![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisA lot of people are making noise about recent dramatic developments in Canadian politics. I've written up a timeline with quotes and links to sources, and a commentary. Those of you familiar with the situation can just click on the lj cut. Those of you who are not, please read on for background.
The centrist party in Canada, which is called the Liberal Party, has been embroiled in a scandal involving large amounts of embezzlement of government money, or severe nepotism etc., referred to as the Sponsorship Scandal. There is currently an inquiry into the whole situation being conducted by Supreme Court Judge Gomery, known as the Gomery Inquiry. What it has revealed so far has enraged Canadians.
Meanwhile, we have a minority Liberal government. For those unfamiliar with the parliamentary style of government, this means that they do not have enough members of parliament to pass a budget (or, I believe, anything), even though they have the most seats in Parliament. Minority governments often fall when they try to pass their first budget, after a vote of "no confidence." The leftmost party in Canada, the NDP, has made a deal with the Liberals to support their existing government in return for certain amendments to the budget. The rightmost party's stance is that this is selling out to a corrupt party, and the party leader, Stephen Harper, plans to call a vote of no confidence tomorrow (Thursday), in order to bring the current government down. My understanding is that if they can't pass a budget, they must call another election, in which Harper hopes to win enough seats to be Prime Minister. To accomplish this, Harper has allied with the Bloc Quebecois, a party based in Quebec which is outwardly in favour of separating from Canada (a platform many Canadians view as treasonous).
Belinda Stronach is a thirty-eight year old rich girl who was given (or earned, depending on who you ask) an executive position at Daddy's company. She eventually became the CEO, as I understand it, and according to some, did well by the company. Last year she left the company to run for MP in her own riding. Which brings you to the material behind the cut.
Why did Stronach leave the conservatives?
Even when Stronach was first campaigning for Conservative leadership, she was viewed as extremely moderate. In fact, consider point four; she was viewed as sufficiently Liberal in beliefs and sensibilities that she was asked what the difference is between her and Paul Martin.
One might better ask why she was with the conservatives in the first place. Granted, she had right leanings from the centre, but not enough to really make the Conservative party a better fit than the Liberal party. What she did repeat passionately and often, was that it is necessary for the nation’s well-being that there be more than one viable party. If we assume altruism, this may have been her motive in joining with the Conservative party — to work on making it more viable. On the other hand, if we reference point seven above, and assume self-interest, perhaps her ambition showed her that by uniting the two conservative parties, it would leave leadership in question, whereas in the Liberal party, she would simply be another new MP. If leadership is her goal, starting with the Conservatives made sense in every way. Of course, leadership would also serve what may be her goals for the country, because as a party leader she’d be in a better position to realize them.
But she was elected Conservative, and now she’s Liberal. What about her constituents, who theoretically elected her on the Conservative party platforms?
Having just read all of the articles above, or at least skimmed them all, I can say that she has consistently made statements which imply that she is thinking about her constituents and their needs, that she is meeting with people in her riding to discuss their needs, etc. Voting for the budget (rather than with the party) is pretty clearly to the benefit of her riding. Whether they are her primary motivation is another question entirely.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pyat suggested to me that she should have done what others who have crossed the floor have done, and declared herself Independent until the next election. So, a good question to ask is, why would she choose to do it this way?
There are many possible answers. First, crossing in a manner which humiliates the Conservative party right before a crucial vote was much more likely to get her a good deal with the Liberal party. I can’t imagine her being immediately appointed to such a high profile position if she crossed over during a quiet post-election period, or transitioned by being Independent for a week or two. It also keeps her in the lime-light, which is an important strategy to be a successful politician on the national scene. Second, she may have been very angry after the meeting with Harper mentioned in point eight. She helped to create the party, and she might be extremely upset and enraged that they would freeze her out of what she views as her own party’s planning meetings. Humiliation might have been the point. Petty and vindictive? Yes, if that was the motive. But this is all just speculation, and it’s best that we remember that. Third, she may just not have thought of going Independent. It all happened pretty quickly, over the course of a week. And, some people have accused her of not being the sharpest knife in the kitchen, although others complain that those accusations are based in sexism. Her departure from the Conservative party was initially framed as a switch to the Liberal party, and for that reason departing by becoming Independent may never have occurred to her. Of course, if you look at it that way, she’s either conniving, vindictive, or dumb, none of which are exactly recommendations.
On the other hand, if you assume altruism, you might think that she left the Conservative party in such a humiliating fashion because she was trying to send a message, make a statement, rather than as petty revenge. You might also suppose that she chose the option that would afford her the most power out of a desire to be able to better serve her constituents and country.
Ambitious much?
Some food for thought: From what I hear, Martin is likely to be kaput soon due to the Gomery inquiry. The Liberal party will need a new leader. Although there have been statements to the effect that Stronach is not interested in the party leadership, statements of that sort are often just a façade. Stronach is a leader with large appeal free of the taint of the sponsorship scandal. With her right wing sensitivities, she could attract some voters who might normally vote Conservative. Putting aside her lack of experience, from a purely calculating, political, keep-the-libs-in-power point of view, she’s actually perfect as a potential Liberal party leader. I’m not saying this is good or bad. I’m just pointing it out.
She should have tried to work things out with Harper before leaving
Given the argument they had, and the fact that she was being kept out of the main meetings and removed from campaign ads, I doubt that there would have been any point in doing so. Harper has been vociferously driving for another election for quite a while now and I doubt much could keep him from continuing to pursue it.
She handled informing the affected persons very poorly.
Well, not exactly. Let’s start by addressing the complaint that she didn’t discuss it with Mackay until it was a done deal. I, for one, have been known to want to make sure I’m SURE of what I’m going to do before I break the news to my significant other. And, discussing it with Mackay probably wouldn’t have been terribly helpful, anyway. He wouldn’t have had much to say other than to encourage her to stay with the Conservatives. Whether she was making this decision as a career decision for herself, or as an ethical dilemma as a duly elected representative of her riding, it wasn’t a decision he had a place in. And, she told him as soon as the decision was made. Also, it’s not like this was in the works for weeks. In fact, the conversations lasted approximately four days — not that long for such a serious decision.
As for the accusation that she didn’t tell Harper before the press conference, apparently that’s not the case. According to point ten, she called him fifteen minutes before the press conference. Arguably, she should have given him more notice. But let’s get our facts right, folks. With the amount of time between the meeting at 24 Sussex Drive, and the press conference, notice and face to face meetings would have been nigh impossible. Would it have been possible to schedule the press conference later? I have no idea.
Footnote URLs:
I can't believe I spent all afternoon on this. I hope it is enlightening to SOMEONE, or at least, interesting. I guess the research was helpful to me.
I guess my major request is that you, my readers, work on making qualified statements. Unless you can "prove" something beyond a reasonable doubt (where having a good source is a reasonable doubt), say "I think" or "it seems to me that..." or "well, this would suggest that..." Thanks, guys.
x-posted to canpolitik
The centrist party in Canada, which is called the Liberal Party, has been embroiled in a scandal involving large amounts of embezzlement of government money, or severe nepotism etc., referred to as the Sponsorship Scandal. There is currently an inquiry into the whole situation being conducted by Supreme Court Judge Gomery, known as the Gomery Inquiry. What it has revealed so far has enraged Canadians.
Meanwhile, we have a minority Liberal government. For those unfamiliar with the parliamentary style of government, this means that they do not have enough members of parliament to pass a budget (or, I believe, anything), even though they have the most seats in Parliament. Minority governments often fall when they try to pass their first budget, after a vote of "no confidence." The leftmost party in Canada, the NDP, has made a deal with the Liberals to support their existing government in return for certain amendments to the budget. The rightmost party's stance is that this is selling out to a corrupt party, and the party leader, Stephen Harper, plans to call a vote of no confidence tomorrow (Thursday), in order to bring the current government down. My understanding is that if they can't pass a budget, they must call another election, in which Harper hopes to win enough seats to be Prime Minister. To accomplish this, Harper has allied with the Bloc Quebecois, a party based in Quebec which is outwardly in favour of separating from Canada (a platform many Canadians view as treasonous).
Belinda Stronach is a thirty-eight year old rich girl who was given (or earned, depending on who you ask) an executive position at Daddy's company. She eventually became the CEO, as I understand it, and according to some, did well by the company. Last year she left the company to run for MP in her own riding. Which brings you to the material behind the cut.
Timeline
- Stronach is, supposedly, instrumental in uniting the two conservative parties in Canada
- Stronach ran for leadership in the Conservative party, perhaps with the goal of getting the party to be more centrist and therefore more viable. Some key quotes: “Well, I'm in this race first of all to lead the new Conservative party. I believe that the leader of this new Conservative party must be able to successfully unite this party from coast to coast...” “Canada, we need more than one strong party in this country and it's so important that this new party is effectively united.” [1] She was defeated by Stephen Harper.
- Stronach expresses discomfort with the Conservative party’s stance on gay marriage, as well as her feelings about the social conservatives in the party:
CAROLE MACNEIL: What about the social conservatives? I mean I know it's very controversial that you've come out in support of gay marriage, for example, and there is a strong, as far as I understand it, a strong social conservative element to the, what was formerly Alliance but now is part of the Conservative Party of Canada. How do you invite them into the fold, or are they left on their own?
BELINDA STRONACH: They're not left on their own. I also have stated we must strengthen the democratic process in this country. I would allow for more free votes by Members of Parliament, so Members of Parliament could properly reflect the views of their constituents. I also believe that Canadians should be treated equally under the law and I do believe in equal marriage, and I would hold a free vote on this issue in the House of Commons. I must also add that I would not force churches to perform same-sex marriage, they have the right to determine what is appropriate for their congregation. But we must strengthen the role of the Member of Parliament and we must allow for more free votes in Parliament. [1] - Stronach is apparently compared to Paul Martin, the current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party:
CAROLE MACNEIL: You've heard the comment that Paul Martin, that you're Paul Martin in a cocktail dress? (laughs)
BELINDA STRONACH: Well, he probably agrees with me that I might look a little better in a cocktail dress.
(Laughs)
CAROLE MACNEIL: He probably would. Um, what's the difference between you and Paul Martin?
BELINDA STRONACH: Well, I believe there is quite a difference between Paul Martin and I. We have different experiences in business. I have created a lot of jobs in this country. We've had a strong manufacturing uh, have had a strong manufacturing contribution, created lots of jobs in this country. It's different, I'm not comparing, but I'm saying it is quite different. Second, I do not have necessarily the political experience of Paul Martin, we have lots of political experience in Ottawa at the moment, and look at the situation we're in. I do believe I bring a fresh and I bring a new approach to government. [1] - Stronach expresses discomfort with Harper’s push to defeat the Liberal government this Thursday by voting down a budget. “I do have a concern that voting against the entire budget will impact negatively in my riding.”[2] Reasons cited include the importance of child care and municipal funding to her constituents, many of whom are professionals who commute to the city and need a strong infrastructure in place to support their lifestyles. “I want to make sure that we properly address the issues that are important to the citizens of Newmarket-Aurora -- public transit, transportation, which are consistent with the cities infrastructure program." [3]
- Stronach expresses discomfort with the fact that Harper is planning to cooperate with the separatist Bloc Quebecois in order to topple the Liberal government. (I don’t have a direct quote of her saying this until AFTER defecting) [4]
- Stronach is described as extremely ambitious, although she talks as though she fully supports Harper.
"She knows exactly what she's doing," said one long-time Tory and senior campaigner. "She comes out this week against the election and says what many people thought. . . . She's beginning to take a series of policy decisions on the youth wing, on equal marriage and that kind of stuff, which sets her apart from others. Anybody who thinks she ran just to be an MP or a cabinet minister is very mistaken." [3]
- Things began to come to a head after she had made all of these statements publicly — particularly the ones regarding the upcoming budget.
A few weeks ago, Stronach was summoned by Harper to his Rockcliffe mansion over comments she had made to The Globe warning against defeating the budget, which would kill money for infrastructure to her Ontario riding of Newmarket-Aurora.
A Tory insider told the newspaper that Stronach was reportedly told she was being frozen out of appearances in election ads.
A report in the Toronto Star suggests the meeting between the two ended in a shouting match, with Harper telling her she would never be the leader of the party.[4] - She was upset and says she even considered leaving politics altogether. ”When she discussed her concerns with former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson at a black-tie dinner last Thursday, he suggested there may be another way she could serve.”[4]
“Stronach voiced those concerns last week when she met former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson at a public event in Toronto.
Peterson promptly called Tim Murphy, a former Ontario Liberal MPP and now the No. 1 official in the Prime Minister's Office.
By Monday evening, Stronach and Martin had worked out a deal over dinner at 24 Sussex Drive.
After dinner she called MacKay, to whom she had been romantically linked, and told him what had happened.
MacKay was gobsmacked, said one of his confidants. He phoned and broke the news to Harper on Tuesday morning.”[5] - Contrary to what a lot of people are saying, she DID inform Harper of her defection before the news broke. Obviously, she couldn’t stop her lover, MacKay, from getting to Harper first, and I see nothing wrong with informing her boyfriend before she informed Harper.
About 15 minutes before the news conference, Stronach phoned Harper at his Parliament Hill office.
"She said she called to tell him what she was about to do and he said he had nothing to say to her. It was a very short call," said Harper aide Geoff Norquay. [6]
Analysis
Why did Stronach leave the conservatives?
Even when Stronach was first campaigning for Conservative leadership, she was viewed as extremely moderate. In fact, consider point four; she was viewed as sufficiently Liberal in beliefs and sensibilities that she was asked what the difference is between her and Paul Martin.
One might better ask why she was with the conservatives in the first place. Granted, she had right leanings from the centre, but not enough to really make the Conservative party a better fit than the Liberal party. What she did repeat passionately and often, was that it is necessary for the nation’s well-being that there be more than one viable party. If we assume altruism, this may have been her motive in joining with the Conservative party — to work on making it more viable. On the other hand, if we reference point seven above, and assume self-interest, perhaps her ambition showed her that by uniting the two conservative parties, it would leave leadership in question, whereas in the Liberal party, she would simply be another new MP. If leadership is her goal, starting with the Conservatives made sense in every way. Of course, leadership would also serve what may be her goals for the country, because as a party leader she’d be in a better position to realize them.
But she was elected Conservative, and now she’s Liberal. What about her constituents, who theoretically elected her on the Conservative party platforms?
Having just read all of the articles above, or at least skimmed them all, I can say that she has consistently made statements which imply that she is thinking about her constituents and their needs, that she is meeting with people in her riding to discuss their needs, etc. Voting for the budget (rather than with the party) is pretty clearly to the benefit of her riding. Whether they are her primary motivation is another question entirely.
pyat suggested to me that she should have done what others who have crossed the floor have done, and declared herself Independent until the next election. So, a good question to ask is, why would she choose to do it this way?There are many possible answers. First, crossing in a manner which humiliates the Conservative party right before a crucial vote was much more likely to get her a good deal with the Liberal party. I can’t imagine her being immediately appointed to such a high profile position if she crossed over during a quiet post-election period, or transitioned by being Independent for a week or two. It also keeps her in the lime-light, which is an important strategy to be a successful politician on the national scene. Second, she may have been very angry after the meeting with Harper mentioned in point eight. She helped to create the party, and she might be extremely upset and enraged that they would freeze her out of what she views as her own party’s planning meetings. Humiliation might have been the point. Petty and vindictive? Yes, if that was the motive. But this is all just speculation, and it’s best that we remember that. Third, she may just not have thought of going Independent. It all happened pretty quickly, over the course of a week. And, some people have accused her of not being the sharpest knife in the kitchen, although others complain that those accusations are based in sexism. Her departure from the Conservative party was initially framed as a switch to the Liberal party, and for that reason departing by becoming Independent may never have occurred to her. Of course, if you look at it that way, she’s either conniving, vindictive, or dumb, none of which are exactly recommendations.
On the other hand, if you assume altruism, you might think that she left the Conservative party in such a humiliating fashion because she was trying to send a message, make a statement, rather than as petty revenge. You might also suppose that she chose the option that would afford her the most power out of a desire to be able to better serve her constituents and country.
Ambitious much?
Some food for thought: From what I hear, Martin is likely to be kaput soon due to the Gomery inquiry. The Liberal party will need a new leader. Although there have been statements to the effect that Stronach is not interested in the party leadership, statements of that sort are often just a façade. Stronach is a leader with large appeal free of the taint of the sponsorship scandal. With her right wing sensitivities, she could attract some voters who might normally vote Conservative. Putting aside her lack of experience, from a purely calculating, political, keep-the-libs-in-power point of view, she’s actually perfect as a potential Liberal party leader. I’m not saying this is good or bad. I’m just pointing it out.
She should have tried to work things out with Harper before leaving
Given the argument they had, and the fact that she was being kept out of the main meetings and removed from campaign ads, I doubt that there would have been any point in doing so. Harper has been vociferously driving for another election for quite a while now and I doubt much could keep him from continuing to pursue it.
She handled informing the affected persons very poorly.
Well, not exactly. Let’s start by addressing the complaint that she didn’t discuss it with Mackay until it was a done deal. I, for one, have been known to want to make sure I’m SURE of what I’m going to do before I break the news to my significant other. And, discussing it with Mackay probably wouldn’t have been terribly helpful, anyway. He wouldn’t have had much to say other than to encourage her to stay with the Conservatives. Whether she was making this decision as a career decision for herself, or as an ethical dilemma as a duly elected representative of her riding, it wasn’t a decision he had a place in. And, she told him as soon as the decision was made. Also, it’s not like this was in the works for weeks. In fact, the conversations lasted approximately four days — not that long for such a serious decision.
As for the accusation that she didn’t tell Harper before the press conference, apparently that’s not the case. According to point ten, she called him fifteen minutes before the press conference. Arguably, she should have given him more notice. But let’s get our facts right, folks. With the amount of time between the meeting at 24 Sussex Drive, and the press conference, notice and face to face meetings would have been nigh impossible. Would it have been possible to schedule the press conference later? I have no idea.
Footnote URLs:
- http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/coverstory_stronach.html
- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115128357918_22/?hub=Canada
- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050507/STRONACH07/TPNational/Canada
- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116418510479_16/?hub=TopStories
- http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5f6d57cc-5e7d-4f0b-b0cd-60f6f3b1b579&page=1
- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/05/17/1044242-cp.html
I can't believe I spent all afternoon on this. I hope it is enlightening to SOMEONE, or at least, interesting. I guess the research was helpful to me.
I guess my major request is that you, my readers, work on making qualified statements. Unless you can "prove" something beyond a reasonable doubt (where having a good source is a reasonable doubt), say "I think" or "it seems to me that..." or "well, this would suggest that..." Thanks, guys.
x-posted to canpolitik
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 09:26 pm (UTC)dammit!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-19 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-18 10:52 pm (UTC)I've got mixed feelings about Belinda. Watching her with Rick Mercer on Monday Report a few months ago, I was quite impressed - she has a sense of humour, which most of the leading politicians now don't (that was also one thing that I liked about Chretien.)
But at the same time, I wonder at her motives. Is she doing this because she truly thinks it's best for her riding? Or is she doing this because she thinks it's best for her.
I don't think that she has much chance of winning a leadership race for the Libs - they tend to be *very* insular, and I don't think that someone who just defected (or committed treason, as I've seen at least one commentator describe her actions) from the Other Major Party, would be able to win enough votes within the party.
Never mind asking whether she could lead the Libs to another majority (or even a minority). She's got to get past the gatekeepers of the party, first.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-19 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-19 03:44 pm (UTC)Also, if an election is called I suggest anyone interested in making a fast buck/learning how democracy works, call up Elections Canada and work in your election riding office. The money is ok, and you get to see raw democracy in action.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-22 05:14 pm (UTC)