

I'm still in the WTF??? stage of thought. 

Absolutely amazing. My gut feeling is that this was somewhat of a surprise to Martin. I mean he probably knew it was coming down, but I don't think he would have considered wooing the Conservative's Conservative. The relationship between the CP and the Bloc is one of the weirdest in political hisory, and I tend to believe her when she states that she had reservations about the party's new bed partner.

But I agree... it is a shame that it may be more difficult to rout out some of the tap roots in the corrupted circles of the Liberal Party.

[GDR]

I don't buy the argument that the Conservatives are in bed with the bloc. They just happen to both be voting the same way on the issue of whether the government should be replaced or not.

The Liberals after saying that there was no more money found 4.5 billion to buy off the NDP to get their vote. They are in bed together. The Conservatives have not compromised their position in any way shape or form.

[Guest]

However, in another light... She may well have just saddled Canadians with no opportunity to rid ourselves of a bad government that we dearly NEED to dispose of!

I'm still in the WTF??? stage of thought.

Mitch,

who is to say that if an election is called the Conservatives would win??????

I agree the liberals are corrupt and need to go, but I also agree that we should wait to see the final results of the Gomery inquiry and then have a general elction on those same results.

If we keep going the way we are, the budget will never pass, all of us as tax payers will be in limbo, many who have now invested in the new out of country limits will lose their shirts, not to mention the millions upon millions we end up spending on election after election and if the polls are any indiction, the next government be it Conservative or Liberal will again be a minority.

It just may be time for all these self serving pigs to work together.

We all know the Liberals are corrupt, but Harper comes across as a spoiled child who will do anything to get power, all these politicians need to give their collective heads a shake

[ccairspace]

I don't buy the argument that the Conservatives are in bed with the bloc.

They aren't... yet. But politics are politics. If there is a successful vote of nonconfidence on Thursday and an election is held, giving the Conservatives a minority government, then the only way it can survive is to bend to the will of the Bloc... at least on some issues. Otherwise, it could not hang onto power.

However, I still say that the issues that distinguish the Reform from the old PCs (same sex marriage, women's rights, etc.) are more deeply entrenched than Harper will admit in public. The result is an internally dysfunctional party that may see more defections over time. Or, perhaps, a resurgence of the Reformers as a separate entity.

cc

[GDR]

However, I still say that the issues that distinguish the Reform from the old PCs (same sex marriage, women's rights, etc.) are more deeply entrenched than Harper will admit in public. The result is an internally dysfunctional party that may see more defections over time. Or, perhaps, a resurgence of the Reformers as a separate entity.

cc

Hi CC

What you are stating may be the perception, but it is not the reality. I was a delagate at the Conservtive convention in YUL and the whole breadth of the party was represented there.

Every issue was dealt with fairly and with everyone having their say. Issues including abortion were dealt with calmly and rationally, (it was voted that the Conservative party would not support any change to abortion legislation), and after a vote on contentious issues like that we just moved on to the next item.

I think that there is one thing that people don't realize about the majority of social conservatives. A true social conservative is also a populist and as a result believes that the law of the land should reflect the majority view in the land.

At the convention social conservatives had their say and in the case of abortion the social liberals were in the majority and so that was the end of it, which in this case was in support of Harper's position.

The Liberals have bought off the NDP with 4.5 billion of our own money; they have bought off Stronach with a cabinet post; they tried to buy off Kilgour with aid and troops to the Sudan, and they bought Danny Wiliams by refusing to split off the money for NFLD from the budget thus putting pressure on the NFLD Tories.

A justified criticism of US politics is that it takes so much money to run campaigns that it shuts out the average guy. At least they fight the campaign with their own money. In Canada the Liberals fight their campaign with our money including money stolen from us.

If there is anything that is going to feed the cause of separtism in this country it will be the continuation of this government.

[FA@AC]

A true social conservative is also a populist and as a result believes that the law of the land should reflect the majority view in the land.

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? There are probably constituencies in the US south where the majority of the population would favor racial segregation, Greg, but you wouldn't argue that laws in those districts should represent that majority view.

Further, if Harper is a populist why isn't he listening to the views of the majority of Canadians? He and his members told us that they were going to take a week or so to listen to the views of the people on whether there should be an election now. All the polls I saw showed that a sizeable majority of Canadians do not want an election until Gomery issues his report. "Populist" Harper doesn't seem to care.

[Mitch Cronin]

"If there is anything that is going to feed the cause of separtism in this country it will be the continuation of this government.

That sure does ring true to me! ...The continuation of this government almost makes ME want to separate!

[handyman]

Further, if Harper is a populist why isn't he listening to the views of the majority of Canadians? He and his members told us that they were going to take a week or so to listen to the views of the people on whether there should be an election now. All the polls I saw showed that a sizeable majority of Canadians do not want an election until Gomery issues his report. "Populist" Harper doesn't seem to care.

Let's just look at the facts. The last poll I could find was mid April and it showed that 61% supported waiting for the Gomery report. But as recently as 14 May the latest poll showed that 31% of Canadians supported the Tories and only 27% for the liberals. The poll is showing that Harper has the support and obviously the majority on that day liked what Harper was doing. You must remember though that the polls are a very small sample of how people feel on any given day in any given region. I think it's too close to call and that means that Harper has the right to do what he believes is right since no clear message is coming from the people.

[handyman]

"If there is anything that is going to feed the cause of separtism in this country it will be the continuation of this government.

That sure does ring true to me! ...The continuation of this government almost makes ME want to separate!

That is so true! The sponsorship scandal may have had many French players and the game may have been played in Quebec but the people of Quebec and the province itself lost much. I think they feel so betrayed by the Liberals that the BQ will continue to gain strength and not because of the BQ policies but because of the Liberal corruption.

If and when there is an election, we need people to vote out the Liberals. Even if you are a long standing Liberal, vote Tories to rid the corruption. The loss of governing will cause a shake-up and a rebuilding process will occur. This will be good for Canada and the Liberals. Then you can vote your Liberals back in.

[Guest rattler]

Absolutely amazing. My gut feeling is that this was somewhat of a surprise to Martin. I mean he probably knew it was coming down, but I don't think he would have considered wooing the Conservative's Conservative. The relationship between the CP and the Bloc is one of the weirdest in political hisory, and I tend to believe her when she states that she had reservations about the party's new bed partner.

But I agree... it is a shame that it may be more difficult to rout out some of the tap roots in the corrupted circles of the Liberal Party.

The press is saying that it was an even bigger surprise to her romantic attachment to the Conservative party.... What will Peter do now?

[ccairspace]

What will Peter do now?

Well, I suppose if Democratic Maria Kennedy Shriver can marry Repulican Arnold Schwarzenegger, and appear to be happily married at that, then who knows...?

Of course, maybe Peter is weighing his political options as well...

[GDR]

That's a bit simplistic, isn't it? There are probably constituencies in the US south where the majority of the population would favor racial segregation, Greg, but you wouldn't argue that laws in those districts should represent that majority view.

Hi FC@AC

I don't think it's simplistic. I believe that social conservatives well work to try and convince the population of their position just the same as social liberals. At the end of the day however, if they are unsuccessful, (as in the vote on abortion at the Conservative convention) it is accepted.

Look at the Reform party. Whether you agree with them or not, they were always in favour of referendums on moral issues.

As for the US south; aren't you engaging in a little racial stereotyping of your own? As a matter of fact I happen to believe that your stereotyping is wrong, but even if you are correct it would be a national issue anyway.

Further, if Harper is a populist why isn't he listening to the views of the majority of Canadians? He and his members told us that they were going to take a week or so to listen to the views of the people on whether there should be an election now. All the polls I saw showed that a sizeable majority of Canadians do not want an election until Gomery issues his report. "Populist" Harper doesn't seem to care.

The poll question was: Would you rather have an election this spring or after the Gomery report is tabled? (paraphrasing) If the question had been, would you rather have a vote after all of the Gomery testimony is complete or after Gomery files his report, then I believe that you would have seen a different result.

In actuality Harper doesn't claim to be a populist. That is where he and Manning had a falling out. He is not a big believer in referendums. (I don't agree with him on everything either. )

What do you do as leader of the opposition in this situation? The party that is in power has allowed large scale corruption to infiltrate it. The last 3 Liberal election campaigns have been partially funded with money stolen from the Canadian taxpayer. You have no confidence that the governing party will anywhere near fully investigate the corruption, nor do you believe that they will make the systemic changes to see that it doesn't happen again. If I were Stephen Harper I would fight tooth and nail to get the governing party out of office ASAP.

If the Liberals hang on to power on Thursday it will be interesting to see how long the NDP stay with them. Well, as I live in BC I'd better get busy and vote.

Greg

[UpperDeck]

It is interesting to consider the remarks of various posters on sundry issues to determine the degree of consistency of opinion.

On Greg's thread regarding Gagliano, ccairspace (for eg only) said;

"In a democracy we have the right to voluntarily elect representatives to serve in parliament. If they run for a particular party, then I expect them to uphold the policy of that party, not mouth off and vote as they please on any issue that arises." May 16, 2005 4:52 pm

I would expect that cc et al, in the interests of consistency would now urge the Liberal Party to reject Belinda who quite clearly does not ascribe to the same democratic principles and values. Surely the denunciation of her tactics should take priority over titillation with the state of her emotional and/or physical relationships?

As an aside (sort of), Belinda left the recent Tory caucus with remarks that implied her disagreement with Harper. She opined that the budget proposed would help her constituents (Magma?) and for that reason, they didn't want an election. The suggestion that her rationale is related to the relationship with the Bloc appears to be of more recent creation.

[UpperDeck]

A sincere question. What policies of the Bloc are so offensive as to compel a non-resident of Quebec to exercise their franchise in opposition? I'm thinking of the remark; "Vote Liberal regardless of the corruption because otherwise, the Bloc will be empowered." Empowered to do what, exactly? I know what the NDP will do to me. They've done it before through the creation of alliances formed to protect a minority government. I respect Clarke's refusal to compromise principle to preserve power.

All I can honestly think of is the "threat" of separation and that is such a vague and meaningless "threat" as to justify its disregard. After all, the electorate of the Province of Quebec elected a party the founding principle of which was separation. And did that occur?

And which party swore that the GST would last only until it formed the government.

The general motto should be; "Judge me on what I do; not on what I say."

[ccairspace]

I would expect that cc et al, in the interests of consistency would now urge the Liberal Party to reject Belinda who quite clearly does not ascribe to the same democratic principles and values. Surely the denunciation of her tactics should take priority over titillation with the state of her emotional and/or physical relationships?

Not quite what I (for eg only) was implying. If I had voted for Belinda, and expected her to remain a staunch Conservative, I would be pi$$ed right now because she has taken my vote and turned it into a Liberal one. I would have been just as annoyed if she took my Conservative vote and publically bad mouthed Mr. Harper at every turn. When the next election came, I would not vote for her, and if I was really ticked, I might even get off my duff and campaign for another candidate.

Carolyn Parrish performed a similar stunt, only she went from Liberal to Independent. Both these MPs have let down their voting constituents, in my opinion, and their futures will be determined by the same voters.

As for: "I would expect that cc et al, in the interests of consistency would now urge the Liberal Party to reject Belinda who quite clearly does not ascribe to the same democratic principles and values.", the Liberals, at this point, don't give two hoots where their MPs come from, and quite honestly, if any Liberals wanted to cross the floor and join the Conservative Party, I don't think Harper would turn them away either.

I still consider it deceitful for a political candidate to run for public office, espousing a certain set of principles and advocating a Party platform, all the while knowing that they do not really support those positions. He/she is being elected under false pretenses, simply because the candidate knows which Party is the popular one in the riding. The voters hold the power and the responsibility in these cases, not the Parties.

ccairspace

[handyman]

I still consider it deceitful for a political candidate to run for public office, espousing a certain set of principles and advocating a Party platform, all the while knowing that they do not really support those positions. He/she is being elected under false pretenses, simply because the candidate knows which Party is the popular one in the riding. The voters hold the power and the responsibility in these cases, not the Parties.

I totally agree and feel there should be a law or Parliamentary protocol which requires a vote in the riding should the elected member decide to change their affiliation.

[BoomerPete]

But as recently as 14 May the latest poll showed that 31% of Canadians supported the Tories and only 27% for the liberals.  The poll is showing that Harper has the support and obviously the majority on that day liked what Harper was doing.

I hope you don't do all your thinking with the same brain that equates 31% to a majority!

The only thing that poll seems to indicate is that none of the political parties is liked nor has the support of a large enough percentage of the population to make any claim to representing the interests of a majority of Canadians.

The two questions that a supporter of the Conservatives should be asking are:

1. How is it that, while the Liberals are mired in the midst of a scandal of epic proportions, the Conservatives can only persuade 4% more voters than those very same Liberals (31% vs. 27%) that the Conservatives should form the government?

2. Should an election be held now, it seems likely that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals will command anything close to a majority of seats, and hence any party proposing to govern will be beholden to the support of either the NDP or the Bloc in order to form a government. As the NDP is unlikely to support the Conservatives under any likely circumstance, a Conservative government will only gain and maintain power with the support of the Bloc. This being the case, how can a rational Conservative accept the notion of getting into bed with a party whose mandate is the dismemberment of the same nation the Conservatives seek to govern?

Personally, I think the Conservatives are trying to put the cart before the horse and the results will be Voter Vexation leading to Parliamentary Paralysis (which they have already effectively created) and perhaps Seperation, the Sequel (part quatre). A more rational approach to the situation would be for them to recognize that the only way they will be able to govern credibly is as a majority and thus the immediate need is for them to convince a greater percentage of Canadians that the party represents their beliefs and ideals and is suitable to govern the nation. Once having done that, and with the present government being commited to holding an election on the outcome of the Gomery Commission, the Conservatives would have a far greater chance of achieving the majority they need than seems the case at the moment.

Frankly, the current Conservative strategy seems very short-sighted for the party and for the country and I wonder if this is why Belinda Stronach chose to cross the floor. In doing so, she's traded near certain re-election and a cabinet seat in a Conservative minority government for what is likely to be a short stint in cabinet for the Liberals followed by an at best uncertain chance of personal re-election and even lower odds of returning to a cabinet position. The most likely reason for her doing as she has is if she's concluded that the Conservatives have less chance of forming a future government that can govern effectively than the Liberals do. That's a scarey thought if you support the Conservatives.

Interesting times indeed.

Pete