Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Adscam was organized and criminal | Main | Isn't he adorable? »

Saturday, November 26, 2005

The new Conservative plan to get elected

Have a high profile caucus member get into bed with the Desmarais family. Peter MacKay is reportedly dating Sophie Desmarais, a daughter of politician collector Paul Desmarais Sr. The last three elected prime ministers all had connections to Desmarais.

(HT: Gods of the Copybook Headings)

Posted by Paul Tuns on November 26, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83497ac3f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The new Conservative plan to get elected:

Comments

What else do you need to know about Peter MacKay? Belinda Stronach pre-emptively left his pillowside to rewrite Canadian history, and now this?

Got it. Good enough.

Posted by: EBD | 2005-11-27 5:11:59 AM


It makes sense for the Desmarais family, who act as any tribal Cartel would act - to control events by kin-structures.

I've said before that Canada has moved into tribalism, i.e. a system of governance which is controlled by a non-elected, closed-membership tribe - the Cartel in the Montreal-Ottawa corridor. It's made up of the Desmarais, Power Corp, Magna etc group. Canada is not a democracy; it's an oligarchy. The electorate has effectively, no power in Canada. The House of Commons has been reduced to irrelevance, for the majority of power and decisions, are done outside of the House and are never put to the vote.

The political system in Canada, both the minor part which is elected and the major part which is appointed, MUST be controlled by the Cartel- to ensure their economic dominance. They've controlled the Liberals for years (and Mulroney before that).

I suspect they are after Peter MacKay, for he is the successor to Harper. They either want him in the Tribe (Belinda, Sophie) or out of Ottawa (Nova Scotia). Harper is closed to them; they can't control him, but, they can try to destroy him - witness the Scott Brison recent attempts, the current attempts and so on.

I suspect the scenario is:

1) IF the Liberals win another minority, then, they allow Martin to remain for a year, thenn turf him out, and replace him with Ignatieff. That is probably their preference.

2) IF the Conservatives win a minority, then, make a lot of trouble within the CPC, and set MacKay up to take over from Harper. Difficult.

Remember, they are the Kings of Canada; they control the country. The elected structure of Canada is merely their Door to Power. They don't care whether the governing party is Liberal, CPC or the Green Party. As long as they control it.

I feel that a serious problem in Canada is that this Cartel has effectively prevented the development within Canada of a vigorous 'high-investment' class. A robust industrial economy needs at least 20% of its population able to amass large financial surplus, to invest in long-term, future-oriented, high risk development. Canada, with its high taxes, has prevented such a class developing.

This has led to the isolation of such industrial dev't within this small group of people. The rest of the Canadian citizenry are middle class; they simply can't gather the surplus for high scale investment. So- the Cartel does it, for themselves - and - Canada must also rely on massive foreign investment because it won't permit its own citizens to do this task.

That's dangerous. To enable a small group to become economic Kings - and link this group to the political system so that they can prevent others from moving into that area; ....that's dangerous. That's Hussein's Iraq.

To corrupt the parliamentary system so that the electorate has lost control of the gov't - that's dangerous.

How does one deal with this?

Posted by: ET | 2005-11-27 8:28:35 AM


RE:
The government announced earlier this week a $2.5-million agreement-in-principle with the National Congress and 10 other Chinese-Canadian groups.

(But not the group who actually represent the head tax payers)

Can you say....Kick-back to the Liberal party??????????
Can you say....Donate to your ridings liberal candidate??????

The Liberal way....!!!!!
Is still going strong...!!!!!

Posted by: B Wylie Ajax, Ont. | 2005-11-27 8:48:37 AM


In a letter I sent to PM.PM

[email protected]

Everyone I talk to agrees....
The liberal party and organised crime, are one and the same, and I'm not afraid to say it, here or anywhere....
Hey Mr. Dithers, sue me I dare ya...
Lets get this into the courts where it belongs...

Posted by: B Wylie Ajax, Ont. | 2005-11-27 8:56:35 AM


Definition: "MARTINIZE"-- (MARTIN-IZE)
To Martinize is to Clean (News), to Launder (Money), to sterilize (information), Sanitize (Liberals), to Deodorize (stench of Corruption), to Entitle Etc.

Posted by: bobsuruncle | 2005-11-27 10:32:30 AM


Poor old Peter, This man is not a dewy eyed youngster, he is middle aged. He should make a decision, RIGHT NOW - is he for or against the Conservative Party. He has done LOTS of damage under the guise of a frivolous young guy still looking for his true love. He let that beautiful girl he was shacked up with, during the PC leadership convention, go - now he is hitting on brittle divorcees like BS and Sofie? Get a grip Peter, if you want a life after Politics (even WHILE in office), find someone decent who will not control you. Peter is acting like a liability - is he? Keep him out of the loop Stephen - he will overturn the election IF he is not really a Conservative. Don't trust him until he earns that trust - he is too volitale and easy to deter. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me trice...

Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-27 11:01:11 AM


I honestly wonder if Pete here got down on his knee and kissed the old Kingmaker's ring.

Posted by: Dishwasher | 2005-11-27 11:47:57 AM


Don't you guys remember? On the day of the wedding of the Godfather's daughter, he can refuse nothing.

How's this for irony: the Tories use the same methods as the Liberals to get power!

Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-27 11:52:55 AM


Peter McKay just doesn’t seem to have the nose for sniffing out the “right” kind of partnership. Unless … perhaps he’s a Trojan Horse. Maybe he’s dating these Stronach/Demarais maidens to break thru the walls of the Librano$$ cartel?? The plot thickens.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-27 12:19:51 PM


Scott - there's nothing ironic about it. It's the way the Canadian system has always worked. There never has been a party dedicated to right-wing principles. The dominant Librano$$ have always been "opposed" by a nominally conservative but really Liberal-lite party. Mulroney was a backed by Desmarias just as Chretien and Martin were. As suggested above, Harper's a fly in the ointment, though given the apparent slithering to the left not much of one. But his replacement by a completely tame MacKay would just return the situation to normal.

Posted by: JR | 2005-11-27 12:42:01 PM


nomdenet - I think it's more likely that MacKay is responding to the allure of gold.

Posted by: JR | 2005-11-27 12:45:14 PM


JR- I think that Harper's 'slither to the left' is pragmatics. Since, as you point out, Canada has always been a 'Liberal, i.e., middle of the road, centralist, welfare-state, regardless of the Name of the Party - then, it has neither the tradition nor the ability, yet, to move into a conservative ideology.

Canada has never, ever, had to 'take action' on its own. That includes war - the first two world wars were actions taken by the Commonwealth. Canada has shown it is incapable of a sovereign decision - note that Chretien used the UN as the excuse not to help out in Iraq; Canada will only do as the UN says. Note how Celucci was dumbfounded how, in the BMD situation, Canada had effectively given up its sovereignty over its own territory.

The Conservative ideology is focused around an ideology of self-reliance, accountability for decisions, and decision-making. Canada doesn't have that tradition. Its economy is piggy-backed to that of the USA; its foreign policy is submerged within that of the UN.

Compare Canada with Australia, which has, effectively, 'grown up' and taken charge of its economy, its foreign policy, its politics. Compare how the governing bodies in Australian politics are, for example, all elected rather than, as in Canada, primarily appointed by one office.

I hesitate to put my hopes in one area of Canada, namely the West, because that's an enormous burden on any people. But, the West is by far the most enterprising, innovative and individualist of all of Canada. I am hoping that they can free Canada from its Nanny-Strings, and that Canada can, finally, grow up.

Posted by: ET | 2005-11-27 1:08:56 PM


ET - I tend to agree with your reasons for the slither. But this bolsters my point about Liberal-lite 'conservatism' pandering to a Canada hooked on nanny-statism. It would be nice to see more of the kind of straight-forward support for free-enterprise that Gwyn Morgan (Encana CEO) expressed in his article in yesterday's Financial Post - he even attacked the government healthcare monopoly on terms straight out of Adam Smith, von Mises, Hayek and Friedman.

Posted by: JR | 2005-11-27 1:28:50 PM


I think it is simply a fact that the frontier of any country is going to have the most entrepreneurial spirit as in Alberta or as in the Red States versus Manhattan.

Ontario is a mature investment in the pejorative sense of mature. Ontario’s auto-pact is mature and gets new investment from nearly bankrupt GM because Health Care is subsidized by all of Canada and is cheaper then the HMO’s GM has to pay for in the US. Stronach’s Magna benefits from this. Ditto, Bombardier looks to the EDC Crown Corp to finance its new Regional Jets. On and On it goes; I should mention CTV and Global get big TV production grants from Librano$$.

This is why the cartels of Bell/Globe and Mail/CTV, CanWest, Desmarais/Power, Stronach/Magna all support the Librano$$. Can we bust this up before we get even more pigs at the trough? That’s what this election is about – essentially it’s whether we become like failoing economies like France and Germany or return to the Anglosphere for our policy roots.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-27 1:37:32 PM


In the US there are three reasons why we manage to keep the spirit of conservatism operating.
1. Our Constitution gives us powers that conservative legal groups can use to assert our rights in the face of opposition.
2. We have a tradition of 'rugged individualism' that has been diminished with postmodernism, but has not been lost or forgotten and is therefore still a factor that can be appealed to.
3. We have a strong conservative movement that has been strengthened over a number of decades. We have popular conservative spokesmen, radio shows, publications, think tanks, Fox News, and the conservative exponents are relentlessly educating the American public every day.

You'll notice I did not mention Republican politicians. Republican politicians would sell us all out in a second if we did not have the above-mentioned 3 supports working for us all the time.

You'll notice a few years back the left tried to do a major encroachment on our gun rights. Because of our powerful grassroots citizen's lobby, the National Rifle Association, using our 2nd amendment to the Constitution as legal precedent and rallying point, conservatives beat them back and forced them to surrender.

If we had the situation down here that you have in Canada, I'm not certain if an option beyond separation would present itself. I find the situation with Peter McKay remarkable timing when one considers that this is announced at the very juncture that Harper is linking organized crime with the Liberal Party.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-11-27 2:00:53 PM


What is it with MacKay and his desire to get into bed with Liberals?

Posted by: Shameer Ravji | 2005-11-27 4:10:27 PM


"They exchanged glances in the midst of all the rancorous pre-election debate and had dinner plans that night at Beckta, a popular restaurant favoured by many of Ottawa's politicians, including Cabinet ministers. ...

"She gave him a little peck on the cheek as they left," said one source who had seen them out together."

Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that this whole event was staged? They may be having a romance, but everything about this public meeting was orchestrated.

First they show up at Beckta, which apparently is swarming with politicians. Obviously, this was intentionally done to be seen at this time. Then she gives him this little peck on the cheek to make certain that everyone watching them understands the nature of this relationship.

And then this whole column is swarming with unnamed sources characterizing the relationship and putting it all into perspective.

I would be willing to bet money on the idea that this entire event was staged, that it was intentionally staged at the present time, and that it is setting the stage for future political developments.

After the way Belinda dumped McKay and crossed the aisle on the eve of an earth-shaking political vote, it is clear that the power brokers can manipulate just about anything that they want.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-11-27 4:47:23 PM


Pete is an idiot. Who in his right mind would sleep with a Desmarais, or should I say the Liberal Party of Canada. Petie's actions have simply given credence to the satirical notion that men think with their little head. The moment I read about Petie, I lost every single ounce of respect for him. He is sleeping with the enemy; AGAIN.

Posted by: Debris Trail | 2005-11-27 5:07:20 PM


I have to give Pete a pass on BS because she fooled me; I thought she was a Conservative. As to the Desmarais play, one of the “scary” issues we face IMHO is that we can’t quickly dismantle the Librano$$ cartel arrangements without risking the economy going into a tailspin – that’s how pervasive the cartel is.

The issue for Canada is to elect enough conservatives to expose the rot. That exposure (in the Gun Registry, HRDC, the Foundations, the EDC) will raise anxiety as it pulls people out of denial that Canada is very corrupt. Then we’ll gradually have to fortify the rotten structure before we dismantle and repair it.

Realistically, we won’t get a mandate to dismantle the cartels of Desmarais/Stronach/Bell. All that will have to wait for the next election. Does this mean Pete has been encouraged by the Mulroney’s to send Desmarais the signal that conservatives understand the pervasiveness risk? Or is he just sending a signal to the general electorate that he’s not been whusified by BS? If we had the 3-prong support system in place that Greg outside Dallas talks about, then we might be able to find out, particularly if we had a FOX Canada.

Before we all panic, Canada is better off, from what I’m hearing from friends in the UK, than the Blair/Labour corruption and of course France and much of Europe is a disaster. It’s all relative I guess. But since 9/11 we’re all getting educated (I admit that I am) as to what a mess the West has gotten itself into with our democracy deficits.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-27 5:44:13 PM


VANCOUVER (CP) - It appears politics and sports don't mix at the Grey Cup.

As Prime Minister Paul Martin was introduced Sunday afternoon in Vancouver, some in the sellout crowd of 59,195 greeted him with resounding boos.

Posted by: JR | 2005-11-27 7:18:26 PM


P. MacKay is now tainted as far as I am concerned. He has already brought a trojan horse into his party these latest shenanigans show either very poor judgement, another attempt to corrupt the CPC, or an indication as to where his allegiances lie.

Posted by: Mallard | 2005-11-27 8:50:02 PM


Seems to me Peter is thinking with the wrong head... And he's deputy leader, is he?

On the surface, he strikes me as a fool.

Posted by: djb | 2005-11-27 10:02:12 PM


ET: I must take you to task with your denouncing the Canadian people prior to Pierson and trudeau. The soldiers who fought for the freedom of other people in WWII VOLUNTEERED in spite of, not because of, crazy old King (a Liberal who 'spoke' with his dead Mom). OUR greatest generation LED they did not follow - these were dirty thirties kids who offered their lives for the well being of others - lots of people stayed home and made a fortune off the war - but HUGE numbers did not. Think of Dieppe, Normandy, The Battle of Britain.
I agree that WWI was a useless slaughter of fine young men BUT Canadians were gallant and compassionate, for the most part. It was brutal trench warfare; horrible beyond imagining for both sides - read any war stories written by WWI soldiers and you will find that they did not hate the other side PERSONALLY, they hated that war and the slaughter for nothing. Nothing was gained and the Treaty of Versailles was a blueprint for the Nazi and Communist Socialist plagues. I will agree that our present leaders and some Canadians are truly spineless.

Posted by: jema54j | 2005-11-28 1:20:37 AM


Any sincere conservative would be well advised to take Peter McKay's most recent connection to the Desmarais family, very seriously. McKay is a silly schoolboy. He may or may not have the intelligence to realize he is being used. Or is this his big chance to oust Harper? He certainly is not a statesman. I urge all Conservatives to persuade the Media to go after his story. McKay is a threat to any Conservative success.

Scribe

Posted by: Scribe | 2005-12-02 8:12:30 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.