Saturday, February 18, 2006

A Winning Strategy

Mr. Hellyer's former party has come up with the winning strategy:
As part of its new strategy, the Canadian Action Party will get its candidates to run as Liberals or Conservatives in the next election. They will, unlike in the past, be well financed and organized, and have an army of volunteer workers.

Then, the week after they are successful in the election, they will announce that they are crossing the floor of the Commons, to join THE CANADIAN ACTION PARTY and sit as CAP Members of Parliament.


  • CG,

    Just got the word tha Paul Zed, member of parliament for Saint John New Brunswick, is going to likely make a bid for the leadership. I heard from a campaign official that Paul will try to get 25 MP's on his side, and raise 2 million dollars in the coming months. His start is of course the party he is organizing to honour Sheila Copps.

    Add one more to the list!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 1:23 p.m.  

  • I heard that a number of Liberals e considering croosing the floor but no one wanted them.

    Horny Toad

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:43 p.m.  

  • I would suggest the entire Liberal Party might consider switching sides and joining the Canadian Action Party or Progressive Canadian party or whatever.

    It would be a clever way to rebrand us and remove the taint of the Martin brand.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:23 p.m.  

  • I would suggest the entire Liberal Party might consider switching sides and joining the Canadian Action Party or Progressive Canadian party or whatever.

    It would be a clever way to rebrand us and remove the taint of the Martin brand.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:23 p.m.  

  • I would like to see an MP from any party switching to the Greens before the next election... because then the stupid media mafia won't have an excuse to ignore 500,000 votes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:07 p.m.  

  • fantastic. absolutely fantastic

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:25 p.m.  

  • Yes, but Manitoba Liberal, how do we remove that other stain. You know thone with the ads, the kickbacks, the inquiry, etc.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 p.m.  

  • If you are going to try a strategy of infiltrating other parties it is not very sensible to announce it publicly.

    Have these people not studied the Trotskyite idea of entryism? The Militant Tendency caused no end of trouble to the British Labour Party in the 1980s. They got two or three MPs elected and controlled Liverpool City Council for a time. The Trots had to be driven out of their positions of influence. No nonsense about crossing the floor. They did their best to stay as cuckoos in the nest.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:10 p.m.  

  • Am I the only one thinks that Stephen Harper had a good point when he said something to the effect that he does not support legislation banning floor crossing because it would give too much power to the leader and remove the last vestige of power from the hands of individual MPs?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:04 p.m.  

  • 0.02$ - I've heard that "power to the leader" line several times but I've got to admit I just don't understand the logic behind it. How would such legislation increase a leader's power? Even if he expels an MP, they can sit as an independent without going to a byelection.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:04 p.m.  

  • Why don't Liberals say were all supporting the Conservatives - under their banner in the next election after winning nominations in every riding - and then all cross the floor after the election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:56 p.m.  

  • A vote for the Liberals is a vote for American imperialism!

    In Jeffrey Simpson's article today:

    "Mr. Packer, a New Yorker writer, was among the liberals who initially supported the war, although his support seemed tepid compared to liberal crusaders such as Michael Ignatieff, then of Harvard and writing about Americans as “we,” and now of the Canadian Liberal Party seeking to become leader and eventually prime minister of Canada.

    Mr. Packer never went as far as Mr. Ignatieff in conceiving an entire doctrine to support U.S. intervention in Iraq, and elsewhere where people were suffering. Mr. Ignatieff called the U.S. mission “empire lite” to protect rights and spread democracy around the world."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:03 a.m.  

  • Harper, the Bloc and framing the so-called “Fiscal Imbalance”.

    While the Liberals turn inwards to consider electing a new leader, they risk being bamboozled by the smartest leader the Conservatives have had for decades. We have seen with the Emerson defection that we have to weigh carefully exactly what Harper says about any issue, and even more importantly, what he does not say. His reaction then speaks volumes: I did not say that. Harper has given Canadians fair warning that he chooses his words carefully.

    Bearing that in mind, let’s consider the most downplayed aspect of Harper’s election platform, and its impact on the choice of leader for the Liberals.

    It is essential that the Liberals choose a leader who is up to speed in modern political developments. If any aspirant leader has no knowledge of George Lakoff’s seminal work Don’t Think of an Elephant, then his or her name should immediately be taken off the list of possible leadership candidates. Why? Because such a leader would lose the next election to Harper by a wide margin.

    Why do I say that?

    Because Harper has already outsmarted the Liberal leaders, starting with Martin. Lakoff’s premise is that the framing of any political topic is the most important part of the political battle. If you can frame it your way, then the dialogue takes place on the battleground of your choosing, and your opponents are forced to address the issue in a way you chose. For example, if I tell you not to think of an elephant for the next 60 seconds, you will find it impossible to do so.

    Harper has already framed the debate as a discussion of a “fiscal imbalance.” What does this mean:

    He has:

    · Dictated that the debate will be about an “imbalance”;
    · Imbalance implies that there is an element of unfairness involved;
    · Those opposing his ideas can be typecast as opposing a virtue – that is, as supporting something which is wrong, being the “imbalance”;
    · He has framed the discussion as one which means that the issue to be resolved is to remedy the “imbalance” by taking away taxing power from the federal government and giving it to the provinces.

    What has happened? The Liberals and the press are talking on his terms, using his framing. This is a no-win situation for Liberals and for Canadians.

    Harper’s framing is deceptive and extraordinariy dangerous for Canadians.

    Liberals and NDPers will need to change the framing to ensure that the public understands that what Harper intends is to dramatically reduce the powers of the federal government by entering into agreements with the provinces which effectively diminish the role of the central government in Canada. He will do so by – to use the words of the right wing Republicans pursuing similar aims in the USA – making the central government so weak financially that it can be “drowned in the bathtub”.

    I prefer a different framing: the Bloc Power Grab.

    Why? Because the danger is that the only political party which will agree to Harper’s program to diminish the federal government’s role is the Bloc. The Liberals (assuming their interim or chosen leader has any political acumen – something not yet demonstrated on this issue) and NDP will not agree to Harper’s plan.

    But the Bloc will, because they share the same aim as Harper’s New Tories do – to weaken Canada’s federal government and create more powerful provinces at the expense of that government.

    Is there any basis in my argument? Consider Harper’s own words:

    “As soon as he comes to office, Mr. Harper would initiate discussions to solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance. “The fiscal imbalance is not just a budget problem; a lot of money is involved. The functioning and the very spirit of the Canadian federation are at stake,” he declared. The Conservative leader made a commitment to oversee federal spending power, which is the result of the fiscal imbalance, which “was so abused” by the federal Liberals. “This outrageous spending power has created dominating and paternalistic federalism, which is a serious threat to the future of our federation,” according to Harper.” (20 December 2005 Publication: Le Devoir). ““I recognize that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in the provinces,” says Harper.” “The government will be bound to respecting provincial jurisdiction while instituting a permanent consultation mechanism with the provinces and collaboration with the Council of the Federation. Moreover, this charter will ensure that the fiscal imbalance is corrected and that federal spending power is overseen.”

    And also this report:

    “The fiscal imbalance problem has allowed federal mismanagement of taxpayers’ money totaling billions of dollars.” (Harper’s Letter from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to the Council of the Federation 15 January 2006) “We are committed to restoring balance to the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments through a number of means, including such possibilities as increasing transfer payments to the provinces, reducing federal taxation in order to leave more tax room to the provinces, and transferring tax points to the provinces to ensure a fair distribution of new revenues.”
    Still think Harper’s New Tories are not a threat?
    Liberals should ask every candidate for leadership of the party this one simple question: Do you agree with Harper’s framing of the issue as being one of a fiscal imbalance?

    Any candidate who says Yes is not worth considering – Harper will run rings around that person.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:28 p.m.  

  • Calgary,

    I agree the more power to the PM is some what confusing, however, I will have to as you about a person being forced to sit as an IND.

    After all, if the logic follows that the riding voted X and the person crossed to Y, then the voters have to validate that decision through a by-election.

    Now if a person is forced to sit as an IND (call it Z) and the people voted for X, when why should the people not have a chance to validate the person sitting as Y?

    If not, then we get into the situation where people vote the person not the party (either X or y). If that is the case, the arguement for a by-election is less strong as the people can validate the decision come the next general election, when they choose to either keep that same person or vote for someone else.

    By Blogger eastern capitalist, at 1:44 p.m.  

  • Opps...three para down should read:

    Now if a person is forced to sit as an IND (call it Z) and the people voted for X, when why should the people not have a chance to validate the person sitting as Z?

    By Blogger eastern capitalist, at 1:45 p.m.  

  • "Anonymous," if you're going to start your anti-Ignatieff campaign, you might find better ways than anonymously posting the usual "I've never read his books but my radical friends tell me they can be misconstrued" nonsense.

    As for Simpsons' article, it's not free online, so I guess you bought media from the Bell "hegemonic entity" and are thus a very bad little "anti-imperialist"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:08 p.m.  

  • Having been subjected to Connie Fogal (Leader of the Canadian Action Party) in person, I find it extremely hard to believe she'd be able to come up with a scheme like this. LOL. She's too busy trying to get out of all the conspiracy theories she's buried herself in.

    By Blogger Bruce Lyth, at 6:35 p.m.  

  • Ignatieff is an American, deep down he is not a true Canadian and he never will be. He just wants to run this country for the benefit of saying to his Harvard peers - "look at me, I'm the new Tsar."

    But you troglogdyte, power-grubbing, unprincipled theiving Lie-brals love selling us down the river to the Yanks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:12 p.m.  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 9:26 p.m.  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 1:27 a.m.  

  • By Blogger raybanoutlet001, at 2:16 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home