babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Liberals most likely to turn coat

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Liberals most likely to turn coat
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 24 January 2006 10:42 AM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The current parliamentary math suggests this contingency might be necessary to sustain the government.

I'll start:

Ignatieff - At least we know that he and Harper see I to I on Iraq. Besides, I think a little gleam has come off his star as a liberal leadership contender.


From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 24 January 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I reiterate my nomination, as well as my caution about the pitfalls that may ensue, posted here.

quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

My bet on the first to go is Keith Martin, who was already distancing himself from the rest of the Liberals during the campaign and is right wing enough that he used to think the Conservatives were peachy back when they were the Reform Party.

The problem for Harper is that they threw such a shit fit when Belinda crossed that it will be difficult for them to take in any Liberal defectors now, much less offer them anything to make the trip across the floor worthwhile.

There is also the matter of who gets to be Speaker.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 24 January 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the shit-fit problem is much of a problem at all, as long as the Cons get all of their dirty work out of the way immediately. Right now the media are going to be obsessed with change, and there will be a lot of new and exciting things happening, which means that there will not be that much focus on any one event.

So even Andre Arthur might get a junior cabinet position, despite his prickly past. It will all just be lost in the hubbub.


From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 24 January 2006 12:18 PM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andre Arthur for Speaker !

This would certainly make parliament entertaining, and probably banned from the airwaves as he injects a nice racist flavour into democracy......

Link this thread about who Andre Anthur really is - the Independent Screwball from Quebec

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 24 January 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of the so-cons in the LPC must be thinking of moving on to join the new government.
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 24 January 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about Stronach? Jumping parties seems to fit her principles just fine.
From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 24 January 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I don't know where people are getting this from. It's not like the Cons are a couple of seats short of a majority.

They have absolutely nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by letting some Liberals cross over. They have MPs in every province but one - and some quite able ones at that. They don't need grits to fill their cabinet.

The Liberals who won their seats did so after a particularly bad campaign from a lacklustre leader and a scandal-ridden term in office. They have every reason to believe that a new leader will likely bring them right back into power.

Keith Martin and Belinda Stronach are about as likely to cross as Scott Brison. Conservatives hate them. They've not only burned their bridges, they've scattered the ashes.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 24 January 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any of Bloc Scarberia?
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 24 January 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tom Wappel?

... for Minister of Justice?


From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 24 January 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
Tom Wappel?

... for Minister of Justice?


To quote Reg Alcock, I think they'd want to look "a little higher up the gene pool."

It's not easy, but Wappel is perhaps the one MP in Canada too disgusting for the Conservatives.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 24 January 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's generally accepted that once you jump ship, you don't get to change your mind.

I cannot imagine members who abandon a caucus being welcomed back into that caucus just because party fortunes have changed. They could jump to a third party, or become an independent, but that's about the extent of their options.

What's more, an MP - if they're interested in re-election - won't join a party they don't think they can win their seat with. So it's unlikely any of the socially conservative Scarborough MP's will jump ship. They'll just continue acting as the Northern equivalent of the Dixiecrats and reap all the electoral benefits of their party's name and organization.

My bet would be someone like Albina Guarnieri, Joe Fontana, or Paul Szabo. They enjoy personal popularity, are socially conservative, and likely electable as conservatives in their ridings. Of course it depends entirely on the polls. If it looks more like the Liberals are just in electoral time-out, everyone will be staying put.

Just as likely, I think, would be members like Tina Keeper, or Gary Merasty being unsatisfied in the Liberal party headed by a new, right-of-centre leader with an even more militant leadership style than that of Paul Martin, crossing to the NDP benches.

But it all depends on who the Liberal leader becomes, and what the polls look like afterward.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 24 January 2006 11:52 PM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Just as likely, I think, would be members like Tina Keeper, or Gary Merasty being unsatisfied in the Liberal party headed by a new, right-of-centre leader with an even more militant leadership style than that of Paul Martin, crossing to the NDP benches

Right-of-centre Liberal leaders don't do well (see Turner, Martin). They are at risk of sounding hypocritical when critisizing the conservatives. I think the Liberal Party should know better by now.

From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 25 January 2006 01:04 AM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you will see Liberals jump ship before the leadership run.

(Just a hunch.)


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
RSU
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11636

posted 25 January 2006 07:50 PM      Profile for RSU        Edit/Delete Post
mhh ... I'd be surprised if the CPC would accept fence sitters. You can keep em. Conservatives have spine...jellyfish need not apply.
From: York-Simcoe | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
bretwald
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11714

posted 26 January 2006 05:53 PM      Profile for bretwald     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could be Hon. John McKay, MP Scarborough-Guildwood's chance to finally get out of the backbenches & actually speak in Parliament : Social Conservative
From: 43 39 N 79 23 W | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Red T-shirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5872

posted 26 January 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Red T-shirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about Tom Wappel for Minister of Veterans Affairs? Better yet, Women's Issues! This could become a whole comedy thread. What would be the most ludicrous job for Tom Wappel? As if his current job isn't enough irony.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 26 January 2006 06:52 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wappel won't be a turncoat.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 26 January 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Keith Martin has too much integrity to jump back to the cons. Remember, he didn't jump to the Libs, he sat as an independent and then was elected as a Liberal.
From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 January 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that's true. i think he became a Liberal.

Keith Martin a pretty weird guy. He spent 10 years as a Reform Party MP under the leadership of Stockwell Day and Preston Manning and never had any complaints about social conservatism - at a time when the party was a lot more openly socially conservative than now. He voted in lockstep with the Reform to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians 100% of time. He even voted against laws to ban discrimiantion in employment and housing! Then AFTER the Alliance merges with the Tories and actually starts to become more moderate on social issues - all of a sudden Keith Martin decides that they are too rightwing for him and he becomes a Liberal.

I think the guy is a nut and I find him so unctuous and and irritating that his popularity in his riding remains a total mystery to me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 26 January 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This neo-con party is certainly not more moderate. I would say that it is far more socon now than ever before. Keith Martin did sit as an independant. Sought nomination to the Liberal party and was elected and then re-elected this time. The people in his riding find him to be a very straight up guy.
From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
happy go leftie (Red Tory)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11640

posted 26 January 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for happy go leftie (Red Tory)        Edit/Delete Post
No other party will associate themselves with this "pretending to be moderate" party. Wait until the other insane voices from Harper's team start filtering out. They have many of the most extreme members in the history of this country on social issues. They are hoping to pretend to be moderate and get a majority by fooling the people in the next election.

They're already pushing for their arming border guards policies, and saying this is a done deal. Should have been putting trained RCMP on border, not untrained (takes years training to be trusted with this responsibility, and has to be governed by police laws, not just customs laws) , severely unqualified customs people. Wait for the international incident when one of these "gun-toting" customs guys shoots an innocent international traveller. This party is not normal, and no other party could accept this kind of whacko thinking.

At least Canadians weren't fooled enough to even give Conservatives more than a pitiful marginal minority. Harper's spokespeople like raging former finance critic Monte Soberg came out on Tuesday and said in a threatening tone, that "Conservatives will push through their agenda and no opposition party better stand in their way". Solberg said the Conservative agenda is "non-negotiable" as they are "Now the Government". Through Dictatorship or secret enactments in the PMO, one way or the other, Conservatives will change Canada for the worse.

Already Conservatives, Solberg and others are threatening that other parties better support GST phoney tax cut, their other tax cuts including their "pretend childcare" tax cut for parents with kids under 6, and now they are claiming they will adopt "further $10 billion tax cuts for big corporations" on top of the nearly $30.5 billion already promised to the wealthier robber barons. That's $40.5 billion in tax cuts for the robber barons.

This means huge deficit is coming with this party, and severe cuts to our social needs. Cuts of $23 billion in Harper's platform, plus at least another $25 billion in the two items he "refused to cost in his platform", now additional Corporate income tax cuts of $10 billion. We're talking cuts to programs in the range of $60 billion if no one stops their budget. That's holy hell coming to Canadians on the fiscal side, and social program side. AND WE THE PEOPLE are going to pay more and more to transfer the wealth "we pay in taxes" to the richest people in the country.

But "these so-called" Conservatives will massively raise the income taxes on the middle and low income people. That's the majority of the people in the country. It's now a done deal.

Wait till the shit hits the roto blades in the other parties when the find out that as of Tuesday morning, the day after the election, not even sworn in as a government, the Conservatives have already "increased you income taxes" at Revenue Canada. I found out when contacted Revenue Canada to get the "full revised" forms for 2006 (already had the revised one page form- package, and was told that the forms have already been revised AGAIN, ordered on Tuesday morning). New forms will be given out "massively raising our taxes" per person.

Conservatives put the order through, without consulting parliament, without telling the public, and have ordered new revised tax forms to come out on February 6, 2006, drastically raising your income taxes immediately, and for the next 5 years.

Wait till the other parties find out about this? Wait till the public finds out about the democratic deficit they "are creating", that they claimed they were fighting against. This is a phoney group of manipulators.

Conservatives ran for years claiming they would be transparent, they would "clean up government", Conservatives would run an open government. Before they're even sworn in, they are already within 8 hours of thinking they are government, "sneakily" made huge changes to our taxes without consulting parliament, without putting in a budget to consult the opposition, did not tell the public and did it secretly behind closed doors.

This Conservative Party is a sneaky bunch, lied to the entire country, and there's no party or member that is going to join with them. Their agenda was not popular with 64% of Canadians, yet they are now preparing to try to shove this junk down our throats without any consensus from anyone.

Don't expect any member to want to ally themselves with these incompetent scheming sneaky rats.

I am angry that they raised out taxes in secret, and did not honour the meagre minority status that voters gave to them, even before they were even sworn in. Average person's income taxes are increasing (income of $60,000) by about $660 a year for the next 5 years, and they snuck this through in secret! That's over $3300 per person on average being robbed out of us. With two working in a family that's $6600 out of your pockets in a family or household.

No party member is going to want to put their name to this deceiving scheme. Conservative thieves and robber barons for the rich, while not even sworn in yet, already acting like god's, and hidden policy dictators. This is just the beginning, wait and see what you get from behind closed doors from this party. Shades of exact replica of the Mike Harris government. You wait and see.

And no media will report this to the public, that's my prediction. The opposition parties had better be effective, or we're in big trouble. The power in the PMO can and will be used through executive orders to push through unbelievable changes that the public will never be told about, unless our opposition is really on the ball.


From: suburban outskirts | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 26 January 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted by Stockholm: ... Keith Martin ... I think the guy is a nut and I find him so unctuous and and irritating that his popularity in his riding remains a total mystery to me.
That would be Dr Keith Martin to you. Sheeesh! No respect for a MD turned politician? He does state why he dumped the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party here. I tried reading it and I have to confess - I almost fell asleep.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 January 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This neo-con party is certainly not more moderate. I would say that it is far more socon now than ever before.

That's ridiculous. When Keith Martin was an enthusiastic Reform Party MP, the party was led by fundamentalist crackpots like Preston Manning and Stockwell Day and it was openly against giving gays and lesbian any equal rights whatsoever in any area and it was all set to have national referenda on hot button issue like abortion etc... and it was opposed to bilingualism and wanted to ban Sikhs in the RCMP from wearing turbans.

When Harper beat Day for the CA leadership it was seen as a big setback for the religious nutbars.

The CPC is now moving away from that crap at the speed of light. Harper is now surrounded by the old Tory establishment like Marjorie LeBreton and Hugh Segal. They have renounced referenda, renounced opposition to bilingualism and while the old Reform party tolerated viciously homophobic statements from MPs like Bob Ringma for years (with Keith Martin's complete aquiescence) - now the CPC under Harper is the only party to actually EXPELL an MP for saying something homophobic (Larry Spencer from Regina). That is more than you can say for the Liberals who cheerfully tolerate creeps like Tom Wappel. Even the NDP didn't actually expel Bev Desjarlais. She just lost a nomination battle.

One of thse days I wish Keith martin would explain why he was a happy camper in the Reform party for so many years when it was a wayyyy more viciously rightwing party than the CPC is now.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 26 January 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm, I have to disagree with you. I believe this neocon party is very right both socially and fiscally. They are ruled by the fundamentalists and I believe that Canada will go the way of the US. Our debt will rise, there will be more people falling under the poverty line all so we can serve our masters.
From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 26 January 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...the day after the election, not even sworn in as a government, the Conservatives have already "increased you income taxes" at Revenue Canada.

I'm not a CPC supporter and something like this wouldn't surprise me but would it surprise you if I said I find this rather unbelievable? You've provided no documentation and, a check of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency website (complete with tax tables revised as of January 1, 2006), indicates no such change. Please provide proof.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 26 January 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The most charitable explanation I can come up with for Keith Martin's (sorry, DOCTOR Martin's) actions was that he cringed in cowardly silence at the most extreme examples of his party's wingnuttery, hoping that if he waited long enough the party would merge with the PCs, but that the circumstances at the time of the merger led him to calculate that he would be better off leaving the party. In late 2003, it looked to a lot of people like the merger was a wholesale takeover of the PCs by Reform, and maybe Martin figured that as a result Reform wasn't going to change significantly, and the party would tank against Glorious Leader Paul Martin who was of course going to win a huge majority.

So he jumped ship, and in hindsight he did so at almost exactly the wrong time, because the Liberals' fortunes immediately began sinking and the new Tories started to get taken seriously. He probably wishes he hadn't left, but there's probably too much animosity now between him and the Tories (at least at the local level, and probably the national level as well) for them to take him back. Okay, so Winston Churchill pulled it off, but this isn't the 1920s and Martin isn't Churchill.

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 26 January 2006 08:29 PM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So we all agree then, that there's no way that the CPC are going to get 30 Libs to join their ranks, but that they might just toy with the idea of welcoming a half dozen into the fold and forming a more stable governing coalition with the NDP...

Of course, as was suggested above, a few might opt for the NDP rather than the CPC, the result being the same.


From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 26 January 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any Liberals who survived this past election will not be jumping ship unless they feel certain that they can win under the banner of their new party. I suspect that they will conclude that their best chance next time is with their own party. Once there is a new leader, that could change for some of them. We'll just have to wait and see who the new leader will be.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
happy go leftie (Red Tory)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11640

posted 26 January 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for happy go leftie (Red Tory)        Edit/Delete Post
Loretta quote:
I'm not a CPC supporter and something like this wouldn't surprise me but would it surprise you if I said I find this rather unbelievable? You've provided no documentation and, a check of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency website (complete with tax tables revised as of January 1, 2006), indicates no such change. Please provide proof.

>>>>>>> you will get your proof, as soon as the new tax forms come down. Already in the works. Revenue Canada confirmed this. Changes requested immediately on TUESDAY, the day after the election. Also, are you surprised that Monte Solberg will add $10 billion in new Corporate income tax cuts which I taped off Newsworld, and Conservatives already have committed to raising our income taxes for the low and middle income earners? Where were you during the election? This is their platform. Our income taxes are raised. It's a done deal.

As soon as the new forms come in, I will clearly point out the increase. There will be NO DOUBT. Since this was done in secret, behind closed doors, the proof will be available when the new forms arrive. It will be very clear to all at that very moment.


From: suburban outskirts | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 January 2006 08:56 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can keep em. Conservatives have spine...jellyfish need not apply.

Now, that's comedy gold!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
happy go leftie (Red Tory)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11640

posted 26 January 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for happy go leftie (Red Tory)        Edit/Delete Post
RSU quote:
Conservatives have spine...jellyfish need not apply.

>>> Conservatives are extremists. No other party would want to join them. They do not have spine, they have agression, they are control freeks, and punishment pathological anti-social equality, pro robber baron maniacs, and no other party shares this kind of whacked view.

Call them what you will, being that you obviously support them, but they are not moderates. May pretend to be until the next election to fool more seats out of the voters, but then the whole country will be kicked in the teeth, so keep your "spine" freeks. What this really means is that they won't listen to the people or anyone else in Parliament. They are a bunch of little dictators. Remember huge majority of Canadians voted against them.

Keep your raving "Conservatives are Bullies" to yourself.
edited for spelling

[ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: happy go leftie (Red Tory) ]


From: suburban outskirts | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Northern54
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5325

posted 26 January 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for Northern54     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If this is true, there will be a temptation to defeat the government as soon as it proposes the budget that goes along with the new tax rates. Pocketbook sneakery is never good government practice in a minority situation. This is not something that the media will be able to hide from the general public. The proof will be on the person's pay cheques.
From: Yellowknife | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 26 January 2006 10:01 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I don't think that's true. i think he became a Liberal.

No, he did sit as an independent, while announcing he would seek the Liberal nomination. Brison crossed immediately, but he was seen as a much bigger catch.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 January 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Stockholm, I have to disagree with you. I believe this neocon party is very right both socially and fiscally.

You make it sound as if the old Reform Party wasn't!! This is what i don't understand. If Keith Martin is so socially liberal, why did he spend TEN long years as an MP for the almost neo-fascist Reform Party and during those TEN long years he towed the party line every step of the way with a 100% anti-gay voting record.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
happy go leftie (Red Tory)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11640

posted 27 January 2006 03:21 AM      Profile for happy go leftie (Red Tory)        Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't focus on just one opposition member. Take a good hard look at who was actually elected to the Conservative minority government side. There's a really large repressive group in this Conservative party, and according to their talk today "Harper believes he has a mandate for change", and Monte Solberg says "no one better get in our way of implementing our agenda".

Both socially and fiscally, Canadians are going to get it between the eyes. On the social side they will be disciplined until they get a majority in the next election. Many other really bad things will happen, but the public will not know about them until it is too late. Same way as was done with Mike Harris, the first Canadian Premier run and directed by the G.W. forces.

Most people don't know that at this very moment, privatization of the healthcare system is proceeding, just because Harper is even in charge of the PMO. Harper needs no legislation to accomplish this, it will be done by order in council, just a Mike Harris did in the Premier's Office. Parliament will NOT be able to stop him.

It will take at least 4 years for people to find out any of this, the shift will not be immediate, until the public purse runs out (Harper will fund all private U.S. Multinational healthcare operations on our provincial public purse, the new rules as of January 23, 2006, conservative election "slim minority win" will yield hell to people). In the meantime, Conservatives will "appear moderate", just long enough to fool a whole lot more voters, and get a majority in the next election.

No other party advocated these policies. Mind you, even if Keith Martin would join them on this issue, it won't make things any worse. The Conservative agenda is going to proceed, whether we like it or not, even with only 124 or if potentially 125 seats out of 308, much of their agenda will be done right out of the PMO, not through parliament, same as Mike Harris did.

Harper and Harris are two peas in a pod. Harper is set to take some of Harris' insane, dangerous flunkies like Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement and John Baird right into cabinet (who were founding members of the Alliance Party anyways), calling this part of the experienced team? Disaster for Canada.

Also, he will present a front bench that looks like moderates to do all of the talking (can keep their mouths shut), but what was elected in this party is anything but moderates. There were'nt many moderates even in the running.

No other party is of the same ideology as this Conservative group, and even with some in Bloc and Liberals, the social elements do not set the agenda of these other two parties.

With the Conservatives, the bulk of this party is a whole new breed of ideology, clearly in line with G.W. himself, and the U.S. Conservative Right (Socially regressive, and fiscally in outer space.)

Cannot see many other party members wanting to cross over to them with their obvious "Americanization of Canada agenda".


From: suburban outskirts | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pete Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6814

posted 27 January 2006 06:23 AM      Profile for Pete Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, since one of the first Bills will be the Govt Account Act, there will be no floor crossers.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 27 January 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pete Smith:
Well, since one of the first Bills will be the Govt Account Act, there will be no floor crossers.
I'm not so sure about that. The Cons could just do a deal with some Liberal or BQ member, that member would "cross" to sit as an Independent, and then would dutifully vote with the Conservatives on every issue. Of course, they couldn't put such a person in cabinet until after they had faced the voters as a Conservative.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 27 January 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
Of course, they couldn't put such a person in cabinet until after they had faced the voters as a Conservative.

They could if they wanted to. There's no rule requiring cabinet ministers to be a member of the ruling party.

Which is why I thought the idea was dumb when Ed proposed and still do. If you really want to stop floor crossing then we'd have to make it "Resign your party, resign your seat." Which would in turn lead to ultra-draconian party discipline.

I don't see making people pretend they're not with a party as accomplishing anything.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 06 February 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Emerson - who woulda thunk it?
From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 06 February 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There was speculation in the media that Emerson would cross if the Libs lost, before the election. I'll try to find a link when I have more time.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 06 February 2006 12:30 PM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The interesting thing is that there are no NDP cabinet ministers, which indicates that there will be no formal coalition. However, the math speaks for itself. Harper plus NDP plus Independent equals majority. Second alternative is to appoint a Liberal or Bloquiste as a speaker. As Milliken demonstrated, by tradition the speaker votes with the government.
From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 06 February 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jughead:
The interesting thing is that there are no NDP cabinet ministers, which indicates that there will be no formal coalition.

There was never at any time the slightest question of a coalition. Canada doesn't do coalition governments.

Had there been a formal coalition I would never vote NDP again.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 06 February 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Political expedience, my friend, political expedience. If you have a minority PM who REALLY wants to keep his government afloat, you just might be able to extract some of your priority issues from him. Sure, you might have to bend a bit to get it, but it's a safer bet than fighting for your issues from a corner seat, and having only a very risky card (government defeat) to play.
From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 06 February 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
Why would the Conservatives want a coalition? They are quite secure as a minority for 2 years or so.

I could see a few Montreal Liberal MPs crossing the floor if Harper maintains or increases his popularity in Quebec.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 06 February 2006 12:48 PM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"As Milliken demonstrated, by tradition the speaker votes with the government."

You have to get the opposition to agree to play that game. How easy do you think it is to go to a Liberal and say, "here, give complete control of the House to us while we snuggle up with the NDP"?

Same goes for the BQ.


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 06 February 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And keep in mind the Liberals passed the first reading of their budget with all 99 Cons MPs twirling their thumbs at the vote.

Expect the "flu bug" to hit the Liberals particularly hard this coming session. Now that the Cons can pick and choose which opposition party they want to work with on individual issues, Harper doesn't need to worry about staying afloat as much as Martin did the last time.


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 06 February 2006 12:53 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can someone change the thread title to "Babblers most likely to eat crow"?
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 February 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jughead:
The interesting thing is that there are no NDP cabinet ministers, which indicates that there will be no formal coalition.
There is no basis for that coalition on either side, so this isn't news at all. There are no Liberal ministers (not counting Emerson ) and no formal coalition with them, either, although that would make much more sense than a CPC-NDP or CPC-BQ coalition.
quote:
Originally posted by Jughead:
As Milliken demonstrated, by tradition the speaker votes with the government.
No. Milliken took pains to demonstrate that by tradition the speaker breaks a tie by voting to preserve the status quo. So, he might vote to preserve the existing government in power, or to maintain existing legislation (hello, equal marriage!), but might vote against some radical new measure or repeal of existing legislation.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jughead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5547

posted 06 February 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for Jughead     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with most of what you're saying, snowy, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I think the party that would have the most to gain from a quick election is the CPC. For that reason they would be unlikely to form a coalition. As for the government being secure for 2 years, that's a VERY long time in politics, so I don't think that's a tenable position to take. At the moment you're probably right that the other three parties are in no position to put up a fight.

Nevertheless, sometimes it is best to keep one's friends close and one's enemies closer. A coalition with the NDP might just mute one of the most credible opposition voices in the house. Much easier to dismiss the Liberals and the Bloc.


From: uhuh | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 06 February 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suspect David Emerson will be the first Liberal to turn coat. Just a hunch I have.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 06 February 2006 08:58 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LOL LOL
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 06 February 2006 09:33 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
I suspect David Emerson will be the first Liberal to turn coat. Just a hunch I have.

Going against all odds, I predict the Steelers win the Superbowl.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 07 February 2006 12:19 AM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I got Grandpa Munster on my deadpool
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 07 February 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the Titanic's going to sink.
From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 07 February 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I predict this joke is going to get old.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 07 February 2006 12:33 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Henry Tudor is going to kick Richard III's arse at Bosworth.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 07 February 2006 02:22 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canada doesn't do coalition governments

Canada had a coalition government during WW1.

BC had a Liberal-Conservative coalition government after WW2.

Saskatchewan had an NDP-Liberal coalition government just a few years ago (or does it still?).


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 07 February 2006 02:26 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I predict that, in the wake of the great extinction that wipes out the dinosaurs, some small mammals will survive, thrive, adapt and evolve to the point where they become "modern humans", and then 65-million years later, they will form nations, one of which, called "Canada" will be led by a group that includes a man who believes that the universe was created in 7 days some 6000 years ago, with humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 07 February 2006 02:30 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
There was speculation in the media that Emerson would cross if the Libs lost, before the election. I'll try to find a link when I have more time.

A lot of people thought he wouldn't have run again, or run for the leadership of the Liberals, but he can't speak french, from what I understand.

Anyhow, so I wonder how Jim Flaherty will represent the 416. That's why they were saying they didn't need to really appoint anyone outside of the cabinet for that. Hey, that's pretty insulting to the Greater Vancouver area Con MP's! Why shouldn't Nina Grewal or Mark Warwa make it into cabinet? Their views are totally inline with those of the average Vancouver-Centre voter! It's like the same thing, if Jim Flahrety is good enough for Toronto one of those two should be good enough for Vancouver!

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 07 February 2006 10:06 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think for Harpoon it's about the numbers, because by bringing Emerson right into Cabinet, he is making a high risk move, one that likely upset his MP's from that province. I can't help but wonder how Martin soothed the feelings of his caucus by bringing Brison and Stronach directly into his Cabinet when he had so many to choose from in the Liberal caucus, and how Harpoon soothed the feelings of his caucus by bringing in Emerson. Or do the leaders just not care what others in the caucus think?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 07 February 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This seems to be the most active thread dealing with Emerson, so I'll post this here.

Paul Wells is running a contest.

quote:
On a not-unrelated note, this corner is now accepting nominations for the first SDA Award, for the most comically abject refusal to criticize Harper for behaviour that was so recently held up as proof of Martin's moral vacuity. The SDA Award applauds blind partisanship at its most absurd.

Nominations can come from any print or broadcast source or from blogs, but must be attributable to a real person who is willing to take credit for his or her comical justification of the new guy's opening-day antics (anonymous blog-board trolls are, as always, best ignored). Send brief quotes — not more than 150 words or so — and links, please; winner will be announced at close of business tomorrow.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 07 February 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I certainly can't claim to have predicted Emerson's defection, I did have a dream Sunday night that John Manley had joined the new Tory cabinet.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 08 February 2006 02:32 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I think for Harpoon it's about the numbers, because by bringing Emerson right into Cabinet, he is making a high risk move, one that likely upset his MP's from that province. I can't help but wonder how Martin soothed the feelings of his caucus by bringing Brison and Stronach directly into his Cabinet when he had so many to choose from in the Liberal caucus, and how Harpoon soothed the feelings of his caucus by bringing in Emerson. Or do the leaders just not care what others in the caucus think?

Oh, they probably do, but tend to do whatever they want anyways. I was just being sarcastic though.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 08 February 2006 08:09 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I can't help but wonder how Martin soothed the feelings of his caucus by bringing Brison and Stronach directly into his Cabinet when he had so many to choose from in the Liberal caucus

Brison wasn't brought directly into cabinet until after the 2004 election, but as parliamentary secretary to the PM for U.S. relations who accompanied PM on his trip to meet Bush, his public role was more prominent than many ministers. Also, the Liberals had been chasing him for months, so it wasn't a shock like Emerson or Stronach.

I have read that there was resentment, but that Brison himself managed to mitigate that with his ability. As the point man on Adscam he took on a thankless job.

I imagine Stronach caused less resentment than she might have otherwise because it helped save their jobs and was a stunning coup and amazing political theatre. On the other hand, she has not impressed anyone since.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 08 February 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I did have a dream Sunday night that John Manley had joined the new Tory cabinet.

Manley made an appearance in your dream? I think you need to stay clear of politics for a while!


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca