- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 430
Rifleman62 said:
[Sarcasm on] Ya that ought to do it. [/Sarcasm]
Election 2011 - The Aftermath for the Leaders
- Thread starter ModlrMike
- Start date
[Sarcasm on] Ya that ought to do it. [/Sarcasm]
- Reaction score
- 1,943
- Points
- 1,160
True, and I scoffed at Jack's premise at the time of his announcement, as you scoff at the whole concept.
My point was that I was agreeing with Thucydides re the idea of a relevant opposition.
Mr. Harper, it has been said, gets along with Jack for various reasons, while he did not get along with the LPC for one main reason.
My point was that I was agreeing with Thucydides re the idea of a relevant opposition.
Mr. Harper, it has been said, gets along with Jack for various reasons, while he did not get along with the LPC for one main reason.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
Of coarse! He will get the recognition he's been craving since being invited into such a sacrosanct group, without the responsibility, according to latest reports, of not having to run for the leadership position.
Imagine "I carried the party through this quagmire of rejection, and rebuilt them into the driving force and the 'Natural Governing Party' that we are entitled to."
He's just guaranteed himself a Senate appointment as soon as the libs can swing it. Really, other than being a tour guide at NASA, like I saw Marc Garneiu doing that on TV tonight, what else has he got going for himself (I haven't Googled it) . I won't deny the being an Astronaut is pretty cool and a highly skilled job. Being RANGER qual'd is pretty cool too. There is a gazillion things you can do, that others can't. There is no ladder to compare. Do JTF risk their lives more than Astronauts? These true Warriors do what they do out of a sense of duty. They do what they are trained to do, according to their job classification. It's got nothing to do with what's good for you regular Canadians and all about job security and money. I'll qualify that by saying there are MP's from all parties that would do their job for nothing, just for the privilege of serving their constituents. However, for many other MP's, it's a free ride to a good, cheap and early collectable pension. The previous seem to get poisened by the latter before too long. Marc Garnieu's enemy was gravity, which we've pretty well tackled, Our Privates and Corporals are facing an enemy whose parameters can't even be defined at ground level.
I don't want to draw parallels, but I'm sure some wiil try. Before you do, imagine the difference between Fast Air (or Artillery) and the guys in actual contact on the ground in the grape vines. Who has the more intimate grasp of what is happening? Who should really be listened to.
The problem is, the libs are still trying to provide max control over their party. Look at the arguments about who can vote, who can input, who can decide.
The only thing that makes this an existing party, is the fact that some of the shareholders that list the Liberal Party as their actual job, still need to maintain their job status.
This party needs to declare bankruptcy, go through a structured re-org, and reemerge as a NEW party. The LIBERAL tag in Canada is dead. They need to reinvent themselves. Give themselves a new mandate, and above all A NEW NAME without the word LIBERAL in it.
Four former Liberal leadership contenders still owe $576,000 in bank loans
Several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached.
By TIM NAUMETZ Published May 16, 2011
Article Link
Four Liberal MPs who lost the May 2 election still owe a total of $576,000 among them in loans for the party's 2006 leadership campaign—and their chances of drumming up donations to pay it all off have slimmed considerably.
Martha Hall Findlay, toppled by a Conservative in her affluent Willowdale riding in Toronto, said it was tough to generate contributions as MP Hall Findlay, and it can only be tougher as ordinary citizen Hall Findlay.
She and several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached. They registered contributions with Elections Canada as late as March 18, only eight days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) called the vote.
"For sure it's going to be more difficult," Ms. Hall Findlay told The Hill Times, arguing a unique Elections Act cap on contributions to leadership candidates and the unusually large field of candidates, 11, have made fundraising to repay the loans comparable to searching for rare coins or lost treasure.
Anyone who has donated to any of the candidates for the contest that took place more than five years ago, and has reached their $1,100 Elections Act limit in leadership contributions for that specific contest, is prohibited from donating any more money to any of the candidates, anytime.
Ms. Hall Findlay, who lent her own campaign $125,000, said the pool of willing and available donors was being shared by 11 candidates from the outset and it has only grown smaller as the big stars—former party leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) recently resigned leader Michael Ignatieff and Toronto MP Bob Rae (Toronto-Centre, Ont.)—gobbled up large donations from the largest number of donors.
"It's so difficult anyway because the pool from which to gain any more contributions for a 2006 leadership was already diminished in 2007 and 2008," Ms. Hall Findlay said. "We all pulled together to get what we could, there just isn't that much out there."
Gerard Kennedy, whose Parkdale-High Park riding in Toronto reverted to New Democrat Peggy Nash, still owes $126,963 in loans and $37,230 in unpaid claims. Joe Volpe, who lost Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto to Conservative Joe Oliver, has a debt of $73,079. Ken Dryden, who lost York Centre in Toronto despite a last-minute rally by Michael Ignatieff and former prime minister Jean Chrétien, still owes $91,603 in loans and $122,984 in unpaid claims.
More on link
Several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached.
By TIM NAUMETZ Published May 16, 2011
Article Link
Four Liberal MPs who lost the May 2 election still owe a total of $576,000 among them in loans for the party's 2006 leadership campaign—and their chances of drumming up donations to pay it all off have slimmed considerably.
Martha Hall Findlay, toppled by a Conservative in her affluent Willowdale riding in Toronto, said it was tough to generate contributions as MP Hall Findlay, and it can only be tougher as ordinary citizen Hall Findlay.
She and several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached. They registered contributions with Elections Canada as late as March 18, only eight days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) called the vote.
"For sure it's going to be more difficult," Ms. Hall Findlay told The Hill Times, arguing a unique Elections Act cap on contributions to leadership candidates and the unusually large field of candidates, 11, have made fundraising to repay the loans comparable to searching for rare coins or lost treasure.
Anyone who has donated to any of the candidates for the contest that took place more than five years ago, and has reached their $1,100 Elections Act limit in leadership contributions for that specific contest, is prohibited from donating any more money to any of the candidates, anytime.
Ms. Hall Findlay, who lent her own campaign $125,000, said the pool of willing and available donors was being shared by 11 candidates from the outset and it has only grown smaller as the big stars—former party leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) recently resigned leader Michael Ignatieff and Toronto MP Bob Rae (Toronto-Centre, Ont.)—gobbled up large donations from the largest number of donors.
"It's so difficult anyway because the pool from which to gain any more contributions for a 2006 leadership was already diminished in 2007 and 2008," Ms. Hall Findlay said. "We all pulled together to get what we could, there just isn't that much out there."
Gerard Kennedy, whose Parkdale-High Park riding in Toronto reverted to New Democrat Peggy Nash, still owes $126,963 in loans and $37,230 in unpaid claims. Joe Volpe, who lost Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto to Conservative Joe Oliver, has a debt of $73,079. Ken Dryden, who lost York Centre in Toronto despite a last-minute rally by Michael Ignatieff and former prime minister Jean Chrétien, still owes $91,603 in loans and $122,984 in unpaid claims.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 6,243
- Points
- 1,260
ModlrMike said:
Yes, but Elections Canada has granted waiver after waiver.
There are, I think two sensible options:
1. Forgive the parts of the debt that are public - probably not too much - and allow the candidates to negotiate something just short of personal bankruptcy to manage the rest; or
2. Have the debts paid for them. Again there are two options -
a. Force the Liberal Party of Canada to pay off the debts, or
b. Pay the debts from public funds - your tax dollars and mine - and use that as a lever to force thoroughgoing reforms to political financing in Canada.
Edit: format/typo
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I have donated to a leadership campaign a while back. It was a $20 into a KFC bucket. I suspect it and more put gas in the car on the way out of town. I would not object to no laws on leadership campaigns. If someone has no rich friends nor popular appeal, I guess they are not suited to lead.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
This column by Lawrence Martin from the Globe and Mail site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. One suspects Mr Martin is warning the left of the dire (unstated) consequences to come.
LAWRENCE MARTIN:
Behold the most powerful PM ever
Posted on Fri, May 20, 2011, 4:31 am by Lawrence Martin
By historical standards, the Conservative majority that Canadians have elected is a small one. With 103 seats, the NDP has as much representation as any second-place party has ever had.
But to say Stephen Harper’s majority is smallish would be to veer wildly off the mark.
It could be argued that on May 2 Canada elected its most powerful government ever, a juggernaut stronger than the 200-plus seats majorities of John Diefenbaker or Brian Mulroney, a government with fewer obstacles in its path than the heavyweight Liberal governments, a government that could well be here for a three-term or 12-year run.
It sounds farfetched until you examine the infrastructure of power and the control Stephen Harper now has over it.
What other prime minister has enjoyed, in combination, all the following advantages:
•A fractured opposition and decimated Liberal party.
•An overpowering political machine that doubles and triples rivals in financial resources.
•A preponderant media advantage with most of the big fourth-estate players on side.
•A public service more submissive than ever before.
•Agencies and watchdog groups that are intimidated or stacked with governing party partisans.
•A majority in the Senate and the House, plus command over an increasingly dysfunctional parliamentary committee structure.
•A bossist structure in the governing party that allows no dissent from within.
Some governments have enjoyed many of these advantages, as well as some others listed below. But none has had them all. In the Canadian system, there are few checks and balances on a majority government. As has been written many times, power has evolved to the prime minister at an unrelenting pace. The trend reached its apex with the recent election. If there are any checks left, they are hard to find. Constitutional experts say it is largely up to the prime minister to respect the conventions of the system and establish his own limits of power out of respect for democracy.
But what gives this majority government even more thrust is the domineering character of Mr. Harper who has shown no hesitation in challenging the authority of the legislative branch and running roughshod over other obstacles.
Though few were impressed by his campaign, the election result turned out perfectly as far as he is concerned. The Liberals have been reduced to third place, an advantage Conservatives have never before enjoyed. Mr. Harper has the added benefit of having as his chief opponent a party of the left which, through its history, has rarely registered support above 20 per cent.
In the past, Tory majorities were usually reliant on a fragile coalition of the West and Quebec. Now the Conservatives have the West and Ontario, a more reliable alliance that will have added weight when, through redistribution, the West and Ontario gain 30 or more seats.
The fundraising advantage of the Tories is greater than ever, allowing this prime minister to pummel opponents with attack ads between elections — campaigns that opponents can’t afford to counter. It will only get harder for them when the PM fulfills his pledge to eliminate public subsidies for political parties.
In the media, the Harper superiority can hardly be overstated. Among the country’s major major media, the NDP, incredibly enough, does not have a single message supporter unless one counts the Toronto Star, which is traditionally Liberal. The country’s media proprietors are hardly fans of left-leaning ideology. By and large their sympathies reside with the Conservatives.
Two huge chains, Sun Media and Postmedia, are strongly conservative. The two national newspapers, the National Post and the Globe and Mail, are conservative. Maclean’s is run by a conservative. AM radio is largely right wing.
As with fundraising and seat distribution, the advantage on the media front is broadening. There is the addition of Sun TV, a network devoted to conservative causes run by a former Harper adviser. The Diefenbaker and Mulroney governments would have given anything to have so much support in the media infrastructure.
Controlling the message is the key to power. Many wonder why the many revelations of ethical corruption don’t stick to the Harper Conservatives. One reason is because the media — particularly the conservative media — don’t stick with them. They move on to the next-day’s news.
Mr. Harper’s well-known penchant for secrecy and message control got a welcome boost last week with a Supreme Court decision on privacy that his team will likely interpret as a licence to withhold any information it pleases. Retirements at the Supreme Court give the prime minister power to give the court, if he chooses, a more conservative lean.
Majority governments of old often faced challenges from within. In the cabinets of those administrations were regional power barons who could stand up to the prime minister of the day. Today’s cabinet is under Mr. Harper’s thumb. The prime minister faces no prospective challenger, unlike Jean Chretien, who enjoyed many of the same power advantages but was constantly looking over his shoulder at Paul Martin. In past governments such as that of Mackenzie King, senior civil servants held power that could put checks on the Prime Minister’s Office. Not so today. In past governments, watchdog agencies weren’t run by lapdog appointees.
Not to be overlooked on the power meter is the influence this government has gained in ethnic communities and in the powerful Jewish community that used to support the Liberals but now is largely behind the Conservatives.
Not to be overlooked — and a credit to Mr. Harper’s skills — is one of most powerful on-the-ground political organizations Canadian politics has ever seen.
All things considered, the prime minister is outfitted with a power package that is unprecedented in scope. A new conservative era has taken root and Stephen Harper is in position to reshape Canada for almost as long as he chooses.
LAWRENCE MARTIN:
Behold the most powerful PM ever
Posted on Fri, May 20, 2011, 4:31 am by Lawrence Martin
By historical standards, the Conservative majority that Canadians have elected is a small one. With 103 seats, the NDP has as much representation as any second-place party has ever had.
But to say Stephen Harper’s majority is smallish would be to veer wildly off the mark.
It could be argued that on May 2 Canada elected its most powerful government ever, a juggernaut stronger than the 200-plus seats majorities of John Diefenbaker or Brian Mulroney, a government with fewer obstacles in its path than the heavyweight Liberal governments, a government that could well be here for a three-term or 12-year run.
It sounds farfetched until you examine the infrastructure of power and the control Stephen Harper now has over it.
What other prime minister has enjoyed, in combination, all the following advantages:
•A fractured opposition and decimated Liberal party.
•An overpowering political machine that doubles and triples rivals in financial resources.
•A preponderant media advantage with most of the big fourth-estate players on side.
•A public service more submissive than ever before.
•Agencies and watchdog groups that are intimidated or stacked with governing party partisans.
•A majority in the Senate and the House, plus command over an increasingly dysfunctional parliamentary committee structure.
•A bossist structure in the governing party that allows no dissent from within.
Some governments have enjoyed many of these advantages, as well as some others listed below. But none has had them all. In the Canadian system, there are few checks and balances on a majority government. As has been written many times, power has evolved to the prime minister at an unrelenting pace. The trend reached its apex with the recent election. If there are any checks left, they are hard to find. Constitutional experts say it is largely up to the prime minister to respect the conventions of the system and establish his own limits of power out of respect for democracy.
But what gives this majority government even more thrust is the domineering character of Mr. Harper who has shown no hesitation in challenging the authority of the legislative branch and running roughshod over other obstacles.
Though few were impressed by his campaign, the election result turned out perfectly as far as he is concerned. The Liberals have been reduced to third place, an advantage Conservatives have never before enjoyed. Mr. Harper has the added benefit of having as his chief opponent a party of the left which, through its history, has rarely registered support above 20 per cent.
In the past, Tory majorities were usually reliant on a fragile coalition of the West and Quebec. Now the Conservatives have the West and Ontario, a more reliable alliance that will have added weight when, through redistribution, the West and Ontario gain 30 or more seats.
The fundraising advantage of the Tories is greater than ever, allowing this prime minister to pummel opponents with attack ads between elections — campaigns that opponents can’t afford to counter. It will only get harder for them when the PM fulfills his pledge to eliminate public subsidies for political parties.
In the media, the Harper superiority can hardly be overstated. Among the country’s major major media, the NDP, incredibly enough, does not have a single message supporter unless one counts the Toronto Star, which is traditionally Liberal. The country’s media proprietors are hardly fans of left-leaning ideology. By and large their sympathies reside with the Conservatives.
Two huge chains, Sun Media and Postmedia, are strongly conservative. The two national newspapers, the National Post and the Globe and Mail, are conservative. Maclean’s is run by a conservative. AM radio is largely right wing.
As with fundraising and seat distribution, the advantage on the media front is broadening. There is the addition of Sun TV, a network devoted to conservative causes run by a former Harper adviser. The Diefenbaker and Mulroney governments would have given anything to have so much support in the media infrastructure.
Controlling the message is the key to power. Many wonder why the many revelations of ethical corruption don’t stick to the Harper Conservatives. One reason is because the media — particularly the conservative media — don’t stick with them. They move on to the next-day’s news.
Mr. Harper’s well-known penchant for secrecy and message control got a welcome boost last week with a Supreme Court decision on privacy that his team will likely interpret as a licence to withhold any information it pleases. Retirements at the Supreme Court give the prime minister power to give the court, if he chooses, a more conservative lean.
Majority governments of old often faced challenges from within. In the cabinets of those administrations were regional power barons who could stand up to the prime minister of the day. Today’s cabinet is under Mr. Harper’s thumb. The prime minister faces no prospective challenger, unlike Jean Chretien, who enjoyed many of the same power advantages but was constantly looking over his shoulder at Paul Martin. In past governments such as that of Mackenzie King, senior civil servants held power that could put checks on the Prime Minister’s Office. Not so today. In past governments, watchdog agencies weren’t run by lapdog appointees.
Not to be overlooked on the power meter is the influence this government has gained in ethnic communities and in the powerful Jewish community that used to support the Liberals but now is largely behind the Conservatives.
Not to be overlooked — and a credit to Mr. Harper’s skills — is one of most powerful on-the-ground political organizations Canadian politics has ever seen.
All things considered, the prime minister is outfitted with a power package that is unprecedented in scope. A new conservative era has taken root and Stephen Harper is in position to reshape Canada for almost as long as he chooses.
- Reaction score
- 1,943
- Points
- 1,160
Power, love it!
Who forced the election?
Old Connie Francis song: "Whose Sorry Now" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHJ_snG3RI
And the media did everything possible to make sure the CPC went down to defeat, so
"Cry Me A River" http://www.last.fm/music/Julie+London/_/Cry+Me+A+River
Who forced the election?
Old Connie Francis song: "Whose Sorry Now" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHJ_snG3RI
And the media did everything possible to make sure the CPC went down to defeat, so
"Cry Me A River" http://www.last.fm/music/Julie+London/_/Cry+Me+A+River
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,404
- Points
- 1,010
Just remembered, from an old Roman cartoon (about Ex Rendez-vous 81):
"Power corrupts, and absolute power is even better".
"Power corrupts, and absolute power is even better".
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
Boy, the libs and their supporters just can't stop living in denial and move on, can they?
Demonizing the PM, when their own past gov'ts like Chretien's (who also ruled with an iron fist) and was rife with proven corruption, (as opposed to the drummed up fantasy charges levelled at the CPC before the election) are conveniently forgotten.
Canadians saw through the charade of the charlatans and sent the instigators to oblivion. Unfortunately, for them and fortunate for Canadians, the libs are the only one in total disbelief and denial.
The country has moved on. If they don't, they belong in the past. They have absolutely nothing to blame for their demise, except their own egos, pompous arrogance and belief that they were the 'natural governing party' and Canadians were a flock of sheep to be herded for their own good, whether they wanted to be or not.
Demonizing the PM, when their own past gov'ts like Chretien's (who also ruled with an iron fist) and was rife with proven corruption, (as opposed to the drummed up fantasy charges levelled at the CPC before the election) are conveniently forgotten.
Canadians saw through the charade of the charlatans and sent the instigators to oblivion. Unfortunately, for them and fortunate for Canadians, the libs are the only one in total disbelief and denial.
The country has moved on. If they don't, they belong in the past. They have absolutely nothing to blame for their demise, except their own egos, pompous arrogance and belief that they were the 'natural governing party' and Canadians were a flock of sheep to be herded for their own good, whether they wanted to be or not.
- Reaction score
- 8,310
- Points
- 1,160
Redeye said:
Not until they realized it was a done deal, before coming on board.
You can't seriously defend the State Broadcaster as pro CPC or the Red Star to name just a couple. Really?
With the exception of Sun News, and a couple of daytime talk hosts, most of the media played up the "what if" angle.....as said, once it was a done deal, they all scurried to climb onboard......strangely, it makes me think of rats huddling on a wooden plank, being tossed about by stormy seas..... :nod:
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 430
Globe Editorial
The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011 10:42PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 30, 2011 2:13PM EDT
"
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic."
More at LINK
The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011 10:42PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 30, 2011 2:13PM EDT
"
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic."
More at LINK
Similar threads
