Martin in trouble?
vic_ticious @ Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:43 pm
if this does't crack you up, well...
$1:
OTTAWA (CP) - Two ex-cabinet ministers served notice Thursday that Prime Minister Paul Martin can't count on full support from the Liberal caucus when he begins pushing legislation through the new minority Parliament.
The warning as well as the open declaration of interest in Martin's job by other Liberals underscores how drastically his grasp on power has weakened in the nine months since he took office, party sources say. David Anderson, who was turfed from Martin's cabinet, said disaffected Liberals should not be plotting to undermine Martin's leadership.
But they should feel free to practice the democratic-reform initiative Martin himself proposed by voting against the government once Parliament resumes in two weeks.
"There are going to be people voting their conscience on the Liberal backbenches who may support (Martin) no more frequently than the opposition," Anderson said in an interview.
"But I'm opposed to any Machiavellian ideas. The people who were elected were elected as Liberals."
The government would systematically be defeated on legislation if the Conservatives and Bloc united in opposition and just a few Liberals crossed the floor.
Another former cabinet minister said it's perfectly healthy for Liberals to speak their minds and vote their conscience, even if that means occasionally defeating government bills.
"I know the prime minister understands this because he's said it over and over again at caucus: 'You know what? This is not going to be easy for us, and not easy for ministers and not easy for the government.' Because our own people are going to feel free to say what they think," said Vancouver MP Hedy Fry.
"The prime minister wants them to speak out . . . without having to be afraid to do so, and without him being afraid that it means they hate the government and hate his guts."
Some sources within the party suggest the recent criticism of the federal-provincial health accord is only the first step in a campaign to undermine Martin's leadership.
They note that the two main critics of the health deal - ex-ministers John Manley and Maurizio Bevilacqua - are quietly assembling leadership campaign teams mere months into Martin's reign.
A handful of other potential candidates, including onetime justice minister Martin Cauchon and former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna, could also be waiting in the wings to replace Martin.
One former Liberal minister who is not interested in the top job said several potential candidates have already assigned regional directors for eventual leadership campaigns and are also assembling policy teams.
Some potential leaders-in-waiting have travelled the country to speak at party functions and expand their political networks. At least one current MP has approached colleagues and asked for their help in challenging Martin at a leadership-review vote next year, the source said.
Martin is strongly discouraging his MPs from working on eventual leadership bids.
"There is no opening of the party leadership within sight," Martin spokesman Scott Reid said.
"The prime minister naturally expects the focus of all Liberals to be on making this new Parliament work well and delivering the commitments we highlighted during the election."
But David Anderson suggested the prime minister is ill-placed to discourage anyone from doing exactly what he did almost throughout Jean Chretien's time in office.
"Mr. Martin organized for 12 years," he said.
"They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. So Mr. Martin obviously can't complain if people follow his example."
The warning as well as the open declaration of interest in Martin's job by other Liberals underscores how drastically his grasp on power has weakened in the nine months since he took office, party sources say. David Anderson, who was turfed from Martin's cabinet, said disaffected Liberals should not be plotting to undermine Martin's leadership.
But they should feel free to practice the democratic-reform initiative Martin himself proposed by voting against the government once Parliament resumes in two weeks.
"There are going to be people voting their conscience on the Liberal backbenches who may support (Martin) no more frequently than the opposition," Anderson said in an interview.
"But I'm opposed to any Machiavellian ideas. The people who were elected were elected as Liberals."
The government would systematically be defeated on legislation if the Conservatives and Bloc united in opposition and just a few Liberals crossed the floor.
Another former cabinet minister said it's perfectly healthy for Liberals to speak their minds and vote their conscience, even if that means occasionally defeating government bills.
"I know the prime minister understands this because he's said it over and over again at caucus: 'You know what? This is not going to be easy for us, and not easy for ministers and not easy for the government.' Because our own people are going to feel free to say what they think," said Vancouver MP Hedy Fry.
"The prime minister wants them to speak out . . . without having to be afraid to do so, and without him being afraid that it means they hate the government and hate his guts."
Some sources within the party suggest the recent criticism of the federal-provincial health accord is only the first step in a campaign to undermine Martin's leadership.
They note that the two main critics of the health deal - ex-ministers John Manley and Maurizio Bevilacqua - are quietly assembling leadership campaign teams mere months into Martin's reign.
A handful of other potential candidates, including onetime justice minister Martin Cauchon and former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna, could also be waiting in the wings to replace Martin.
One former Liberal minister who is not interested in the top job said several potential candidates have already assigned regional directors for eventual leadership campaigns and are also assembling policy teams.
Some potential leaders-in-waiting have travelled the country to speak at party functions and expand their political networks. At least one current MP has approached colleagues and asked for their help in challenging Martin at a leadership-review vote next year, the source said.
Martin is strongly discouraging his MPs from working on eventual leadership bids.
"There is no opening of the party leadership within sight," Martin spokesman Scott Reid said.
"The prime minister naturally expects the focus of all Liberals to be on making this new Parliament work well and delivering the commitments we highlighted during the election."
But David Anderson suggested the prime minister is ill-placed to discourage anyone from doing exactly what he did almost throughout Jean Chretien's time in office.
"Mr. Martin organized for 12 years," he said.
"They say imitation is the highest form of flattery. So Mr. Martin obviously can't complain if people follow his example."
oh woe is us
Robair @ Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:07 pm
Hey Vic, 'round here we encourage posting a link to the original article/source. That's alright, you're new. Welcome to CKA by the way.
figfarmer @ Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:27 pm
Who elected him anyways?
Rev_Blair @ Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:35 am
Big business...the same guys who elect the Conservatives.
-Mario- @ Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:03 am
Martin is playing weird games... Promised new supply ships for the Navy... New vehicles for the army, new search and rescue planes, and replacement for the old SeaKing for the Airforce. He is also giving a big chunk of money to health care.
I am not complaining about those promises, but can he deliver; all of them. The above mentioned are a must do. Everything promised to the military are beyond the waiting list. The SeaKing will be 40 years old by the time we replace them. In a 1984 Airforce magazine, the SeaKing were considered aging and should be replaced soon. Same story for the supply ships... The Army's vehicles were a political purchase, for 100 grand a piece... we had the choice between the Hummer, and some inadequate truck built in one of the big liberal ridings. Not even 10 years later, we had to replace them and we are buying German trucks. This week, here in Greenwood, we just had one of the Hercules engine's caught on fire. Luckily the airplane was on the ground. My friend was on that bird when it happened. The biggest fireball he ever saw. Those search and rescue bird are 40 years old. How soon can we see the replacements?
Mr. Martin is playing a funny game, probably planning to do an about face next year and cut on most of those.
Rev_Blair @ Thu Sep 30, 2004 4:55 pm
Maybe you can explain why the Conservatives were against declaring Cargill in contempt and fining them over the BSE subsidy scandal then, Godz. Last I checked Cargill was pretty big. While you're at it explain the Conservatives' support of BMD, NAFTA, Monsanto, getting rid of the CWB in favour of US corporations coming in. The oil industry over our environment? The automobile industry over our environment?
Give it up, Godz. The Liberals and the Conservatives get paid from the same pockets and bend over for the same people. Harper and his miscreants are nominally more dangerous because of their complete contempt for anything not from the USA/religious right, but that doesn't make them better, it makes them even worse.
Rev_Blair @ Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:56 am
$1:
Well, the more businesses come in, the more competition there is, prices drop, the power of the government decreases (No more Nanny Government telling you what is good and what is bad, what is Canadian and what is not). Jobs increase, the standard of living increases. etc...that's why. Free Markets leads to free people.
First of all, farm gate prices are already too low because we are competing against US government subisdies, not other businesses. That has led to a loss of not only jobs, but small family farms. That, my friend, is the reality of NAFTA, Cargill, Monsanto, and the continued attacks on the CWB.
As for BMD...Martin has repeatedly defended it by referring to trade. So has Stephen Harper. Trade in what? These are weapons. Eventually they'll end up in space, something Canada has signed international conventions opposing. Why are Martin and Harper, two men who are afraid to tie trade in some areas (energy) to trade in others (take your pick...softwood lumber, wheat, BSE...the list is long), yet not afraid to tie a completely unrelated issue to trade?
$1:
Becuase they opposed Kyoto? The Globalist trash which NO ONE in the world knows how to implement (Not even Jack Layton)...worried about Global Warming? Well let me put your mind to ease...a few years ago scientists thought that it was gonna be the opposite, that the world will be iced. Now they come up with another thery.
If you look at the temprature history of all major cities, you'll notice that its been DROPPING for the past years.
If you look at the temprature history of all major cities, you'll notice that its been DROPPING for the past years.
It isn't just Kyoto they've opposed. When there has been a conflict between environmental interests and corporate interests, the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have backed, fully and completely, the corporate interests each and every time.
Your lack of understanding of global warming theory and apparent ignorance of the scientific facts surrounding that theory do not put my mind to ease at all. I find your glib acceptance of monetary gain over major environmental disasters to be terrifying, in fact.
$1:
This from a guy who believes anyone who has an opinion which is a milimeter to the right of his is a "Right-wing bigot". Besides, I'll have you know that Harper tried to distance himself from the religious right, and many of them even complained about that.
How did he do that? He accepted them into the party and even the caucus, he alienated moderates and red tories while embracing the Christian right. He agreed with and argued for their positions on issues where the Christian right is out of step with the majority of Canadians. He tried to distance himself from them by embracing them, then saying that he really wasn't like that. Well, his actions and his rhetoric show that he is like that.
Rev_Blair @ Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:22 am
$1:
Hey I'm not complaining! I know that when I go to the Supermarket, food is cheaper and I know that when life expectancy goes up in this country becuase of that, most people won't cry over the lack of work for undertakers and funeral parlors.
You obviously haven't thought this through. The end product of all this factory farming is massive pollution; less healthy foods; fewer jobs here in Canada; and, when the competition is suddenly between only two or three mega-corporations, higher prices.
Look what happened with the price of beef during the BSE outbreak. Farmers were getting nothing for their cattle and we were still paying the same price for meat. Cargill had its best year ever last year. Why is that? Because most of the small slaughterhouses are gone and Cargill decided to rip us off. Your Conservatives said that Cargill was right to rip us off.
$1:
Well then let these bad businessmen go into a different line of work. If you suck at something, you have to improve yourself. That is nothing to say of the amount of jobs CREATED by NAFTA.
You obviously aren't quite bright enough to understand how business works. These people aren't bad businessmen...that's a load of shit put forth by people to stupid to defend themselves. The fact is that Canadian farmers have done an excellent job, mostly unaided by our government, of competing against their government-subsidised competition in the US and EU.
$1:
Good, I wish Canada could withdraw from that stupid treaty and focus on national security once in a while. I won't loose any sleep knowing that North Korea would'nt be able to launch Nukes at BC.
North Korea has no reason to launch nukes at BC, at least not as long as we don't start acting like George Bush. If this system actually worked (it doesn't) it would put us in more danger because any missiles shot down defending the United States would land in Canada.
Your little anti-Kyoto article is nothing but junk science and platitudes which have been debunked by the larger scientific community again and again. The vast majority of scientists who have seriously studied the issue agree that man-made global warming is happening. So do people in Canada's north, who are living through the effects.
$1:
He never argued for restricted abortion, all he said was he would'nt stop one of his MP's from introducing such legislation and from there he would let everyone vote their will.
He hasn't stood up and said that a woman has a right to choose either. He won't say what his personal position is because he knows the majority of Canadians do not agree with him and would not support him. The free vote isn't the issue here, his trying to evade the question and impose his personal religious beliefs on others is the problem.
That carries through to gay marriage to. Why the hell would it matter to Stephen Harper if two people of the same sex want to marry? The Conservatives have continually tried to say that it impinges on the rights of churches not to to perform same-sex marriages and some factions have said that new legislation protecting gays makes the Bible subject to charges of being hate literature. That is a lie...outright and plain. Churches would not be forced to perform same-sex marriages and there is nothing in the Bible that would qualify as hate literature, unlike much of what you write here, Godz.
Rev_Blair @ Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:05 am
$1:
Massive farming equals more food on the market, and as the basic law of economics reminds us (supply and demand) the more supply of food out there, the prices drop. FOOD IS CHEAPER.
Massive farming leads to dangerous foods on the market. Who do think started feeding cows to cows? It was corporate farms. It also doesn't lead to more food on the market in the long run. Factory farming has a very real tendency to over-use soils because crop rotaion takes a backseat to short-term profits. The depleted soil leads to increased use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which pollute out water supplies, effecting everything from drinking water to the fishery to recreational use.
$1:
Jobs: There are new line of work popping up every day. The people who loose their jobs can always go into a different line of work (the government is always subsidizing these education courses which brings workers up-to date with todays' technologies and laws.)
You obviously know nothing about farming. It is a huge part of the Canadian economy, especially on the prairies. It creates jobs all across the country, everything from equipment manufacturing to retail sales. What you are proposing would ship the best of those jobs south.
Notice where you found that Leger poll quoted? On an anti-abortion site, Know what else? The poll, considered flawed by those on both sides of the debate, isn't fully represented in the article you posted. Here are some other facts about the poll, also from an anti-abortion article, but one arguing that Canadians are flawed.
$1:
In a recent national opinion survey, Leger Marketing asked a representative sample of Canadians: "In your view, when did your own life begin? Was it at conception; at birth; sometime between conception and birth; after birth?"
Twenty-six per cent selected at birth; 12 per cent between conception and birth; and 22 per cent after birth.
Twenty-six per cent selected at birth; 12 per cent between conception and birth; and 22 per cent after birth.
$1:
Only 32 per cent correctly affirmed that their life as a human being began at conception (a process that is also denoted in medical literature as fertilization).
$1:
Only 31 per cent upheld the pro-life position -- that the law should protect every human life from conception.
Here are some numbers from the Pro-Choice Press
$1:
In late November, the National Post published the findings of their own poll that asked the question, "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?" Almost four of five Canadians, or 78%, said that women should have a completely free choice.
$1:
In contrast to the above polls, a recent Leger Marketing survey sponsored by LifeCanada[1] asked respondents "At what point during human development should the law protect human life?" The results:
*
37% favoured protection from conception on.
*
13% wanted protection after three months gestation.
*
6% wanted protection after six months.
*
30% said there should be no legal protection until after birth.
*
37% favoured protection from conception on.
*
13% wanted protection after three months gestation.
*
6% wanted protection after six months.
*
30% said there should be no legal protection until after birth.
Get the picture? 37% is far less than a majority. Stephen Harper is out of step with the Canadian people on this and wants to force his religioun-based beliefs on those of us who do not share his beliefs.
$1:
Oh its a bit more than that Rev..it clearly shows how the tempretures overall have varried from year to year and that THERE IS NO pattern to the weather. In fact the biggest example I can give in real time is THIS SUMMER. It was the coldest summer in quite some time. (at least in Quebec)
Yes, actually it is junk science. It is not based on data from around the globe and completely ignores that almost every model of global warming predicts more fluctuations in temperature, the creation of new micro-climates, and more severe weather. If you want to know about global warming, consult the greater scientific community, don't go searching for some guy who has a theory he cannot prove that does not take all of the data into consideration.