[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

If you were just thinking about Languish, I don't think anyone here fits within the description of "Conservative Stalwart".  BB is a Reformer through and through.  Neil is a reformed Reformer who strikes me more and more as a what we used to describe as a Red Tory. 

As for me.  When is the last time you saw me arguing the Conservative position on anything?

Whenever you talk about Trudeau Jr. being a lightweight 

I mean, it's *also* an NDP position, but I'm confident you don't belong in the NDP supporter category, much less the stalwart one.

In any case, if you object to being referred to as a Conservative I will refrain from doing so rather than argue with you that you are

So because I agree with the assessment of every other non Liberal in the country I am now a Conservative Stalwart?  I think you should look at the words of wisdom BB had for you.

[Jacob]

Perhaps it would be better Jacob to try and assess people's arguments on the merit of what they are asserting, rather than by trying to label people according to your own pre-conceived notions of what political allegiance they have.

Whatever you may think of the accuracy of my conceptions, they are not pre-conceived. We have a decade worth of languish back and forth to form our notions of differing political allegiances.

[Jacob]

So because I agree with the assessment of every other non Liberal in the country I am now a Conservative Stalwart?  I think you should look at the words of wisdom BB had for you.

My mistake. You are not a conservative stalwart. I hereby withdraw any implications about your affinity or lack of same regarding the Conservative Party of Canada, and apologize for any insinuations about your political opinions of any sort.

And, as I said in the post you quoted, I will refrain from calling you a Conservative, stalwart or otherwise, if that is your preference. So the answer to your question is "no, that was a joke. Hence the ".

[Barrister]

Perhaps it would be better Jacob to try and assess people's arguments on the merit of what they are asserting, rather than by trying to label people according to your own pre-conceived notions of what political allegiance they have.

Whatever you may think of the accuracy of my conceptions, they are not pre-conceived. We have a decade worth of languish back and forth to form our notions of differing political allegiances.

I wear my political allegiances on my sleeve.  I was not challenging your assertion for calling me a "Conservative stalwart".

I was challenging your dismissal of comments by reason of me being a "Conservative stalwart".

[viper37]

He certainly did not "maintain unity".  There was infighting between his supporters and the Martin supporters right from the time he won the leadership until he was finally was forced to be replaced by Martin.

there is infighting he every party.  He kept it mostly quiet, under a blanket, and he left on his own terms, at the time of his choosing.

[crazy canuck]

He certainly did not "maintain unity".  There was infighting between his supporters and the Martin supporters right from the time he won the leadership until he was finally was forced to be replaced by Martin.

there is infighting he every party.  He kept it mostly quiet, under a blanket, and he left on his own terms, at the time of his choosing.

I disagree.  He did not keep the conflict under wraps - it was always public.  Here is an article from 2000 prior to his third election.

Paul Martin plans to mount a war of attrition against Jean Chretien to pressure the prime minister to resign before the next general election, the National Post has learned.

As the Liberal party convention came to a close yesterday with appeals from the prime minister for unity apparently falling on deaf ears, the Martin camp made it clear they plan to step up their attacks against Mr. Chretien.

Allies of the finance minister acknowledge there is no party mechanism in place to remove Mr. Chretien. They also concede there will be no attempt to line up caucus signatures to ask the prime minister to resign, as Mr. Chretien's supporters did to John Turner in 1987 when the latter was Liberal leader.

Nevertheless, inspired by the huge following in the party as demonstrated at the four-day convention when the 61-year-old finance minister was wildly cheered by the 2,800 party faithful, the Martin camp now plans to fight the leadership battle by concentrating on three fronts.

These are:

- That Mr. Chretien will face more calls from prominent Liberals to resign.

- That Mr. Martin has a better chance than the prime minister of raising the necessary finances to secure a healthy pre-election budget for the party.

- That disaffection within the Liberal caucus may force MPs to break party ranks and publicly denounce the direction of the government's policies.

Close advisors to the prime minister concede the battle with the Martin forces is not over.

A member of the Chretien re-election committee said: "These guys haven't stopped ... It's foolish to say it's over. They are trying to destabilize the prime minister. It's almost like a coup d'etat."

The Martin camp is convinced that Mr. Chretien lacks the vision, energy and ability to win a third majority government, especially if the Canadian Alliance gets a new leader such as Stockwell Day, the Alberta Treasurer, and receives the backing of Mike Harris, the Ontario Premier.

For the prime minister to attempt to force Mr. Martin from the cabinet is seen as an unacceptable political risk, partly because of the possible economic repercussions and partly because of the sense of debt senior Liberals feel for Mr. Martin, who is credited with balancing the federal government's books since becoming finance minister in 1993.

Mr. Martin will play no overt role in the conspiracy to oust Mr. Chretien.

Mr. Martin will continue to pay homage to Mr. Chretien while spending time on the road showing grassroots Liberals that he is the man to carry the torch in the next election.

As Mr. Chretien discovered on the eve of the Liberal convention, he will face more calls from prominent Liberals for him to resign. Aside from the 11 dissident Liberal MPs, Mr. Chretien has faced resignation demands from 10 Liberal members of the Quebec National Assembly -- all Martin supporters -- as well as from Greg Sorbara, the Ontario provincial Liberal president.

The Chretien camp will also find it difficult to raise money at events where the prime minister is the keynote speaker, something he has already discovered.

For example, Mr. Chretien was the main attraction last fall at the Maple Leaf Dinner, a major fundraiser in Toronto chaired by the chief executive of Ford Motor Co. of Canada. But 1,200 of the $500 tickets were bought by Ford dealerships and only 800 by party faithful. In the past, the Maple Leaf dinner has sold up to 4,000 tickets.

In February, Chretien organizers were able to sell only 400 tickets to a less expensive event in Toronto in a ballroom that can hold 600.

"They were arm-twisting to get people out for $50 a ticket," one Martin organizer said. "Contrast that with the 3,000 people who turned out for Martin at the Banquet Hall in Richmond Hill [Ont.] on Feb. 5," an event organized by Joe Volpe, a veteran Toronto Liberal MP who supports Martin.

If the strategy is successful, the message to the Liberal party, which needs to raise millions of dollars for the next election, is that Mr. Martin is the rainmaker -- that the prime minister cannot be counted on to bring out the crowds with their chequebooks.

Even more serious for Mr. Chretien will be the actions of Liberal MPs, particularly those from Northern Ontario and suburban Toronto.

Also, he certainly didn't choose when to go, nor on his own terms.  As you may recall, his last term was cut short because of the sponsorship scandal.  He initially declared he was going to resign but then the date he had announced was pushed up when the pressure regarding the scandals began to mount.

[Jacob]

I was challenging your dismissal of comments by reason of me being a "Conservative stalwart".

I'm not sure what you're referring to. What opinion of yours did I dismiss by reason of your political allegiance?

[viper37]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

[crazy canuck]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

Ironic given the fact this is one of the main reasons they will likely lose my vote.

[Jacob]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

Ironic given the fact this is one of the main reasons they will likely lose my vote.

I will follow this with interest and attempt to refrain from assuming anything.

[crazy canuck]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

Ironic given the fact this is one of the main reasons they will likely lose my vote.

I will follow this with interest and attempt to refrain from assuming anything.

[Valmy]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

See if he just adds "where it is enforced by law or threats of violence" then he would be in the clear.  But if you really want to take a stand like this you really should go with the female genital mutilation thing.  It takes a brave cultural relativist indeed to defend that.

[Grey Fox]

I like my PM, sometimes
face covering veil is anti-woman

Ironic given the fact this is one of the main reasons they will likely lose my vote.

Are you disagreeing with that fact?

[Valmy]

Are you disagreeing with that fact?

CC is a pretty fanatical multiculturalist in my limited experience.  He got all upset when I hinted we were moving towards a world cosmopolitan culture.  Which is ridiculous.  Excuse my while I enjoy my fusion German/Arab food made by Mexicans.  But it could be I just misremembered that was a long time ago.

[viper37]

But if you really want to take a stand like this you really should go with the female genital mutilation thing.

Canada already took a stand against that, this particular PM too, IIRC, at the international level.
For Canada, although it's a silly name for the bill, gential mutilation is covered by "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Bill".
It covers forced marriage too, but we already discussed that in this thread, I think.