The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Can someone explain the Belinda Bandwagon?
I am confused. Other than the fact that MP Belinda Stronach is a rich woman is there anything that makes her stand out as a potential leader of the CPC (street cred time, I was happy the PC's nominated Kim Campbell...well, at the time they did it). We have Adam Radwanski of the National Post promoting her.
...Under Harper, this still looks too much like the party Preston Manning built. To many, that's endearing. But the lingering bouts of amateurism and unwillingness to impose the discipline needed to stay on message - like, say, removing those anti-Charter buttons and the guy distributing them from sight as quickly as possible - prevent it from taking the next step forward.
That step, though, may not be far off. If Stronach replaces Harper after the next election, she and the Red Tories around her will probably have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to complete the party's professionalization.
We have Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star supporting her.
...My succeeding guess is that Harper's contribution to his party will be as a kind of John the Baptist, opening the way for centrist Belinda Stronach. Stronach's prospects will soar if either Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice makes it to the presidency in 2008, generating an intense catch-up urge among Canadian voters.
And we have PolySpy conjecturing (correctly I think) as to the reasons behind the MP MacKay Meltdown (I will cut to the chase, protecting MP Stronach's leadership aspirations). For an even bigger carving check out this blast from the past from Paul Wells.
The question I have to ask is have any of you actually watched her in the House of Commons? In my opinion she is incapable of asking a question without a nervous smile on her face and a shaky voice to match. Maybe this will improve but right now she does not inspire confidence. If I am being honest (Simon Cowell is ringing in my head) MP MacKay is much better in Question Period (I find him better than MP Harper in this context). As is MP James Moore, MP Monte Solberg...heck even MP Stockwell Day (who has done a surprisingly good job as Foreign Affairs Critic). Furthermore look at MP Diane Ablonczy over the last couple of days (who was rewarded with second question position by the Conservatives today), that is passion!
But that's just me.
Posted by Greg Staples on March 22, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can someone explain the Belinda Bandwagon? :
This is what's known as the kiss of death. Stronach isn't qualified to be an MP, let alone a cabinet Minister or a leader.
If Conservatives are ever stupid enough to put her in such a position her shortcomings will be all too obvious-and the Richard Gwynn's of the world will be the first to point them out.
The suggestion that if the Americans pick Clinton or Rice (both highly qualified) Canadians will then have to have a woman leader-even one no more educated than Peter Mansbridge- is absurd.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-03-22 8:13:02 PM
Am I the only one here who sees the Liberals taking over the CPC? Who is her Daddy? ...a failed Liberal candidate. As for Gwynn, calling her a Centrist simply promotes his own agenda.
Posted by: John | 2005-03-22 10:02:37 PM
I'm paranoid, I'm paranoid. I see Stronach as a FrontMan, a bought-individual, for a 'new political party' which would actually be the political wing of the Montreal-Ottawa PowerPoint Gang; i.e., Power Corporation, the Desmarais Family et al.
The oligarchy in control of Canada; namely, the Powerpoint Gang, which includes the Montreal based Power Corporation of Canada, owned by the Desmarais family, is THE power - economic and political- in Canada. They effectively run the country via their almost total control of the political infrastructure. They control the political actions by having THEIR people in political power. They therefore achieve economic control because they have corrupted this political system.
Canadians are, for the most part, unaware of the corruption of democracy in this country. Who has ever heard of the PowerPoint Gang? Our federal government controls the MSM, it hides its records, rejects accountability, smothers inquiries...and flings and feeds bread to the people - money and money and money flung at them (hey, it's all the people's money anway, so what the heck..). That silences the masses.
Oh, and the propaganda helps. Keep telling the people that they are tolerant, cooperative, blah blah..and they'll be so intimidated that they'll consider it 'un-Canadian' to critique and think. Ask a question in Canada and you are defined as, oh, any number of things. Racist. ---phobic (insert what you want in the ---).After all, The Government Knows Best.
And, it helps to have an Evil Satan Other; you use this to vent the anger and unrest of the people. They can all Hate The Americans; that will keep them from becoming aware that they are being totally screwed by their own government and have totally, utterly, lost any semblance of a democracy.
Belinda? She's what I would call a Lunch Lady. She 'does lunches'. That's about it. Compare her with women who have achieved their high standing on their own merit. Yes - Condi Rice; now - there's an outstanding individual. Margaret Thatcher. Even, though I disagree with many of her views, Hillary Clinton.
But Belinda Stronach? She's been put in each and every place, including her previous 'job' by her father, his cronies (Mulroney) and others. I suggest she's being set up to replace the Liberal Gang, in case the Liberals lose the next election, to act as the Political Branch of the PowerPoint Gang.
Remember, I'm paranoid. But I can't see any single reason to promote her as a leader other than her ability to be used by others. She's been used by her father; she'll be used by the PowerPoint Gang. That's why she's being promoted. The Gang has to get ready to maintain political power, in case, just in case, the Liberals lose the next election.
Posted by: ET | 2005-03-23 5:53:46 AM
Joe Clark is a Red Tory in a suit.
Belinda Stronach is a Red Tory in a pant suit.
Posted by: Will | 2005-03-23 6:24:36 AM
While conservatives on the US pride themselves in being the rational people in the argument, I can't say the same is true here, particularly for conspirazoids like "ET" who think the enemy has infiltrated their own ranks. You need a vacation buddy. All this squawking about being "qualified" is a bit disingenuous, espcially when Condi Rice's name is continually invoked as being a prime example, as her boss -- who is never mentioned -- is often accused of being a simple minded moron without any qualifications other than his last name (note -- not my opinion). But back to the original theme of this post: the Belinda Bandwagon. I can't answer that directly, but let me give you a little anecdote or two. My wife is generally apolitical. She'd rather watch Access Hollywood than Crossfire, any day of the week. To her, Stephen Harper is akin to funeral director (I'm confident I need not explain any further); however, when Belinda made her run at the leadership my wife sat up and watched. I don't know if she LISTENED, but she watch, and she would have voted for Belinda. Likewise with a lifetime (male) friend who has voted Liberal all his life. He was looking for someone with business friendly policy, and Belinda provided that -- with a little sex appeal to boot. He likes her. Go figure. But in his mind, and to paraphrase as closely as possible, Stephen Harper represents a bunch of religious fanatics, no matter what happened at last weekend's convention. Will Harper ever squeek his way into office? He might. He might not. Belinda will gain experience and find her comfort zone, and she just might bring a little Trudeau-like style, mystique, and sex appeal to a very staid party. Do you remember the fuss over Condi's boots a few weeks ago??? That was worth more than anything on her CV, unfortunately. I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of Stronach. All I'm saying is that those of you who can't understand her appeal and belittle her for the most juvenile of reasons -- and the nutjob theories of elitist supra-governmental corporate double agent conspiracies aside -- need to reconsider the value of people like Belinda in the Conservative Party.
Posted by: Homer Bombeck | 2005-03-23 6:43:07 AM
Red Tory stuff at:
Includes blurbs/endorsements from Chuck Strahl & Hugh Segal....
Red Tory? Red Liberal? Clones.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-23 6:50:58 AM
Ah. Now I get it. For people like Homer Bombeck, the leader of a country need not have any capacities for critical thought, rational analysis, hard and self-earned economic, legal and political experience. None whatsoever.
Instead, it's all about emotion. To hell with rational thought. Emotion. Your leader must seduce, entice and excite your emotions. I remember now. That's because Canadians have been brainwashed to braindeath. They don't think anymore anyway. Just feel..as the money is flung at them, as they are told to 'be tolerant' and not think or critique.
So. What a leader of Canada must have is: style, mystique and sex appeal. If only I'd known.
Trudeau? His bilingualism, multiculturalism and charter have essentially destroyed the democratic infrastructure of this country. But yes indeed, he did have style (oohh, that cape); and mystique (oohh, that finger)..and sex appeal (aahh, those endless divas).
So, if a leader of a country absolutely requires: style, mystique and sex appeal...let's see. Paris Hilton...no...no style, no mystique. Cher. Heck; she had it all but now, she's too old and she can't smile anymore and it's not sexy to glare. That Parrish lady? Sorry. I know!!! Nicole Kidman! Hey, she's Australian; we could get her to simply switch ex-colony communities, come here and be Our Leader!!!Wait, yes indeed--- there are any number of homegrown newcast readers, the ladies of the evening news. We could choose one of them for leader. Add a cape and there you go. Done. Our new leader.
Now-that's the way to choose a leader of a country. They MUST wake up somnambulant TV watchers; style, mystique, sex appeal. To hell with any capacity for rational thought.
Posted by: ET | 2005-03-23 7:06:06 AM
On Monday, Michael Harris, host of Ottawa's CFRA afternoon radio show, was beating the Red Tory drum claiming Stephen Harper's keynote speech was embarrassing, the party's position on SSM an election loser, and the MacKay/Stronach combo the future hope for the party. He was outraged Belinda wasn't asked to speak at the convention and, most amusingly, claimed she'd "been reduced to the role of hostess" by the party. As if the CPC forced her to spend tens of thousands of dollars of her money on a party rather than this extravagance serving her own purposes. Belinda seems to be the empty vessel of choice for the Red Tories to pour their ambitions into.
Posted by: Craig L | 2005-03-23 7:36:34 AM
The perfect leader:
If only.... she ... was a lesbian...
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-23 7:50:56 AM
ET somehow managed to correctly extract from my previous comment a certain amount of the point I was making, along with a bunch of stuff he seems to be completely confused about. First of all, "people like Homer Bombeck" are not Homer Bombeck... they are people like my wife and my longtime Liberal-voting friend. Did you miss "I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of Stronach"? I did not endorse her as leader of the party, though one day she may find her way there. Do you recall recently a poll that suggested that Canadians in general agree with Conservatives on issues, more so than the Liberals? It was suggested that perhaps the Conservatives have a marketing problem. Well, without people like Belinda your marketing problem gets worse. You're just being a crank if you refuse to acknowledge the value of her presence in the caucus. I'm certain we could find other Conservative MPs with fewer skills and qualifications, defaulted into Western ridings without a serious challenge, but you harp on about Belinda because she's priviledged and ambitious. The Bandwagon phenomenon is not hard to understand, unless of course you're an ideological purist, who's probably no more than shaken hands with Belinda. Though you suggested she's not, I'm pretty sure she's capable of rational thought. And all that other stuff, the sex appeal, the style, the big bobbles on her ears? Like it or not, it helps.
Posted by: Homer Bombeck | 2005-03-23 7:55:18 AM
In reply to Homer (oh- and maz2 - what a great alliteration).
You state that you are not speaking for yourself but for your wife and a 'longtime Liberal-voting friend'. So what. You provided this blog with a point-of-view. Whether it was grounded in others or yourself, you can't remove yourself from the responsibility of having taken that step to articulate it.
Now- the marketing problem. You, not your wife or your longtime Liberal-voting friend, stated that 'without people like Belinda your marketing problem gets worse'. Could you provide some proof of that? Does every political party require a Belinda?
You are essentially stating that a political party isn't going to get anywhere unless it's got a gaggle of high-kicking cheerleaders out front.
So, a political party must have these qualities or it will never, ever, get elected. Hmmm. You know, Bush had none of these. He was elected with a large majority. The Democrats sure tried all three - well, I don't know about the bobbles on Kerry's ears..and they went ca-boom in the ditch. Margaret Thatcher; I can just imagine what she would have said to your suggestion; maybe I'd better not imagine it. Hah. Jacques Chirac. My god. Strange, I can't think of any examples.
You then make the really quite logically erroneous conclusion that 'You're just being a crank if you refuse to acknowledge the value of her presence in the caucus". So, IF I state that I reject her value, then, I'm a crank. How does rejecting the delicious Ms Stronach define me as a crank? I think that rejecting her merely means that I am rejecting her for my previously stated reasons: lack of expertise, knowledge and experience; unfortunately, I don't think my cranked personality, which I accept as existent, has any role in that rejection.
Then - you use the 'well, there are worse people' argument...yet another fallacious tactic. So what if there are worse MP's with fewer skills and qualifications? They aren't toasting the limelight and desirous of being the leader. OK?
You state that I 'harp on Belinda because she's privileged and ambitious'. No, I harp on Belinda because ALL she has to offer is that she's privileged and ambitious. I'm of the ignoramus, and cranky mentality where I think a leader ought to have a few more qualities than those two aforementioned superficialities.
And now - there's the notion of an 'ideological purist'...what does that have to do with anything? Shake hands with Belinda? What's the point of that?
You then state that you are 'pretty sure she's capable of rational thought'. Funny, in my view, that's not enough evidence. I need some hard core empirical actual evidence, though I do indeed appreciate your assurance.
Again..the sex appeal, the style, the big bobbles on her ears..again...I'm just a tad bit worried about these as criteria for being the leader of a nation. Just a tad worried. But, if that's how Canada picks its leaders then, heck, no wonder we are irrelevant and invisible.
Posted by: ET | 2005-03-23 8:24:07 AM
1.Well, without people like Belinda your marketing problem gets worse.Homer Bombeck
It depends on what you want marketed. Since she's not a conservative I don't want her opinions marketed as mine.
2.You're just being a crank if you refuse to acknowledge the value of her presence in the caucus. Homer Bombeck.
Oh really. What does she contribute except to bring the party down to the level of the Liberals?
3. I'm certain we could find other Conservative MPs with fewer skills and qualifications, defaulted into Western ridings without a serious challenge, but you harp on about Belinda because she's priviledged(sic) and ambitious. Homer Bombeck
I'm not aware of any other candidates without a University education and with no real working life experience, except for jobs handed to her at daddy's company, who nevertheless have the conceit and arrogance to presume to have the qualifications to be Prime Minister. If there were any such unqualified candidates no one would be supporting them. Stockwell Day was found to be wanting but he was eminently more qualified than Ms. Stronach.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-03-23 8:36:05 AM
ET is onto the left liberal spiel. Good on you, ET.
Speaking of thinkers: Lowell Green, CFRA, is today citing Archimedes as a rebuttal of the so-called global warming/cooling boondoggle (sorry for the use of the portemanteau word; Gee, Fowler is handy) Is portemanteau the right word?
Those with The Answer, the fascists/socialists/communists, flat-earthers, & etc. find their haven in the Liberal Party of Canada. The useful idiots are there, also.
A conservative uses the small, still voice; the question, the calm, rational question. Why? Liberals are flummoxed when they are challenged.
Archimedes "tells us he was in the habit of sending them statements of his latest theorems, but without giving proofs." Why? (A question.)
"... so that those who claim to discover everything, but produce no proofs of the same, may be confuted as having pretended to discover the impossible."
Archimedes: On spirals.
The kicker: Archimedes says on the last occasion when he sent them theorems he included two which were false.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-23 9:56:28 AM
How will I put this more clearly? I do NOT support Belinda Stronach to lead the Conservative Party; however, I value her presence.
Posted by: Homer Bombeck | 2005-03-23 10:02:45 AM
Terry Gain wrote:
"Stockwell Day was found to be wanting but he was eminently more qualified than Ms. Stronach."
Terry could not recognize a winner if you hit him in the face with one.
I am not a Conservative, and I do not expect much from this party, HOWEVER, I do expect them to minimally earn the money that the taxpayers of Canada pay them as members of the Official Opposition. They have a DUTY to pull together people that would be capable of providing Canadians with an Alternative Government to the Liberals. That is their PRIMARY DUTY.
It should be obvious to every school child in Canada, that to win elections, you need more votes than the other guy. You have to give the voters REASONS why they should vote for your party rather than that of your competitor. In this task, the Conservatives have failed consistently since the Mulroney years, when the party talked a good line that convinced Canadians to vote for them, even if it was a pack of lies in the end.
Canadians know political bullshit when they see it, and can smell it with their eyes closed at a 100 meters.
What Harper is having so much trouble with is the "ideological baggage" he is carrying for American Republicans in his party. Guys like Tom Long, Rod Love, Mike Harris, Ralph Klein, Peter Lougheed, and David Frum to mention only a few. For a Tory to have a chance at forming the government, THIS is the malignancy that has to be removed from the Conservative Party for it to move ahead.
Finally NO CANADIAN watching the convention could have missed the fact that Belinda was surrounded by the old Tory Establishment, with people like Bill Davis and others supporting her. Clearly the traditional Conservative Canadian Party is alive, but struggling for air as the "neocons" stuggle to smother it to death.
That is also why Presto is also not supporting Harper. Preston Manning may not be very swift or savy politically, but he is a loyal Canadian, which is more than can be said for the current clique that surrounds Harper and his multinational friends in Calgary and Houston.
So the question is simple. What happens after the Tories lose the next election? Because numerically they have no hope of winning at the current time, given the hard edge that the Conservatives insist upon shooting themselves in the foot with.
Two of the largest electoral landslides in Canadian History happened for Conservatives, first it was Diefenbaker and then it was Mulroney. Unfortunately they pissed away both opportunities in record time.
For Harper to try to win on an American Agenda is pure folly, but also how "neocons" think. And they think that way because they are afterall, losers.
Losers like Bernie Ebbers and Conrad Black.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-23 10:39:07 AM
The decrepit, anti-American, red-herring, has made its appearance again.
The demagogue's casuistry: Find the scapegoat; label them as The Enemy; scare the credulous, the gullible as all demagogues do.
As for me; God Bless America; God bless George Bush.
A maple syrup Canadian; How sweet it is.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-03-23 10:48:55 AM
C,mon! Poor Belinda! So she's a little short on ideas. Big deal! She's got great hair!
Like every time I see her I swear I can hear the sulrty strains of a distant sax.
Colour her middle name *Ginger*!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2005-03-23 12:09:53 PM
Anyone who saw Jim Peterson's gushing welcoming tribute of Stronach to Parliament would realize this gal is TROUBLE.
Posted by: mr | 2005-03-23 5:10:56 PM
I agree with Terry, Stockwell was more qualified than Belinda. However Stock lacked perkies, a mega rich daddy and eye shadow.
Belinda can't do karate kicks though and would probably look comical in a skidoo suit.
Joking aside - I think Stock was a breath of fresh air. I would love to have seen him blow into Ottawa with his hutzpah intact and drop-kick liberal ass. I'm wondering if Steve is ever going to ever get around to doing anything even close to that.
Posted by: raskolnikov | 2005-03-23 5:43:52 PM
For the record I think Stephen Harper is terrific. He has most of the qualities of a great leader. On a scale of leadership qualities he is an 8 ( Belinda is a 2 - down there with Joe Clark and just below Chretien, who is a 3. BTW , even though I disagree with a lot of what he did, Trudeau was a 9).
At the same time I think the merger was a mistake. The Tories are confused. They will be accused of being prepared to do anything to win power. Their mortal enemies , the clueless and unprofessional MSM, are bulding them up just so they can let them down - when it really hurts. I will explain later exactly how they will do this.
In the meantime, it will be said that the new Tories don't have the courage of their convictions - or their convictions are wrong. McKay's rotten boroughs is a perfect example. A 20 member riding in Quebec has the same say as a 2,000 member riding in Alberta? Ridiculous. What's in it for Albertans?
Oh yeah they can work for a party where they will play second fiddle to an Eastern Canadian minority whose values are not the same as theirs.
Read Barbara Kay's article in today's National Post. 62% of Canadian voters do not support the Liberals extremist abortion law (which again, for the record, is as extreme as it can possibly be) and they (the new Conservatives) don't have the courage or the communication skills to take on the extremist MSM who scream that anyone who opposes their extremist abortion law is an extremist.
This is straight out of Alice and Wonderland, except it would tax the imagination of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.
Well,if you aren't prepared to take on an issue, opposed by the fanatical extremists who control MSM, when you have 62 % of Canadian voters behind you, what are you prepared to take on?
And what good are you if you are no better than cynical, brain dead, ethically challenged, extremist Liberals.
It would be well to remember why Joe Clark was elected leader of the PC's despite the fact he had flunked out of two law schools at either end of the country. It was not because of what he was, it was because of what he wasn't. He was the leading candidate who was not from Quebec (Mulroney), not French Canadian (Wagner), not a former Liberal (Hellyer) and not a female (the delightful Flora MacDonald).
The point is he was elected because of what he wasn't, not because of what he was. The same lesson was not applied at this convention. The new Tories are hoping to be elected because of what they don't stand for.(The right to life) Pity. And good luck.
The invitation to send a new set of incompetents to Ottawa is less than inviting . We tried that with Mulroney. In order to win he got into bed with a bunch of separatists. It was a disaster. I want something different. I want conservatives who have the courage of their convictions and the patience to properly see the job through.
Finally, if Joe(Red)Green opposes an idea, you can pretty well take it to the bank that it is a good idea - and vice versa.
I don't know a winner? Bullshit. Though raised just outside Toronto I have been a Hab fan my entire 58 year life. Incidentally, before the polls closed in 1984 I predicted that the Tories would win 212 seats. They won 211.(I did not predict that Tony Roman would sit as an independent). Joe Green? That night he was too busy shitting his pants to make any predictions.
Oh and I have supported the liberation of Iraq from day one. MSM doesn't know it yet but victory in Iraq is as certain as a Hab victory in the bygone days of Beliveau and Richard- Nos Glorieux.
Eighty five insurgents were killed at training camp on Sunday. There are now 60,000 fully trained Iraqis ( backed by the most powerful military force in history) fighting between 12,000 and 20,000 insurgents- who are despised by the people of Iraq- as they should be. The result is inevitable.
Some people don't give up just because times are tough. Two years from now Iraq will be a functioning peaceful democracy where the oil wealth will be used for the benefit of the people and those who shamelessly opposed the liberation of the Iraqis will be trying to escape down the rabbit hole of history. The people who will accomplish this are the true conservatives. There used to be lot of these kinds of people in Canada. They are now virtually extinct.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-03-23 8:43:49 PM
" A 20 member riding in Quebec has the same say as a 2,000 member riding in Alberta? Ridiculous. What's in it for Albertans?"
A province with about the same population as Calgary (PEI) gets 10 effective elected senators and gets the same say as the entire province of Alberta ? Riduculous. What's in it for Albertans ?
Posted by: nBob | 2005-03-23 10:00:37 PM
Terry Gain just cannot focus:
"The invitation to send a new set of incompetents to Ottawa is less than inviting."
It will surprise you Terry, but I agree with you.
We do not need a new version of Lyin Brian Mulroney. Surprise, Surprise, we agree.
"We tried that with Mulroney. In order to win he got into bed with a bunch of separatists. It was a disaster. I want something different."
No argument from me, I think working with ANY separtists is a BAD idea with capital letters.
Its too bad that Western Conservatives were not very critical when you were looking at the leadership of your party as it then was, when Lyin Brian Mulroney was manipulating the party to stab Joe Clark in the back. Of course as you say, Joe Clark was not much of a catch as leader either, but loyalty should count for something don't you think?
Terry then goes on to state:
"I want conservatives who have the courage of their convictions and the patience to properly see the job through."
Well many people believed that Preston Manning was going to stay the course, grow the Reform Party and build up a new Western based political force in Canadian politics. Unfortunately that was about the time that Presto met up with Conrad Black, a "neocon" and now it looks like a Canadian who has comitted felony offences in the US. So you need to find Conservative leaders that keep better company.
Then you make the following gratuitous attack, I guess because you cannot think of anything better to say.
"Finally, if Joe(Red)Green opposes an idea, you can pretty well take it to the bank that it is a good idea - and vice versa."
Then how do you account for the fact that you and I both agree that Mulroney was a disaster for the Conservatives and for Canada, and that dealing with separtists is a bad idea no matter where they are found?
You cannot have your cake and eat it to. My advice is to concentrate on your DUTY as members of the Official Opposition, and that is to provide Canadians with an "Alternative Government" that is actually capable of replacing the Liberals. And I am certain, that this will make the Liberals even better and more competitive, which is a good thing for Canada.
If Conservatives started thinking, instead of foaming, perhaps you might rediscover your western based political strength that actually got John Diefenbaker elected as Prime Minister.
Am I going too fast for you Terry?
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-24 10:29:37 AM
Terry, listen up.
This is an example from Bob of "foaming". It happens. Bob is a member of the Law Society of Alberta, so foaming happens often.
"A province with about the same population as Calgary (PEI) gets 10 effective elected senators and gets the same say as the entire province of Alberta ? Riduculous. What's in it for Albertans?"
How does a dumb statement like this, win political seats and power in PEI?????
Bob is a lawyer from Alberta, so he cannot figure this one out.
Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-03-24 10:35:07 AM
I must correct figures you gave in your comment. PEI, has a population of 137,800 (Statscan 2003) whereas Calgary has a population close to 1,000,000. PEI has four senators (one per 34,500)while all of Alberta with a population of 3,153,700 (same source) has six (one per 525,616). Of those six five will sit as Liberals. With 26 of 28 federal seats held by Conservatives you can see how well the wishes of Alberta voters are repesented in the Senate. That is PM PM's idea correcting the democratic deficit and of healing western alienation!
Posted by: BobWood | 2005-03-24 5:23:50 PM
An apology. I started off rightly pointing out to nBob the numbers regarding PEI vs Alberta but the rest of my comment was aimed more appropriately at "Who says there's a democratic deficit"
Posted by: BobWood | 2005-03-24 6:38:42 PM
Bob- thanks for their numbers. I admit I was playing fast and loose with em but my point was that it’s official CPC policy to have equal representation in the senate despite population size (isn’t it 10 per province?) yet some in the party have a problem extending equal representation despite membership size to the body that makes its policy.
I do think PM missed the boat on the new appointments. Even if he didn’t want to name the elected ones he could have at least met Alberta half way and appointed mostly conservatives.
Posted by: nBob | 2005-03-24 6:39:48 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.