CanPol Thread: the United Right etc.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What happened to Asher?

He asked that his login be perma restricted. I don't know all the reasons, I just saw that much on another site.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As for the Constitution, at least he got Quebec to agree, unlike some other Constitutional moron I could name, but won't *cough* Trudeau *cough*

As I recall, the PQ was in power in Quebec in 1982, under Levesque, whereas in 1993 the Liberals were in power.

[notyoueither]

Yeah, trying to get the Constitution brought home while the people in Quebec City were sure not to sign it was a brilliant bit of timing, or maybe not.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As to why it was bitter and divisive? It had unions, nationalists, and opponents of the Tories united in opposition. On his side, Mulroney had business, economists, and most Canadians as it turned out. However, the people who lost never forgot, nor forgave.

The majority of Canadians voted against Mulroney and his free trade deal.

The PCs had 43% of the vote, Liberals with 32% and the NDP with 20%. The Liberals and the NDP were both against NAFTA.

Opposition to the NAFTA came from many sources, not just "unions, nationalists and Tory opponents." Most economists I knew said they agreed with free trade in principle, but did not like NAFTA.

A major concern among several of my econ profs at the time was that Canada was putting all of tis eggs in one basket. Instead of diversifying our import and exports to other global regions, we were tying ourselves even more to the US economy.

[notyoueither]

Well then, it's a good thing the election wasn't fought on NAFTA then, isn't it? It was fought on the CA-US Free Trade Agreement.

You are correct that there was wide-spread opposition to it though. I tried to indicate some of the high lights and major groups. I believe you that many economists would not have been enthusiastic though. Factors other than profession had a major influence. It was ideological and very bitter, and it set the tone for Mulroney's second term.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well then, it's a good thing the election wasn't fought on NAFTA then, isn't it? It was fought on the CA-US Free Trade Agreement.

You're right. My mistake.

[cinch]

QUESTION: Will the UniCons (see, it's like unicorns... get it?... sorry) be more or less likely to bend over and let the Americans screw our citizens up the arse?

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

U.S. won't change policy on deportations to third country: ambassador
Last Updated Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:42:03
OTTAWA - The U.S. government will continue to deport Canadian citizens to third countries if they pose a risk to American national security, said Paul Cellucci, U.S. ambassador to Canada.

Cellucci made the comment after he spoke to a conference on Canada-U.S relations on Thursday.

He emphasized that the U.S respects the Canadian passport, but homeland security comes first.


Cellucci's comments came a week after Paul Martin, the incoming prime minister, pledged to further investigate the handling of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, who was deported to Syria rather than Canada by U.S. authorities in 2002.

"The president has no more solemn obligation than to protect the safety of the people of the United States," said Cellucci, and if that means acting unilaterally, so be it, he added.

Federal Solicitor General Wayne Easter downplayed the impact Cellucci's comments will have on Canada-U.S. relations, while Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty Canada said he found Cellucci's comments troubling.

"It contravenes international law and should, and can play, no part in any effort to increase security," said Neve. "If anything, (he) is fostering greater insecurity in the world."
*********************************************

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/04...passport031204

[Ben Kenobi]

Great Right Hope: Tory-Alliance merger set to become reality Saturday
46 minutes ago

ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Alliance and the Tories are set to tie the knot Saturday in a political wedding that would create a new Conservative Party of Canada to challenge the mighty Liberals.

The unite-the-right movement passed a big political test Friday and then a legal one, leaving the parties poised to strut down the aisle after a long and rocky courtship.

The former foes will unite under one banner in time for an expected spring election if Progressive Conservative delegates vote Saturday to accept the merger.

Alliance members voted 96 per cent in mail-in balloting to create the new party, Alliance Leader Stephen Harper announced Friday.

The merger then cleared a legal hurdle hours later when an Ontario Superior Court judge tossed out a challenge by Tories who opposed it - a blow to so-called Red Tories who see the Alliance as too right-wing.

Harper was already heralding a "new era in Canadian politics."

"Together, we will build a formidable conservative movement - one conservative voice from coast to coast to challenge the Martin-Chretien government and to put an end to a decade of waste, corruption and mismanagement."

The Alliance result was nearly uniform across the country, with members in every province voting at least 93 per cent in favour of uniting. About 53,000 ballots were cast.

The merger is an attempt to halt a decade of vote-splitting among conservatives that helped the Liberals cruise to three successive electoral triumphs.


Progressive Conservative Leader Peter MacKay said he expects his party to reach the two-thirds majority of votes needed to accept the deal.

"I am confident that a large majority of members of the Progressive Conservative party will accept that direction," MacKay said.

"I think the level of support is similar in both parties and I certainly hope the result will be very similar to the one we saw with the Canadian Alliance today."

The vast majority of Tory riding associations contacted in recent days said they have elected a full slate of eight pro-merger delegates for Saturday's vote. The Tories are using a delegate system rather than the Alliance's one-member, one-vote system.

Tory delegates at 26 sites across the country are to cast their votes in a "virtual convention" run from Ottawa. Final results are to be announced by mid-afternoon.

Harper offered a sneak preview of an attack theme that will be used against the Liberals. He said Canadians have no idea what Liberal Leader Paul Martin stands for and a strong opposition will force him to take a clear position on issues.

"I think what Paul Martin has had going for him is the ability to be a chameleon - to be anything to anybody.

"To conservatives he's a conservative, to socialists he's a leftist. And sooner or later he's going to get called on this."

Vote-splitting began in Conservative ranks after former prime minister Brian Mulroney's coast-to-coast coalition began crumbling during the bitter constitutional debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Western-based staunch conservatives abandoned the Tories to throw their support behind the upstart Reform party, while Quebec nationalists flocked to the Bloc Quebecois.

Several subsequent attempts at re-uniting the parties have met with spectacular failure, including the process that led to the creation of the Alliance.

Members had attempted to merge the Reform party and the Tories for the 2000 election but the vast majority of Conservatives never came onside.

A main sticking point has been the ideological gulf between the Alliance and the more socially progressive Tories.

The Alliance was hobbled by perceptions it was too right-wing to lead the country and seen as hostile to Quebec nationalists and many Atlantic Canadians.

That has some Tories fearing the merger will fail if they, too, are tainted by such perceptions.

Many critics have questioned the logic of a united right, saying most Tory voters prefer the more moderate Liberals as their second choice instead of the Alliance.

That has some Red Tories predicting an exodus to the Liberals and yet another crushing landslide in the election anticipated next spring.

The latest polls suggested a united right-wing party could place third behind the NDP.

But Harper scoffed at those poll results and said things will change when the new party actually exists.

"Certainly (we're) still behind the Liberals but well ahead of any opposition force. And it'll will be the only party with strength across the country," Harper said.

Reform party founder Preston Manning said it's time to put differences aside.

"I think what people should focus on is the things they have in common . . . This is people saying, 'Look, we've got to stop the vote-splitting and work together."'

He said the parties agree on cutting spending and lowering taxes, and share similar foreign policy.

Thanks partly to a disjointed opposition, the Liberals have never trailed in the polls for a single day over the last 10 years.

In 2000, the Alliance managed to elect only two MPs east of Manitoba - both in Ontario - and the Liberals romped to another election victory, boosting their seat total to 172 from 155 in 1997.


Hoooyaaa!

96% in favour! My sources indicated maybe 80% but 96%

Even sweeter that Orchard lost his court challenge.

Now we just need those PCs to ratify the merger.

[notyoueither]

Reform party founder Preston Manning said it's time to put differences aside.

"I think what people should focus on is the things they have in common . . . This is people saying, 'Look, we've got to stop the vote-splitting and work together."'

It took him 12 years to realise this?

[Ben Kenobi]

When you start a party from scratch, you have other pressing concerns. He did offer to join the two parites earlier, but it is not until now that the desire has been requited.

[notyoueither]

I am specifically questioning the wisdom of starting that party, again.

I just hope the rank and file of the CA will realise that power will only be achieved by softening on some social issues, otherwise... one party rule, or possibly worse, the NDP being the second choice in Ontario.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When you start a party from scratch, you have other pressing concerns. He did offer to join the two parites earlier, but it is not until now that the desire has been requited.

Yeah, his pressing concern was to replace the PCs, even if it meant the conservatives lost power and the Liberals reigned with a free hand for 10 years.

Not that I've got any complaints. Manning has been a great asset for the anti-PC crowd.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, if the conservatives were not so obstinate under Joe Who, we could have seen a merger more than a year ago.

As for their position on social issues, we shall see what happens when they start formulating policy over the next few weeks. Just because there are many liberal parties, why should the Conservatives be carbon copies of the liberals? There are plenty of people who don't like the social policies of the liberals, and should have a voice in parliament.

[notyoueither]

Most people East of Manitoba are quite happy with the social policies of the Liberals... get the hint?

Also, it was not for the Tories to cave in. They represent Canadians, from coast to coast, who have differences with the extremes of the NDP and the sleeze of the Liberals, and who are not in the final stages of a temper tantrum that shut them out of any chance at power for 10 years.

Follow us, Luke. We will show you how to use the force.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's talk turkey then.

Define progressive social values. Which ones would you be willing to live withiout in order to have a party with integrity?

[notyoueither]

Actually, I do have to hope that the new party can maintain the desire for rebalancing Confederation while gaining electoral prospects in the East.

We will most likely have to wait for the population shift to the West to play out, but fairness in Confederation should never fall off the table. I just hope that we can remember what it feels like when it comes time to make sure the Maritimes are happy campers in this great experiment.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Define progressive social values. Which ones would you be willing to live withiout in order to have a party with integrity?

I think the question is more: How much "integrity" (and I quote that heavily) are the UniCons willing to give up in order to gain support?

I mean, sure, they could go the anti-gay-marriage, abortion-restriction, gun-restriction-lifting route... And lose the election. Sure, there are a lot of people who would enjoy that policy, but the sad fact is, most of them live west of Churchill.

I think you could, feasibly, run on a platform involving removal of the gun registration, but once you get into gay-marriage/abortion/immigration territory, you are burying yourself.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's talk turkey then.

Define progressive social values. Which ones would you be willing to live withiout in order to have a party with integrity?

What is there to be opposed or discarded that would not alienate a huge section of the country, including the core support of the Tories?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by cinch
I think the question is more: How much "integrity" (and I quote that heavily) are the UniCons willing to give up in order to gain support?

I mean, sure, they could go the anti-gay-marriage, abortion-restriction, gun-restriction-lifting route... And lose the election. Sure, there are a lot of people who would enjoy that policy, but the sad fact is, most of them live west of Churchill.

I think you could, feasibly, run on a platform involving removal of the gun registration, but once you get into gay-marriage/abortion/immigration territory, you are burying yourself.

I think the real question is who will win the battle for the soul of the new party. If hardline opponents of abortion, or strongly religious anti gay-marriage factions win that battle, then the party will remain true to them and write off its chances of forming a government in the forseeable future.

But you know what? I'm a Tory and have been for over 20 years. I am not in conflict with our current social programs, and neither are many people who share my views and affiliation. I would not lose a shred of integrity were the new party to follow current social policies, slightly more conservative fiscal policies, and stop trying to annoy the government of the US into treating us like Cuba while signing every international agreement endorsed by the Greens in Germany to feel good about being 'with it'.

The difference between the Tories and Liberals should be ones of degree, and focus. Sometimes the Liberals should be in, and sometimes the Tories. There should be a balance. Extremes in either direction will either break the parties holding to them, or break the country. The reason why Canada so often prefers the middle of the road is that all, or most Canadians can usually live with that course.

[Ben Kenobi]

I just hope that we can remember what it feels like when it comes time to make sure the Maritimes are happy campers in this great experiment.

True, but how well have the Maritimes done under the Liberals? Can't see them throwing many a bone thataway due to the lack of votes compared with Ontario.

Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

I think the real question is who will win the battle for the soul of the new party. If hardline opponents of abortion, or strongly religious anti gay-marriage factions win that battle, then the party will remain true to them and write off its chances of forming a government in the forseeable future.

Define both terms please. What counts as hardliners on abortion or an anti-gay marriage faction?

Currently there are a very large proportion of people who will make the social stance of this new party their top voting issue, since gay marriage has come about.

To me, someone more in the middle on gay marriage is not willing to roll back the legalisation in 1969, but is willing to define marriage as one man and one woman. They would not claw back benefits to common-law couples.

Same with abortion. We currently have no restrictions on abortion, whatsoever. You can have them done anytime up to nine months of pregnancy. Someone more moderate, (not me,) would change the law to restrict after 3 months, or only in the case of rape or incest.

So would these position satisfy you as a more middle course for the Conservative party, distinguishing them from the Liberals? Or would you want to lift the social policies off the Liberal platform?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but how well have the Maritimes done under the Liberals? Can't see them throwing many a bone thataway due to the lack of votes compared with Ontario.

Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

My point is not how well the Maritimes may have done under any particular government, but how poorly the West has has been treated under many. Even after Mulroney, Prairie farmers are not felt competent enough to sell their wheat to either the Wheat Board, or other concerns. Farmers in Ontario are free to do as they please.

Need we mention the NEP? No, I didn't think so. Should we mention the buggering of the BC forestry industry while Canada does nothing collectively to change it? That's in another thread.

My point is that there will come a time when population will simply require a rebalancing of how this country is run. The major reason for Reform's existence was that many Westerners were unhappy with the results even under a government half dominated by Alberta and BC. We had equal and fair access to the corridors of power, but it wasn't good enough, in many of our eyes.

Part of the solution will be that the West will realise that not everything can be done to suit us. Another part will be that the foundations of the country will shift so that the West can no longer be treated as a hinterland for the economic benefit of the colonizers.

When that shift happens, and it will given population trends and resources, I hope that Westerners will remember what it was like to be the small fish when it comes time to deal with the Maritimes.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
NYE:

Define both terms please. What counts as hardliners on abortion or an anti-gay marriage faction?

Currently there are a very large proportion of people who will make the social stance of this new party their top voting issue, since gay marriage has come about.

To me, someone more in the middle on gay marriage is not willing to roll back the legalisation in 1969, but is willing to define marriage as one man and one woman. They would not claw back benefits to common-law couples.

Same with abortion. We currently have no restrictions on abortion, whatsoever. You can have them done anytime up to nine months of pregnancy. Someone more moderate, (not me,) would change the law to restrict after 3 months, or only in the case of rape or incest.

So would these position satisfy you as a more middle course for the Conservative party, distinguishing them from the Liberals? Or would you want to lift the social policies off the Liberal platform?

Unfortunately for your middle of the road solution to gay marriage... there are clergy willing and able to perform the ceremonies. Why should the whole issue be run by one sect's definition of the term, or on many but not all sects? Why can't your church run things under your roof, and let others do the same under theirs?

re abortion. It is the cluster-**** of politicians everywhere. I am not in favour of abortions at 9 months. I would vote for a curtailment of that, but where? That is the Pandora's Box of the issue in modern politics.

[KrazyHorse]

You're a cool guy nye but you gottas aunferstand that i don't loike it when you makje veilecd hints about alberta seceedijg from canada just like i don't loicve it when quebec does the nasame with not veiled hints. I think whe'er a mateure enouh country that we can sole ourf differences without resorting to temprer tantrums. rewalistically any part of canadea that gets separated will get swallowed upo by the gv****ing amercians so it's best to stivck together because we all know how america traeats it's minortyuity opinions. i.e. not even as well as we do.

i say this even though you're an evil fucnking conservative-voting bastard.

[KrazyHorse]

it took me like five minbtyutes to remember how to type the smilire face. lol

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're a cool guy nye but you gottas aunferstand that i don't loike it when you makje veilecd hints about alberta seceedijg from canada just like i don't loicve it when quebec does the nasame with not veiled hints. I think whe'er a mateure enouh country that we can sole ourf differences without resorting to temprer tantrums. rewalistically any part of canadea that gets separated will get swallowed upo by the gv****ing amercians so it's best to stivck together because we all know how america traeats it's minortyuity opinions. i.e. not even as well as we do.

i say this even though you're an evil fucnking conservative-voting bastard.

That's better than beer in the face.

Actually, I share your dislike for the idea that Canada could break up, largely. However, I would be being blind if I ignored the existence of people out here who want exactly that. They are very small in number now. I hope they stay that way, but they will grow given the right conditions.

However, I also know that the way Canada is currently constituted is to the extreme disadvantage of the Prairie Provinces and BC. It passes for now due to the arguments of representation for regions not being compelling enough. Once the population shifts, the arguments will be compelling. I think it is better to be aware of that, and prepare for it. The West will come knocking one day, and 'no' would be a catastrophic answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, it's a done deal.

Apparently 83% of Tories voted for the merger.

Just heard it on television.

I'd post the news, but I can't find it reported just yet.

Unfortunately for your middle of the road solution to gay marriage... there are clergy willing and able to perform the ceremonies. Why should the whole issue be run by one sect's definition of the term, or on many but not all sects? Why can't your church run things under your roof, and let others do the same under theirs?

Are the governments beholden to the beliefs of a small group of Christians over the rest? No. The government gets to decide what counts as marriage, so long as they provide civil marriage. Unless you want to get the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave it up to the churches, then your argument has no merit.

re abortion. It is the cluster-**** of politicians everywhere. I am not in favour of abortions at 9 months. I would vote for a curtailment of that, but where? That is the Pandora's Box of the issue in modern politics.

To many liberals, this makes you an 'anti-choice extremist.'

[cinch]

Merged conservatives 'Paul Martin's worst nightmare,' MacKay says
Last Updated Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:48:05
OTTAWA - Progressive Conservative delegates voted Saturday to unite the right by merging their party with the Canadian Alliance to form a new party to challenge the governing Liberals.


"With this overwhelming vote, we have just become Paul Martin's worst nightmare," said Tory Leader Peter MacKay.
Of the 2,486 Tories who voted, 90 per cent said "yes" to creating a new combined party to be called the Conservative Party of Canada.

Alliance members voted almost 96 per cent in favour of the merger on Friday.

MacKay told delegates the merger was needed to end a decade of vote-splitting among conservatives that helped the Liberals win the last three elections.

Conervatives are frustrated "because there's no one to vote for who can beat (the Liberals)," said former Conservative finance minister Mike Wilson.

But another former cabinet minister, Flora MacDonald, argued against the merger. She said the views expressed by some Alliance members on issues such as women's rights, immigration and billingualism are not compatible with those of the Tory party.

"You will not be able to wish away these contradictions, or gloss over them," MacDonald said. "You are trying to create a party with no policy and no higher purpose than opportunism."

After the results were announced, MacKay said the new party will be a "progressive, powerful, national alternative" to the Liberals.

"Finally, after 10 years, the Liberal Party of Canada will be facing a united, strong conservative family in the next federal general election."

He then turned on new Liberal Leader Paul Martin, telling the crowd that while the former finance minister portrayed himself as a tax fighter, he was also "a tax evader."

If all Tory and Alliance MPs back the merger, it will bring the united party's seat count in the House of Commons to 78, compared to 170 for the Liberals.

But some of the 15 Tory MPs have suggested they will sit as independents rather than join the new entity.

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

Willl this suffice?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/06/tories_vote031206

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To many liberals, this makes you an 'anti-choice extremist.'

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.

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.

Heck, it's Canada, we've got the gov't meddling in our lives enough already, don't you think?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Another thing is that the folks still in the Maritimes tend to be less liberal than even the folks on the Left coast with respect to social issues. Believe it or not, but the most conservative folks on the abortion issue live there, and not in the West.

Support or opposition to Abortion does not define a conservative.

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

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's why I'm puzzled by all this criticism of the Alliance West of Winnipeg because they have their greatest support in BC, which is the most liberal province socially outside of Quebec. Clearly people vote for the party even if they disagree with their stance socially.

BC has bi-polar politics. 45% are left, 45% are right. 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.