CanPol Thread: the United Right etc. - Page 4

Ben Kenobi · December 7, 2003, 00:41

Thank you for the report.

90 percent is absolutely splendid.

Quote:

No, actually, it doesn't. NYE said that he isn't in favour of last-minute abortions. 99.99% of people would agree; abortion, especially that late, is not a beautiful thing.

Just because it looks bad doesn't make it worse, for many people than the alternative of having to take care of the child.

Secondly, more than 35% of the people in Canada agree with unrestricted abortions, right up to 9 months.

Quote:

However, that doesn't mean that we should open up the "pandora's box" (to quote NYE), and let the gov't decide which abortions are justified and which aren't. Leave that up to the doctor and their patient.

If we are paying for abortion, then the Canadian Government does get to say what is and is not acceptable. Not all operations are covered by medicare, such as plastic surgery.

Why should the Canadian government pay for abortions? Does it cure a particular medical condition?

Ben Kenobi · December 7, 2003, 00:56

Quote:

Support or opposition to Abortion does not define a conservative.

Economic or social conservative? We're talking about social conservatives, Tingkai.

Quote:

Maritimers recognise the need for government to help out the poor, provide universal medicare and services that are not provide by the private sector.

None of which include abortion. PEI does not cover abortion under their provincial health care.

Quote:

The BCers who vote for the Reform/Alliance/CRAPP/United tend to be anti-immigration, social conservatives, screw the poor and let the eastern bastard freeze in the dark types.

Many of them just happen to be immigrants, and many could care less about social policies, so long as they get a government that will help Canada economically.

WRT abortion, BC is the second most liberal province in Canada behind Quebec, yet the Canadian Alliance took most of the seats. They have the third fewest percentage of prolife supporters, behind Quebec, and Ontario. Your hypothesis of polarisation does fit, but only for support of abortion. There are not a significantly higher number of prolifers in BC than in Ontario, though about double the percentage of Quebec, far and away the hotbed of support for abortion here in Canada.

There are a significantly higher percentage, 6% of BC folks who support unrestricted abortion compared to Ontario, or 36% and 30% respectively. This falls to 23% in the prairies and 13% in the Atlantic provinces.

All my numbers come from the 2001 Gallup poll, published December 12, 2001.

cinch · December 7, 2003, 17:57

Alright, now for Part 2: Who'll win the leadership?

*************************************
Prentice to run for new Conservative party
Last Updated Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:15:30
OTTAWA - Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice has become the first candidate to officially announce he will seek the leadership of the new Conservative party, days after Tory and Canadian Alliance members voted overwhelmingly to merge.

"I think Canadians want to see leadership, they want to see change, and I intend to bring both to Canadian politics." Prentice told CTV's Question Period.

Although Prentice is the first to officially throw his hat into the political ring, Alliance Leader Stephen Harper and Tory Leader Peter MacKay have indicated they will seek the nomination.

Prentice, a long-time Conservative supporter who has never held office, ran second to MacKay in last May's Tory convention to name a new leader. He lost in the fourth ballot after MacKay struck a deal with leadership hopeful David Orchard not to merge with the Alliance.

On Saturday, just over 90 per cent of the 2,486 Tory delegates voted in favour of creating a new combined party to be called the Conservative Party of Canada.

The decision followed Friday's Alliance member vote of almost 96 per cent in favour of the merger.

A leadership vote is expected to take place the weekend of March 19, 2004.

*************************************

SideNote: Say what you will about Orchard, but the man's got a right to be pissed.

SO... who wins?

Ben Kenobi · December 7, 2003, 23:13

Quote:

He lost in the fourth ballot after MacKay struck a deal with leadership hopeful David Orchard not to merge with the Alliance.

Prentice gets another shot ahead of MacKay, especially considering the Alliance members of the Conservative party.

Why would they vote for the person supported by Orchard?

As for the leader, probably Harper will get in, just because of how fractured the Tory leadership race, let alone his support by the Alliance members.

And Orchard should join the NDP party, rather than trying to hijack the Conservatives. So should Joe Who. See if he wins his seat again.

notyoueither · December 8, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

SideNote: Say what you will about Orchard, but the man's got a right to be pissed.

He's got a right to be locked in a lunatic assylum if he thinks a scrap of paper signed with one man who was not yet an official could have any binding effect on an organisation. Or is he just moron of the decade in Canadian politics?

KrazyHorse · December 8, 2003, 07:17

Umm....that man should still be judged on how he keeps his word. Ignoring anything else, I would never vote for Mackay knowing that he must already have made up his mind to flipflop while at the same time continuing to lie...

Ben Kenobi · December 8, 2003, 18:24

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ervative_party

JIM BROWN

OTTAWA (CP) - The new Conservative Party of Canada lost three MPs on Monday, just hours after it was officially registered and began its legal life

Former Tory leader Joe Clark and fellow MPs Andre Bachand of Quebec and John Herron of New Brunswick said they couldn't bring themselves to participate in the new entity formed through a merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance.

"This is not my party," Clark said as he arrived for what he called his last Tory caucus meeting. "This is something entirely new . . . . I will not be part of this new party."

Herron, like Clark, said he has notified Speaker Peter Milliken that he will continue serving out his current term and will keep calling himself a Progressive Conservative - the old party name ditched in the merger.

In effect, the two will likely be treated as Independents under Commons rules.

Bachand, who has been courted by the federal Liberals, said he hasn't decided whether to remain in politics, but if he does it won't be under the new party's banner.

"I'm not leaving the boat, the boat is not there any more," he said, expressing regret over the demise of the old Tories.

The defections came just a few hours after an announcement that the new Conservative party had been registered with Elections Canada and thus given official life.

"It is now legally in existence and we're moving forward," said Alliance leader Stephen Harper at a joint news conference with Tory leader Peter MacKay.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton, who heads the Tory forces in the upper house, will serve as interim leader of the new party for purposes of the Canada Elections Act, until a permanent leader is selected in March.

For now, however, Alliance and Tory MPs are still members of separate caucuses in the House of Commons, with Harper and MacKay designated as principal spokesmen in that chamber.

MacKay said he hopes the caucuses can be merged by the time the Commons resumes legislative work in late January or early February.

"That is the intention," he said. "But those final decisions will be taken in due course."

Harper was even less precise, noting that discussions are under way but "it will be a matter of weeks rather than days in terms of us making all of those announcements."

The situation could be complicated by the fact that both Harper and MacKay are expected to be candidates to lead the new party. Aides say that would likely mean designating an interim parliamentary leader to handle things in the Commons while the campaign is under way.

The two caucuses will also have to agree on a slate of House officers and parcel out critics' positions to various MPs.

Grassroots Alliance members voted 96 per cent Friday to merge the two parties, while Progressive Conservative delegates were 90 per cent in favour Saturday

Jim Prentice, a Calgary lawyer and Tory organizer, was first off the mark in the race to choose a permanent leader, announcing Sunday that he intends to seek the post.

Prentice, who has never held elected office, ran second to MacKay at the last Tory leadership convention in May.

His entrance into the new race provides an Alberta-based competitor for Harper, who has been seen as the odds-on favourite to head the new party based on the greater membership numbers and financial strength of the Alliance.

The winner will face the prospect of a spring general election, with incoming prime minister Paul Martin expected to call a vote as early as April - barely a month after the new Conservatives choose a permanent leader.

The new party has named a 12-member interim governing council, composed of six Alliance and six Tory members, to oversee the drafting of a party constitution and otherwise manage internal affairs.

Organizers must also set up new riding associations across the country and select candidates for the general election.

It's unclear whether there will be time to hold a policy convention before Martin decides to go to the polls.

cinch · December 10, 2003, 02:14

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/09/chirac031209

Jacques: "Jean... I... I love you."
Jean: "Uhm... Maybe we should tink about dis?"

*************************************

Chirac pays tribute to 'mon cher Jean'
Last Updated Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:18:05
PARIS - French President Jacques Chirac praised retiring Prime Minister Jean Chrétien as a "prestigious statesman" at a full state dinner in his honour Tuesday.

In an opening toast at the Paris dinner, Chirac said Chrétien, who is on the final leg of his last international trip as prime minister, has written many great pages of his country's history.

The comments followed earlier speeches by both leaders at the opening of an museum exhibit on the history of relations between Canada and France.

In that speech Chirac repeatedly referred to Chrétien as "mon cher Jean" and said relations between the two countries have never been better.

Chirac spoke of how Canada and France agree on the role of the United Nations. Both countries refused to participate in the U.S. led war on Iraq because it was not sanctioned by the UN.

Chrétien said in an era of globalization, a nation's influence is no longer determined by the number of cannons or missiles in its possession.

"They are measured by the civility and tolerance the nation demonstrates toward its international partners and its openness to dialogue with them."

He said he wasn't directing his comments at any country in particular.

Chrétien said he and Chirac discussed Iraq during a 45-minute meeting, but talked more about Afghanistan, where both countries have troops. The troop commitment ends in August.

"It is getting more complicated and we know that in seven or eight months we have to go and NATO has an obligation and so we discussed who is willing to come," he said.

Chrétien said Canada was not having trouble finding another NATO country to send troops to replace its soldiers in Afghanistan.

**********************************************

Well, at least the frogs still like us, eh?

Ben Kenobi · December 10, 2003, 15:57

Prestitious statesman?

LMFAO!

notyoueither · December 12, 2003, 03:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Umm....that man should still be judged on how he keeps his word. Ignoring anything else, I would never vote for Mackay knowing that he must already have made up his mind to flipflop while at the same time continuing to lie...

I have a feeling that the urge to unite the parties went well beyond the leaders office.

In an unrealted story... a politician died today after having a career in which he never broke a promise. Oh, did I say that this is a fairy tale?

On another note, Ann for deputy PM! Goodale for finance. Hmmmm... perhaps this Martin character is somewhat serious about dealing the West in. Hmmmm... choices, choices...

cinch · December 12, 2003, 03:55

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
On another note, Ann for deputy PM! Goodale for finance. Hmmmm... perhaps this Martin character is somewhat serious about dealing the West in. Hmmmm... choices, choices...

I read about Goodale, but not about Ann for Deputy PM... That is indeed intriguing...

In other news: Brison jumps ship to the Libs? He actually has a pretty good reason, I think. It's not so much that he doesn't want to be part of a party with a high homophobe quotient; it's that he doesn't want to become the 'token homosexual' for that party. He said he wants to focus more on financial/tax issues, not be the poster boy for a compassionate right that may or may not exist. Of course, he could be full of lies... Still, it's an interesting reason, I thought.

Also, will Bachand be swallowed up the Libs? Or will he stick it out a while longer as an Indy?

A bunch of interesting developments, indeed...

Uncle Sparky · December 12, 2003, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Former Tory leader Joe Clark and fellow MPs Andre Bachand of Quebec and John Herron of New Brunswick said they couldn't bring themselves to participate in the new entity formed through a merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance...

For now, however, Alliance and Tory MPs are still members of separate caucuses in the House of Commons, with Harper and MacKay designated as principal spokesmen in that chamber.

Actually 4 ex-pc MPs won't be joining the new party at this point. Three others are considering there options.

On a happy note - 3 ex-CA MPs have just officially become PC-MPs.

The reason : The PC party would have lost all of its federal funding - including the bulk of Mackay's pay cheque because they would have had less then 12 MPs.

The new party stands for all the integrity one might expect from Mackay.

(ok, my cheeks are officially sore from grinning, but ...)

I can't wait for the new Conservative Party to start talking about fiscal responsability !

Man, what a bunch of DOLTS !

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 05:53

Actually, they'll sit as independents.

Joe Clark has so much credibility that Brison would rather join the Liberals than to join Clark.

He's done.

Interesting to see if any of the three, including Brison, get elected next turn. The proof is in the next election.

If the Liberals cared so much about the West, why are they just doing something now? They've had 10 years to get their act together.

As for Martin being different from Chretien, remember last election in which a vote for Chretien was supposed to be a vote for Martin? He won't change one single thing in the party.

Uncle Sparky · December 12, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

On a happy note - 3 ex-Canadian Alliance MPs have just officially become PC-MPs.

The reason : The PC party would have lost all of its federal funding - including the bulk of Mackay's pay cheque because they would have had less then 12 MPs.

You missed the point completely BK !

The new party is starting off with the optics of a Stockwell Day without the integrity!

Having 2 official parties, propping up the old PCs until March will cost tax payers about half a million dollars !!!

... and Brison has joined the Liberals ! If you know anything about Maritime politics, this is a very bold move. Most people vote the same way their grandparent voted; somehow Brison's riding executive thought he'd be better off with a real political party then the joke the Conservative party is already becoming.

I have to move to another Forum for a while... my sides hurt from

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 06:11

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I have a feeling that the urge to unite the parties went well beyond the leaders office.

In an unrealted story... a politician died today after having a career in which he never broke a promise. Oh, did I say that this is a fairy tale?

On another note, Ann for deputy PM! Goodale for finance. Hmmmm... perhaps this Martin character is somewhat serious about dealing the West in. Hmmmm... choices, choices...

That's because he's hoping that he can finally start to get Western votes again...

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I have a feeling that the urge to unite the parties went well beyond the leaders office.

Then why did MacKay lie instead of simply coming right out?

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 06:21

Quote:

Having 2 official parties, propping up the old PCs until March will cost tax payers about half a million dollars !!!

Why is this the fault of anyone but Joe Who? If the Alliance had their way, we would have had only 1 party a year ago. Instead we had to prop up the PC for quite a tidy sum.

So tell me again about fiscal conservatism.

Quote:

Brison's riding executive thought he'd be better off with a real political party then the joke the Conservative party is already becoming.

If the Libs want a turncoat, they can have him. He promised to stay with the new conservatives to help make a moderate voice, and he jumps ship the first time get gets. Why not try to fight for your ideas? Barring that, then you decide to leave.

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 06:26

90% of the old PC delegates wanted this merger and 96% of the Alliance. Regardless of these curmudgeonly MP's the people have had their say. People are tired of the corrupt Liberals, and they want another option.

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 06:30

Too bad nobody east of manitoba will vote for this party.

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 06:32

Do you honestly not understand how little respect anybody in Central or Eastern canada has for the Refffoooooorrrm branch? You know all those social conservative policies? They don't play there at all.

The old PCs had a good foothold in the Maritimes, but I really doubt the new conservatives will be able to hold on to that...

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 06:38

Define social conservative. We just went down this road, and everybody backed out of the discussion when they actually had to formulate policy with respect to abortion and gay marriage.

And almost as many Ontarians voted Alliance as voted for the Liberals. So don't tell me that this new party will not attract votes east of Winnipeg.

Funny how the East values corruption over integrity.

Uncle Sparky · December 12, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why not try to fight for your ideas? Barring that, then you decide to leave.

I remember a speaker at a Reform con in Victoria about 10 years ago. He started his speech by saying the Reform party had to broaden its base to include conservative gays like him. I never heard the end of the speech : the booing was too loud and the moderator simply turned off his mic and moved on to the next speaker. Sure that was 10 years ago, but the right (as I have just said) has all the integrity of Mackay who lied very publicly to get elected PC leader and all the optics of Day's bunch - they could turn any bit of news into a laugh fest for everyone who wasn't Reform !

And yes, I will take your avatar bet about the NDP beating the Conservatives in the next election... of course if that was a Mackay conservative offer, you can renege at any time!!

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 06:53

Quote:

And almost as many Ontarians voted Alliance as voted for the Liberals

If by almost, you mean "something like half", then yes.

Quote:

Funny how the East values corruption over integrity

Funny how the West values stupidity over intelligence. Gee, I can play this game too.

The CA are viewed as a bunch of crackpots who want to turn back the clock to 1930. A party which has socially conservative politics will never, ever, ever win. The old PC understood this at least.

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 07:01

Well my last statement had as many facts and was about as accurate as yours.

Quote:

A party which has socially conservative politics

That's pretty vague. What are social conservative values? Jon Miller seems to define that as preserving gay unions, which is not something they had in 1930.

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 07:04

Result: CA won 23.6% of Ontario popular vote.

Having difficulty finding number for Liberals. Can't imagine it's any less than 45% though.

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 07:05

Quote:

And yes, I will take your avatar bet about the NDP beating the Conservatives in the next election... of course if that was a Mackay conservative offer, you can renege at any time!!

Hard to renege from an agreement supported by 90% of your party. There were a great deal of people unhappy with the Conservative agreement with Orchard, and wanted him turfed from the party.

I accept your bet. How long should we keep the avatars?

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 07:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well my last statement had as many facts and was about as accurate as yours.

That's pretty vague. What are social conservative values? Jon Miller seems to define that as preserving gay unions, which is not something they had in 1930.

No, it doesn't. I'm not calling social conservative policies bunk; I'm saying that they don't play past the Prairies.

And that is a fact.

Now, saying that the Alliance is full of closet homphobes who occasionally **** up and say exactly what they think of the Sodomites would be a stretch, but not too much of one.

There's too much of the Bible-thumper in the reform branch of the new party for people in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes to be comfortable with. It'll get a fair amoun of votes in Western Ontario and fringe votes elsewhere, but that doesn't help them try to actually become a winning party.

Polling at 12% does not make you a serious contender for power; it makes you a joke.

What the hell were the Reformers thinking? They had a party on top that was dominated by Westerners and they threw it away. Now they've got a shadow of the old party back after a decade of being twin laughingstocks, not something that inspires confidence. Meanwhile the Liberals have placed themselves squarely on top of the centrist vote while retaining their core constituency, and a Western protest party is never going to displace them.

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 07:18

(23.6)
ALLIANCE

(51.4)
LIBERAL

Interestingly, the Alliance polled about 25% nationally, so they did not do much worse in Ontario as they did across Canada.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

So there you go. It's about as accurate to say that no one voted for them, as it is to say that they got as many votes as the Liberals.

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 07:21

Quote:

Polling at 12% does not make you a serious contender for power; it makes you a joke.

Little early to be popping open the champagne, Krazyhorse. That's why polls aren't an election.

And you still have not defined social-conservative. Are you trying to say that all of the Conservative members are bible thumpers?

Edit:

My slip's showing.

KrazyHorse · December 12, 2003, 07:50

Social conservative: one who believes the government has a place in enforcing or encouraging a particular set of moral values with respect to its citizens' private behaviour.