Edit: you can read it online at http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: cco ]

This just in - Stephen Harper's head explodes in apoplexy.

Watching it live on CBC Newsworld.

That leaves Mckay, who is likely in an awkward situation right now. He's not exactly a poster boy for honesty, and the rest of them have minimal credibility with the rest of the country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Either her fling with Peter McKay is over, or there will be another shoe waiting to drop!

---

Con + BQ = 98 + 54 = 152
Lib (minus speaker) + ND + Parrish = 132 + 19 +1 = 152

So the Liberals still need either Cadman or Kilgour to vote with them to create at least a tie, which the speaker could then break in their favour.

quote:

---

Holy crap is all I can say.

---

quote:

---

..fiasco..

---

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
But I wonder if the Libs luring Cons might nudge Cadman and Kilgour toward voting against the government?

---

quote:

---

Stronach... also said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is not sensitive to the needs of all parts of the country, and is jeopardizing national unity by allying himself to the Bloc Québécois.

---

quote:

---

I like to think that progressive-minded Liberal supporters will be provoked by this announcment to question the distictions they may have once made between their party and the Conservatives.

---

quote:

---

That is quite a strong statement!

---

153 to 153, the speaker breaks the tie by voting for the government (maintaining the Status Quo) - Cadman goes with the LPC/NDP, Kilgour with the CPC/BQ. Everyone claims they stood up for their principles, the government gets back to business and then goes on summer vacation.

quote:

---

Pressed on how her decision will affect her romantic relationship with Central Nova MP Peter MacKay, the deputy leader of the Conservatives, Stronach called that a "personal matter" that she did not intend to comment upon.

She also said she had the "greatest respect" for MacKay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
I missed the start. What is the cabinet post ?

---

The Conservative party is on the verge of complete annihilation!! This is it, time to put them to the death blows!

quote:

---

her romantic relationship with Central Nova MP Peter MacKay

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I didn't realize there was any romance. i thought they were just "fuck buddies".

---

If Harper loses the election can Peter win the COnservative Leadership?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I didn't realize there was any romance. i thought they were just "fuck buddies".

---

quote:

---

Her father was (is) a big Liberal. The question may be why she ran as a Conservative to begin with.

---

Fuck this is crazy. I'm giggling uncontrollably at work, and I just *had* to log-on to babble to read the reaction. I should be working.

Today's Gazette headline (one of the best papers in the western hemispere IMHO) is something like "Two Tory MPs considering vote with government". La Presse, OTOH, said "An election call is now almost certain". Who to believe?

quote:

---

Maybe she was planning this all along!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I didn't realize there was any romance. i thought they were just "fuck buddies".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
The question may be why she ran as a Conservative to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gopi:
It will be interesting to see who is chosen to run against Stronach in her riding.

---

quote:

---

Aren't the sex analogies a little bit childish and, perhaps, sexist?

---

Don Newman was interviewing the "party insiders" and all of a sudden waved his arms and silenced the insiders and then said "I'm being told that Paul Martin is about to hold a press conference and Belinda Stronach is with him." I don't think I've ever been more profoundly shocked OR happy.

Who is Bill, btw? Bill Clinton? But what does he have to do with anything? oh.......i get it. She was rumored to have had an affair with him, wasn't she? Anyway....

Oh, and while the Other Place is down, I'm getting my dose of Conservative shock, anger and name-calling from the comments in Andrew Coyne's blog. Simply delicious!

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Memo to BWAGA Membership-Sec. Will you be forwarding application forms to Belinda and Peter.

---

Are you kidding me? Stronach will probably be dating Jean Lapierre in oh, three weeks!

I can see the headlines now:

"McKay blows relationship, destroys conservatives"
"Small l liberal now a small l liberal"
"Stronach kicks McKay, then Harper, then CPC in the nads!"
"Even airheaded MP's make a difference"
"Stronach a MINISTER?!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
Aren't the sex analogies a little bit childish and, perhaps, sexist?

---

Says many caucus members are angry and feeling betrayed.

Called Stronach an opportunist, who saw her leadership chances in the Tories fall to zero so she jumped ship.

Found out from McKay. "But I trust HIM."

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

quote:

---

Well F*ck!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Hard to believe that someone with her resources would make this move without doing some pretty extensive polling in her own riding, yet how could that have been done without the prospect leaking ?

---

Newmarket-Aurora

Belinda Stronach CON 21818 42.45% X
Martha Hall Findlay LIB 21129 41.08%
Ed Chudak NDP 5111 9.95%
Daryl Wyatt GRN 2298 4.48%
Dorian Baxter PCP 1079 2.1%

[By the way, that PCP candidate was an Elvis impersonator.]

Harper says:

"I told my wife she'd leave because she'd never be able to be leader"

Pompus assh*le.

quote:

---

Harper's on now. Looks pretty shook-up.

---

It almost sounds like he's given up on the budget vote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This just goes to show that you cannot out-do the Liberals when it comes to treachery. Even if you are Peter MacKay.

---

So well put, Doug. My thoughts too -- among others, mind. Goodness, but this inspires so many thoughts, does it not?

Speaking as a feminist, I don't think that it is sexist to continue to express some doubts and discomfort with Belinda. She wields power because she comes from power, has long had privileged access to it, and the fact that she is a youngish woman spices that privilege up in just the right way for the modern pop media.

quote:

---

I don't think you're going to find many feminists -- not around this board, anyway -- who are watching her game-playing, how well she's learned to play the games, and admiring her for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Now it will be profoundly amusing to watch the formerly Belinda-loving Con supporters (e.g. on this board) turn their swords against her.

---

Nope, I still love Belinda. This is a huge shock. Makes me rethink my own support of the party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
Harper's on now. Looks pretty shook-up.

Says many caucus members are angry and feeling betrayed.

Called Stronach an opportunist, who saw her leadership chances in the Tories fall to zero so she jumped ship.

---

Ouch. That's harsh. I bet Harper drove Stronach away from the party, serves him right.

What about the ramifications of all this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shane:
Nope, I still love Belinda. This is a huge shock. Makes me rethink my own support of the party.

This stinks...we ALL love Belinda

---

I will attempt to keep track of the "points" he is making:

This doesn't change the "principled position" the party has taken ... Liberals corrupt ... blah, blah, blah.

Ambrose to take Stronach's position.

Asked why she is leaving? - Cacus members devastated ... told wife Belinda's leadership abitions were trouble. Sense of relief, Could see it coming.

Why can't you bring in sitting MPs? - Liberals will do anything to win ... we are principled. Jump once, jump again.

Why are you relieved when it is your image that will take a hit in that part of the country? - I'm from Ontario. Team working together.

If you lose budget vote will you stil support the budget? - No one has ever asked me that question before (said seriously.) we will see what happens.

Does it effect Ontario? - Belinda's chances only.

Blow to your leadership? - No.

Did she tell you why she is going? - No. She agreed with me to vote down the budget. No indication of voting for budget let alone joining government. Peter told him.

Any other members leaving? - Talked about Peter taking it hard.

Lost appeal to middle of road? - That was her self image, party is still middle of road (did then mention that she called him herself prior to conference.)

Other Con MPs voting for budget? - he's certain no other MPs are voting for budget.

Will he force NL MPs to vote again budget if it comes to it? - Baffle-gab.

------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
This needed to be done:

HA-HA!!!

---

*STANDING OVATION*

quote:

---

I think this is all very entertaining. It makes us NDPers look great.

---

Not saying that I disagree, but how?

I think this is purely out of self-interest on Stronach's part. She wants to become Prime Minister, and this is the best way for her to do it. When Martin retires (read: after the next election), Stronach will seek the party's leadership, imo.

The irony is maple-syruppy thick, sticky and delicious. It's not like Peter McKay and Harper can accuse her of dishonesty after their own bareback back-ally merger deal.

quote:

---

Speaking as a feminist, I don't think that it is sexist to continue to express some doubts and discomfort with Belinda.

---

quote:

---

10) McKay dates Diane Ablonzy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Well, Shane, I'm afraid that could just be the teenage hormones talking.

I'm sure if you venture over to the dark site, you may find a few former Belinda-lovers hurling spears. Especially after the shock wears off...

---

Belinda was the face of moderation. I am completely stunned! Never in a million years would I have expected this.

If Peter leaves, I'm gone. No point in supporting Reform III.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Shane ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
After all, she is a female version of Paul Martin: a scion of the wealthy Eastern elite whose primary concern is the preservation of their wealth and priviledge.

---

Well, not quite - I believe the Stronachs are "nouveau-riche"...Frank didn't get filthy rich until Belinda was in her late teens, IIRC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
it does not include cheap shots about her sex life.

---

quote:

---

Belinda was the face of moderation. I am completely stunned! Never in a million years would I have expected this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

I too wonder if she wasn't a Liberal stalking horse from the very beginning. After all, she is a female version of Paul Martin: a scion of the wealthy Eastern elite whose primary concern is the preservation of their wealth and priviledge.

---

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:

Aww I was eating lunch.

---

i hear ya'. west coast greeney 's got it right, but point number
10 was far harsher than belinda being called an opportunist.

harper may be right on the button with that. she certainly has come a long way in a year-and-a-half, from no political experience whatsoever to minister of human resources, after having literally screwed the deputy minister and figuratively the leader of the opposition.

her learning curve is staggering.

quote:

---

If Peter leaves, I'm gone. No point in supporting Reform III.

---

Out of curiosity, who will you support instead?

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Gnote ]

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Gnote ]

quote:

---

Belinda Stronach: don't say she never surprised you.

ON THE OTHER HAND, she's absolutely a match for most of the rest of Cabinet in talent and intellect.

---

I don't have a problem with an MP in this position crossing the floor. Hopefully they do that because of what they believe.

I do, however, find it questionable to cross the floor for a perk such as a cabinet position. Seems a bit sleezy like selling your soul. Then again, maybe Martin sees something in this lady that can contribute to the Cabinet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:
[quote]If Peter leaves, I'm gone. No point in supporting Reform III.

Out of curiosity, who will you support instead?

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Gnote ]

---

If Peter MacKay joined the Liberals, then I would be happy to be supporting them in the next election.

This is such a sad, sad situation.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Shane ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:

Just remember you said that when somone makes similar comments about someone you actually like.

---

Look, Olly: listen up, and listen tight.

I have been holding that position on feminism since before you were born, so go fall on your smug head. I have never thought the point of women's liberation was to turn middle-class women into ruling-class men, eh?

quote:

---

I do, however, find it questionable to cross the floor for a perk such as a cabinet position

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
...After all, she is a female version of Paul Martin: a scion of the wealthy Eastern elite whose primary concern is the preservation of their wealth and priviledge. She sees the cons as a threat to that position...

---

quote:

---

D'you 'spose Bill talked her into it?

---

If he doesn't cross, he's probably mortgaged his principles, and alienated his "lover."

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:

Why does this comment sit funny with me, coming from a self-proclaimed feminist?

---

Maybe because you're not a feminist -- could that be it?

Feminists aren't really into training people, male or female, to join the ruling patriarchy, eh? Like, that's not what we do.

But it is definitely what Bill Clinton does. Women like Mrs Thatcher and Belinda owe nothing to feminism, and God knows, we owe nothing to them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:
Let's say, that, as posted above, Martin retires at some point in the near future.

Stronach will obviously run for the leadership. Who else will be running against her? The party doesn't have a lot of senseible candidates right now...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:
I think this puts McKay in a tough spot.

If he doesn't cross, he's probably mortgaged his principles, and alienated his "lover."

If he DOES cross, he'll be viewed as having simply followed his girlfriend across the floor.

---

I agree. You have to think if he was going to cross, he'd have had to do it at the same time. You just *know* the term he'd get if he *follows* now.

quote:

---

No they don't, and Stronach comes withour the Liberal baggage. She'd be a perfect canidate.

---

quote:

---

Let's say, that, as posted above, Martin retires at some point in the near future

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
No they don't, and Stronach comes withour the Liberal baggage. She'd be a perfect canidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
These campaigns in Calgary are too easy anyways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melsky:
I bet this is the fastest growing babble thread ever.

---

119 posts in 115 minutes. Quite possibly.

But this is just about the biggest political move in Canadian politics um... ever.

quote:

---

Treason is treason.

---

Say you own a Ford. You've owned Fords most of your life, with the occasional straying to Chevys. Suddenly, someone offers you to trade in your Ford for a new Lada, saying it'll get you to the border faster. At first, it looks good. Then they start asking you to front them some cash to put some new tires on, maybe a new paint job. So you start to look a bit closer, and you don't like what you see. There is a "Marriage=One Man+One Woman" bumber sticker, some Values-brand bondo covering the rusted out fenders, and the motor is a high-mileage engine from a old Reform 2500 farm truck that misses and backfires and blows a lot of oily smoke. In the glovebox is a copy of "Left Behind". You pass on the offer, hop back in your trusty Ford and drive away, leaving the helmet-headed saleman in the dust by the side of the road.

Incidentally, is anybody that surprised? Daddy Stronach has also had some pretty slimy ties to the Fiberals.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]

This is all so confusing...

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Now this is interesting - supposedly it was Belinda that got the Petersons (former Ontario Premier David Peterson and brother) to approach the Liberals to start this deal rolling.

Just heard that on CFRB radio.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Treason is treason. She wants to sell out for some limelight and a cabinet position? Then she doesn't need my support.

---

Treason? Please.

MPs are free to switch parties, and so they should be. It's up to her how to best represent her constituents, and up them whether or not to re-elect her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NDP Newbie:
Incidentally, is anybody that surprised? Daddy Stronach has also had some pretty slimy ties to the Fiberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Oh, I see.... They're finished!

---

Which is kind of a pity, because today she showed that they really have a lot in common.

quote:

---

"I told my wife she'd leave because she'd never be able to be leader"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draco:

Treason? Please.

MPs are free to switch parties, and so they should be. It's up to her how to best represent her constituents, and up them whether or not to re-elect her.

An MP staying supporting a party and leader she believed was taking a fundamentally wrong approach, now that would be a betrayal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Draco:

MPs are free to switch parties, and so they should be. It's up to her how to best represent her constituents, and up them whether or not to re-elect her.

---

Oh Balls. An MP is free to resign from their party and sit as an independant until the next election, when they can run under a different banner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Now this is interesting - supposedly it was Belinda that got the Petersons (former Ontario Premier David Peterson and brother) to approach the Liberals to start this deal rolling.

Just heard that on CFRB radio.

---

i worked a private party for magna, hosted by belinda, two years ago. david peterson seemed to be the maitre d' of the gathering.

after hearing about belinda's choice to run for leadership of the conservative party, i had trouble connecting the dots, as to why peterson would have been at a primarily conservative elite shindig.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: unmaladroit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mush:
Well, if you're not surprised, you must be a whole lot smarter than me. I wouldn't have predicted this in a million years. Even though Frank's a liberal, there are lots of family ties that cross party lines. I though Belinda would remain a moderating influence within the Reformatories.

I am sooooo pleasantly surprised!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert James:

I am sure many of you would agree that if this was someone from our party, you would react with as much outrage as some of our Conservatives contributors to the board are (that is, if you were a dedicated partisan of the NDP at least). I could not forgive an NDP MP, MPP, or MLA for crossing the floor, and I am well aware some have done it in the past - I cannot abide that, no matter what the reason/purported justification.

---

.... i always think of belinda.com versus belinda.ca... heheheh, anyways.

what are the longer-term consequences to the image of the Liberals as centrist. Belinda is centrist on social issues, but this will even further peg the Liberals as corporate... very good for the NDP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
...saying it'll get you to the border faster...(with its)..."Marriage=One Man+One Woman" bumber sticker

---

i too am disappointed that there has been a rightward shift in our political spectrum. more disappointing, is the very real possibility that the mindset of the canadian public has created that shift, having voted for it.

quote:

---

These campaigns in Calgary are too easy anyways.

---

No doubt Heywood. You waste your skills shooting at fish in a barrel like that.

Belinda makes another headline out of nothing. She is one of the most recognisible politicians we have and she has done precisely nothing of note. She is famous for being famous. High profile because of her high profile. Her and the Liberals are a better match than the CP, really.

While I don't think she was a Liberal plant, I do think she was a big money plant. A Bay street insider who would work to keep the new conservatives in the right track of protecting power and privilege, with the assumption that this union would eventually replace the Liberals. Probably what happened is they all are waking up to the fact that if the CP can't take the Liberals under the present circumstances, they are unlikely to at all in the near future, so better to be close to where the real power is.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimmyBrogan:
And people don't like minority parliaments? More fun than Canadian wonks should be allowed to have.

---

My thoughts exactly. I hope we have minority parliaments for the next 15 years. It gives we dippers the opportunity to force good policy, it gives us lots of fireworks and excitement, and it makes the Libs and Cons look like the Jets and the Sharks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert James:

I am sure many of you would agree that if this was someone from our party, you would react with as much outrage as some of our Conservatives contributors to the board are (that is, if you were a dedicated partisan of the NDP at least).

---

That depends, if it were an MP that had the same relationship to the party that Belinda had to the CPC then I don't think you're right.

If this were Bev that suddenly decided to jump to the CPC, I may say good riddence, but I can't say I would be calling her a whore, or even a traitor. I'd be saying that Bev, with her stance on SSM, is better suited to the CPC party ... I'd have to acknowledge that the move would hurt the NDP, and the possibility of passing the budget, but "outrage"? I hope I wouldn't stoop that low.

bay street (hopefully not wall street so much) decides who gets power in this country, or rallies behind who is in power, in order to create favour.

it's been that way since 1867. i think jacob two-two's point is well made. belinda is a great representative of bay street's interests.

in the press conference, belinda said this decision is a duty to her constituency, making her decision to cross based on the necessity to pass the budget. (paraphrase).

Let's put it all into some perspective: filthy rich daddy's girl joins conservatives when the parties merge seeing an opportunity.

Party loses, in large part due to outdated, narrow minded social conservative dominance, and filthy rich daddy's girl begins to recognize she is token moderate.

New election on horizon and filthy rich daddy's girl seizes opportunity to switch parties to a succesful corporate party that can reward her with a posting.

Now filthy rich daddy's girl is no longer the token moderate but part of a team of corporate pirates.

She's finally home where she belongs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Liberals will govern until the social conservatives who dominate the conservative party are pushed back to the social credit, fundamentalist churches and white heritage parties from whence they came.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Now this is interesting - supposedly it was Belinda that got the Petersons (former Ontario Premier David Peterson and brother) to approach the Liberals to start this deal rolling.

Just heard that on CFRB radio.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlefinger:
Her father was (is) a big Liberal. The question may be why she ran as a Conservative to begin with.

Olly, you mean Frank Stronach, the one who hosted the infamous Magna budget of the Harris-Eves Conservatives in Ontario? Surely you don't think he's a Liberal.

---

Frank ran for the Liberals in the 1988 federal election. He was a vocal opponent of the FTA (in fact, I first became aware of his existence when he did a speaking tour with David Orchard's group, Citizens Concerned About Free Trade).

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

If this were Bev that suddenly decided to jump to the CPC, I may say good riddence, but I can't say I would be calling her a whore, or even a traitor. I'd be saying that Bev, with her stance on SSM, is better suited to the CPC party ... I'd have to acknowledge that the move would hurt the NDP, and the possibility of passing the budget, but "outrage"? I hope I wouldn't stoop that low.

---

I'd be outraged irregardless. Bev, while not on the right SSM-ship, still professes to have NDP values on other issues. She doesn't 100% agree, but, she still got elected as a New Democrat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

Oh Balls. An MP is free to resign from their party and sit as an independant until the next election, when they can run under a different banner.

That's the principled position. For all that I can't stand Kilgor, at least he didn't join us and betray all of his constituents who voted for him as a Liberal.

---

quote:

---

I'd be mad if she left... irregardless of her SSM beleifs.

---

Because of her SSM beliefs (read belief that human rights do not apply to all people) I do not think she belongs in the NDP anyway ... just as many from the CPC who are now claiming that Belinda did not belong in the CPC either.

In both cases, we (those who do not think these people uphold party principles enough) get what we wanted ... why be angry over that?

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:
Harper says:

"I told my wife she'd leave because she'd never be able to be leader"

---

Which is a stupid thing to say, really, because she has no better chance of becoming leader of the Liberal Party, I wouldn't think.

The reason I'd be mad is because her constituants elected her based on the fact that she represented New Democrat values, and, she wouldn't be voting that way in Parliment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
What an arrogant, stupid, hateful thing to say in public.

---

He probably had his allegance tested to it's end when he was given the choice to leave the party or leave the woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

That depends, if it were an MP that had the same relationship to the party that Belinda had to the CPC then I don't think you're right.

If this were Bev that suddenly decided to jump to the CPC, I may say good riddence, but I can't say I would be calling her a whore, or even a traitor. I'd be saying that Bev, with her stance on SSM, is better suited to the CPC party ... I'd have to acknowledge that the move would hurt the NDP, and the possibility of passing the budget, but "outrage"? I hope I wouldn't stoop that low.

Now, if it were Libby, or Broadbent, I might be a little less charitable and question how they could pretend to be such a loyal NDPer and do this, but then that would not be the same situation as this Belinda side switch.

---

Well then I have a somewhat personal question to pose as a response to you: are you either or both (a) a card-carrying NDP member, or (b) someone that has worked on behalf of the party as an activist? If you can answer yes to one or both of these questions, then I cannot fathom how/why you could not be outraged that someone elected to support your party, a party you have worked hard to assist in an election campaign for instance, jumps ship when it is politically (or, more likely, personally) expedient to do so...

There is less chance of an election, and maybe the basis of an ongoing Liberal-NDP alliance.

But I must say, it does remind me of Mexico under the PRI, the "Party of the Institutionalized Revolution."

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:

Sounds like a great 4 part cbc movie in about 10 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert James:

Well then I have a somewhat personal question to pose as a response to you: are you either or both (a) a card-carrying NDP member, or (b) someone that has worked on behalf of the party as an activist? If you can answer yes to one or both of these questions, then I cannot fathom how/why you could not be outraged that someone elected to support your party, a party you have worked hard to assist in an election campaign for instance, jumps ship when it is politically (or, more likely, personally) expedient to do so...

Only my opinion though.

---

The NDP's position is that an MP who wants to switch parties should resign and run in a by-election.

quote:

---

Coming to CBC this fall...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

The NDP's position is that an MP who wants to switch parties should resign and run in a by-election.

Of course, it's also the NDP's position that the Liberals and Tories are basically the same party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert James:

Well then I have a somewhat personal question to pose as a response to you: are you either or both (a) a card-carrying NDP member, or (b) someone that has worked on behalf of the party as an activist? If you can answer yes to one or both of these questions, then I cannot fathom how/why you could not be outraged that someone elected to support your party, a party you have worked hard to assist in an election campaign for instance, jumps ship when it is politically (or, more likely, personally) expedient to do so...

Only my opinion though.

---

1) I should be a card carrying member, but I haven't received my card yet (been several months now, but as I'm way too busy right now, believe it or not, to get involved in party activities, I am not concerned with actually having a card.)

2) I decided to become a member because the NDP most closely represented my principles and not to have my political principles formed for me ... I understand that some members of the party will have differning principles, and I don't begrudge them that right. I am not attempting to have Bev kicked out of the party as so far she has not voted against my principles, but I do know that she is against one very important principle (equal human rights) so I would not be the least bit upset if she left the party, or even jumped ship. Nor would I welcome Randy White if he decided to jump ship from the CPC and join the NDP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
As for Peter MacKay, given his betrayal of David Orchard (and many of his own supporters), there's a certain irony in this turn of events, n'est pas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

I have to ask how any NDP member could be against equal human rights, or support an NDP MP who came out against equal human rights? That is just my opinion.

---

A) She hasn't 'yet' hurt the process of Bill C-38 does play into my thinking. If she was voting against it... I'd have trouble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:

1) I should be a card carrying member, but I haven't received my card yet (been several months now, but as I'm way too busy right now, believe it or not, to get involved in party activities, I am not concerned with actually having a card.)

2) I decided to become a member because the NDP most closely represented my principles and not to have my political principles formed for me ... I understand that some members of the party will have differning principles, and I don't begrudge them that right. I am not attempting to have Bev kicked out of the party as so far she has not voted against my principles, but I do know that she is against one very important principle (equal human rights) so I would not be the least bit upset if she left the party, or even jumped ship. Nor would I welcome Randy White if he decided to jump ship from the CPC and join the NDP.

I have to ask how any NDP member could be against equal human rights, or support an NDP MP who came out against equal human rights? That is just my opinion.

---

Your point, with all due respect, is a red herring - at least with respect to my posts. The question of whether one supports someone like Bev as an NDP member, while perhaps important, does not address the question about whether a party member should be outraged when a party member elected as an NDP representative jumps ship when it is expedient for them (personally) to do so. As a party member who works hard (and for free) during election campaigns to elect New Democrats both federally and provincially, I am not only insulted but outraged and betrayed when a New Democrat crosses the floor, to ANY party.

If you want to address this matter, we can move on to discuss the matter you want to impose here elsewhere, though I am sure you know it has been exhausted in other threads.

(Just to make it clear, I am not trying to be rude. I just think it unfair that you are trying to undermine my argument/position by introducing a matter that does not bear on the one at hand.)

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Robert James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert James:
Oh well, looks like Team Needles, in the second part of his/her last post, made the point I intended to much more concisely!

---

quote:

---

CBC Movie Voice: "Coming to CBC this fall... The Belinda Stronach story, starring Paris Hilton as Belinda Stronach, Charlton Heston as Stephen Harper and Pauly Shore at Peter MacKay... this is how one woman changed then the Conservative Party to what we know today as the "White Guys and Their Obidient Wives Coalition"

---

If they want Telefilm funding, they'll have to go for, say, Sarah Polley, Eric Peterson, and Don McKellar.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

Starring Sarah Polley and Don McKellar.

---

Knowing Sarah's politics, I would doubt she'd want much to do with this movie.....not unless it's the starting of a complete collapse of hte Conservatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:
B) It's not a matter of supporting Bev, it's a matter of being upset if she were to become a Con of a Liberal, even though she was elected under our banner, with a campaign paid for (if you look at it this way) by my membership fees. She was elected by people with New Democrat beleifs. You can't just sy "Oh, that doesn't matter".[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:

CBC Movie Voice: "Coming to CBC this fall... The Belinda Stronach story, starring Paris Hilton as Belinda Stronach, Charlton Heston as Stephen Harper and Pauly Shore at Peter MacKay... this is how one woman changed then the Conservative Party to what we know today as the "White Guys and Their Obidient Wives Coalition".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:
You put all of that together, and at what point is it okay for her to stand up and say: "Dude, my constituents might have voted CPC, but they didn't sign up for this bullshit."?

---

I guess I can see your point, but, my post was in reference to the Bev situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:
I understand what you're getting at, but Stronach's been saying for quite awhile now that her constituents have been telling her that they want a lot of the stuff in the new budget. And we know that her stance on SSM didn't fit with the CPC (I suspect that it did square with the members of her riding, however). On top of that, I truly believe that she didn't think it was good for the CPC to ally so closely with the Bloc. You put all of that together, and at what point is it okay for her to stand up and say: "Dude, my constituents might have voted CPC, but they didn't sign up for this bullshit."?

---

Not to mention that, as posted somewhere above, her riding was won by 800 votes. That means 400 people changing their votes would have meant the end of her career in politics. Her consitutents would likely have dumped her in an election, particularly if she supported the CPC in it's currently alarming power grab. She had little choice, IMO - the party she was in was getting scary, not reflecting her stated values, and going to cost her that seat.

And I'm sure it'll annoy the crap out of a bunch of people here but I was pretty thrilled with the announcement. I've never been very good at the whole partisanship thing. I tend to take things one issue at a time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
As for the ethics of leaving a party, it may be the case that the party left her.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I get a kick out of the fact that Harper is sure that she could "never" become leader of the Conservative Party. What is it about Belinda that makes him think "never"? That she's rich? That she menstruates? What?

---

I have now heard the following theories:

1. That Paul Martin Martin lured her with a cabinet post, says Bloomberg News and Commentary. (As compared with her salery at Magna?)

2. That Bill Clinton advised her to make this move.

3. That David Peterson seduced her. (Answer by Stephen Harper on why no Liberals have joined him: "we don't seduce Liberals.")

4. That Peter MacKay broke up with her.

5. That Peter MacKay sent her out first and will follow her.

6. That Jean Lapierre has been teaching her French.

7. That her father was really a Liberal and told her to do it.

8. That Harper forced her out, fearing she would continue an underground campaign against him.

More, no doubt, to come.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Interesting that so many have trouble believing that a blonde can think for herself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Interesting that so many have trouble believing that a blonde can think for herself.

---

Edited to add that I nominate Wilf Day for best post of the day.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Interesting that so many have trouble believing that a blonde can think for herself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
Blonde or not, I think politicians have a pretty good handle on not thinking for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:
EVERY thread posted on this forum turns into some stupid "political correctness" argument.

There should be a subsection of babble specifically for those who want to go around picking PC fights.

---

quote:

---

Dex:

Aw, it must be terribly hard on you to endure, Gnote. Which one of Wilf Day's list of eight reasons did you have your hat hung upon? I mean, most of them are absurd in the extreme. I put those reasons right up there with those claiming G-Dub was wearing a wire during the debates. What struck me about the list-- and I defy you to read the list and interpret it in any other way-- was the startling consistency of it being a woman under the control of one of a number of different men. You can assume that's healthy, or plausible, or absurd to comment on, but I don't think it's insignificant.

---

Alright, if you want to be thick about it, let's review Wilf's post:

quote:

---

I have now heard the following theories:

---

"HEARD" being the key word. Note that the phrase "I have heard" does not equate to "I have constructed" or "I believe."

quote:

---

1. That Paul Martin Martin lured her with a cabinet post, says Bloomberg News and Commentary. (As compared with her salery at Magna?)

2. That Bill Clinton advised her to make this move.

3. That David Peterson seduced her. (Answer by Stephen Harper on why no Liberals have joined him: "we don't seduce Liberals.")

4. That Peter MacKay broke up with her.

5. That Peter MacKay sent her out first and will follow her.

6. That Jean Lapierre has been teaching her French.

7. That her father was really a Liberal and told her to do it.

8. That Harper forced her out, fearing she would continue an underground campaign against him.

More, no doubt, to come.

Interesting that so many have trouble believing that a blonde can think for herself.

---

Again, I find little evidence within this post that Wilf was being sexist or chauvanistic in any sense.

Regardless, that is all much beside the point. My issue is not whether or not Wilf was being sexist, my issue is that EVERY THREAD on babble turns into a sh*t-storm of PC idoicy.

Start up a thread dedicated to those who wish to take everyone's words and twist them in order to make some self-righteous claim about how noble and gentlemanly they are. Don't spam the rest of the board.

However, in Stronach's case, I don't think its ridiculous to consider her a "pretty face" put forward mainly to represent the interests of others. She may well be a pawn of her father or other corporate backers.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

On CBC TV right now, they're interviewing -- who else? -- Scott Brison. Who happens to be wearing one of the worst suit/shirt/tie combinations I've ever seen on any politician, in any country, at any time. And that includes Richard Milhous Nixon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeamNeedles:
200 posts in an afternoon. I havn't been with Babble for very long but this has to be some sort of record.

---

quote:

---

Well - this is good news! Hopefully the budget will pass now and the Con-artists will have to wait for an election as their numbers drop in the polls. I am guessing this will give the NDP a boost! Hooray!

---

I don't see how this gives the NDP a boost. As far as media goes, their supposed role as great saviours of the Liberal government against the evil Conservatives has now been overtaken by this newsflash.

Worse, the Liberals will be even more despised in Quebec than they were before, and this will make the NDP even more unappealing there given their role in propping them up.

My feeling all along is that the NDP should never have let itself get sucked in so deeply to these parliamentary shenanigans, and this latest development only confirms that view.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: elixir ]

quote:

---

While I don't think she was a Liberal plant, I do think she was a big money plant. A Bay street insider who would work to keep the new conservatives in the right track of protecting power and privilege, with the assumption that this union would eventually replace the Liberals. Probably what happened is they all are waking up to the fact that if the CP can't take the Liberals under the present circumstances, they are unlikely to at all in the near future, so better to be close to where the real power is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnote:
Again, I find little evidence within this post that Wilf was being sexist or chauvanistic in any sense.

Regardless, that is all much beside the point. My issue is not whether or not Wilf was being sexist, my issue is that EVERY THREAD on babble turns into a sh*t-storm of PC idoicy.

Start up a thread dedicated to those who wish to take everyone's words and twist them in order to make some self-righteous claim about how noble and gentlemanly they are. Don't spam the rest of the board.

heard

---

If you had actually read both my post and Wilf Day's posts, you would have realized that we were agreeing with each other. Although most reasonable people would have inferred that from the exchange, I actually chose to make it explicit when I edited my post to add "Edited to add that I nominate Wilf Day for best post of the day."

I expect Peter to follow.

[ 17 May 2005: Message edited by: Blueiris46 ]

Forgive me for not wanting to participate in a "political correctness" discussion in a thread entitled "Stronach defects to Grits and joins cabinet."

I have no problem with your pet peeves and your self-righteousness - I just don't want to sift through it to find the posts I am actually interested in.