Fighting the Urge to Merge

[JOE HUEGLIN]

Andi,

The "kick back" is co-operation in Question Period and in House Committees,
presented by the Conservative Leader a year ago on paper and dismissed with joint candidates or nothing.

Small steps, establishing trust.

Though you do not agree there is a ball in your Leader's court.

Joe.

[springer]

Clark and MacKay preached to anyone who would listen that they could quite easily work with CA MPs, and had proven so in their coaliton with the DRC...

Until the DRC returned to the CA fold, that is...

MacKay, like Joe, appears, IMHO, to be proposing nothing more than stall tactics to buy time.

We have a year at best until the next election.

We don't have time for stall tactics.

Merely to prove what Clark and MacKay already have preached...when it suited their purposes, which was to turn 13 CA MPs into 13 PC MPs, end of story.

[JOE HUEGLIN]

Had the Leadership of the Alliance gone the other way there may have been
... well it didn't.

And so all save one broke their contract and secured renominations.

It's a game to appear to be the white knight seeking unity. That the election is upon us has no bearing. The baby is still born while in the womb.

Gotta quit now will pick upsome time tomorrow.

Enjoy the civilized point and counterpoint.

Joe.

[Andi]

Andi,

The "kick back" is co-operation in Question Period and in House Committees,
presented by the Conservative Leader a year ago on paper and dismissed with joint candidates or nothing.

Ah yes, but have they brought it up recently? Is this particular formula for cooperation a priority with MacKay? In the here and now?

I haven't heard of MacKay saying much of anything in response to Harper's unity proposals. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?

[Gabby Jay]

POLLARA pollsters always asks voters not just for their party preference, but also their second choice preference. By doing so, we know that 57% of Alliance supporters would vote PC if there were no Alliance candidate in their riding. Some 25% would vote Liberal, and 14% would go to the NDP.

If we examined a riding that was a microcosm of all of Canada in the last election, returning votes in proportions of 40.8% for the Liberals, 25.5% for the Alliance, 12.2% for the PCs, 8.5% for the NDP and 10.7% for the Bloc, the absence of an Alliance candidate would indeed provide some PC gains. The results could be projected to: Liberals 47%, PCs 27%, NDP 12%, and Bloc 11%. This is a net gain for the PCs, but the Liberal plurality has now grown to 20%, up from 15%.

So in the average riding in which the Alliance candidate had been "pulled" the PCs would increase their support, but the Liberals would be positioned to win by an even greater margin than before.

The other side of the coin is even better. Tory supporters, without a PC candidate in their riding, would break 24% to the Alliance, 19% to the NDP, 3% to the Bloc, and 53% to the Liberals. In our microcosm riding therefore, the new numbers could be projected to: Liberals 47%, Alliance 28%, NDP 11% and Bloc 11%.

By pulling the PC candidate, the Alliance would take a small gain from the last federal election, while the Liberals would make a much larger one. Clearly both of these scenarios benefit one party only, the Liberal Party.

I think that the conclusion being gleaned from these results is misleading. I believe the PC Party is the second best party to vote for. That doesn't mean that if, for some reason other than electoral co-operation, the Alliance didn't field a candidate in my riding, I would vote PC. The more seats the PCs win, the more they misguidedly believe they can win on their own. The more they believe that, the less likely it is that we'll see any conservative co-operation.

However, if we're running a single slate of candidates, the PC candidate is no longer a member of a rival party, but an ally. The election of a PC MP in my riding means a greater role for my party and for conservatism in Canada.

Electoral co-operation would thaw some of the animosity that exists when the parties are opposing each other. I believe that in this scenario, the second choice numbers would be much higher in both parties. In addition, many conservative-minded voters who are frustrated by the split and don't vote, would see their vote as meaningful.

Just MHO.

[Gabby Jay]

Andi,

The "kick back" is co-operation in Question Period and in House Committees,
presented by the Conservative Leader a year ago on paper and dismissed with joint candidates or nothing.

Small steps, establishing trust.

Harper's fear here was that at the end of the term, there would be no agreement to co-operate electorally. As the larger caucus, the CA would be sharing their larger pool of resources with the PCs. Which would be a big mistake if at the end of the day we had to run against each other yet again in an election. The Alliance would basically have funded the activity of their opponents, as well as giving Joe Clark the lead question in Question Period on many big issues. Accepting such a proposal requires a tremendous amount of trust already.

[JOE HUEGLIN]

"Accepting such a proposal requires a tremendous amount of trust already."

And so Catch 22...though not certain 1. 2. 3. 4.

1a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: “In the Catch-22 of a closed repertoire, only music that is already familiar is thought to deserve familiarity” (Joseph McLennan). b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation.
2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness.
3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action: “The Catch-22 of his administration was that every grandiose improvement scheme began with community dismemberment” (Village Voice).
4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition; a catch: “Of course, there is a Catch-22 with Form 4868—you are supposed to include a check if you owe any additional tax, otherwise you face some penalties” (New York).

[hiti]

Andi,

The "kick back" is co-operation in Question Period and in House Committees, presented by the Conservative Leader a year ago on paper and dismissed with joint candidates or nothing.

Ah yes, but have they brought it up recently? Is this particular formula for cooperation a priority with MacKay? In the here and now?

I haven't heard of MacKay saying much of anything in response to Harper's unity proposals. Maybe I'm just out of the loop?

Quote:

Our efforts to reach out must naturally include the Canadian Alliance. I have initiated several conversations with Steven Harper since being chosen Leader, and will do so again. I am prepared to sit down and discuss policy, and how to work more cooperatively in Parliament, and how to advance the interests of all Canadians.

Mr. Harper has put forward his proposed solution to the challenge of vote splitting in certain ridings. Neither I, nor anyone else, have seen the details of what he proposes.

Given the histories, standings and prospects of our two parties, I believe we must first find common cause and common goals and establish trust before setting out a common electoral strategy. I also believe that we must do this beyond the glare of camera lights – apologies to our friends in the press gallery. If we are to move the issue of future cooperation forward, it cannot be done through the media – we have to first build relationships and then determine next steps.

The first steps are important. Let’s take the time to make sure they are the right ones, in the right direction, and in the spirit of true cooperation.

<a href="http://www.pcparty.ca/doc/730/">Notes for an address by Peter MacKay, M.P. to the Confederation Club 2003.06.19</a>

You are now back in the loop, Andi.

And Peter has kicked back the ball quite effectively with no response from Hapless......

[Andi]

Hmm. But perhaps they Are doing things right now "beyond the glare of the camera lights". ...

[Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer]

Past points of view, what do they represent today?

[Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer]

Past points of view, what do they represent today?

[Reformer4Life]

Bruce-Grey: now that Harper has won, I am committed to the CPC. My question is: is it time to take out memberships in the PC Party of Ontario?

[Bruce-Grey-OS Reformer]

If you support the Ontario PC party then you should take out a membership and participate in its leadership vote. For me I am not a Tory and will not join the Tory party either federally or provincially. I went and voted for Harper today because I had a membership however I will not renew my membership with the CPC. This party is the Tory party no matter whether Harper is the leader or not. I predict after the next election (unless Harper wins a majority) the knives will come out, if Harper does poorly the Tory elite will say we need a new leader, if Harper wins 100+ seats and puts the Liberals in minority the Tory elite will say we need a new leader(LORD,HARRIS,KLEIN) to take us the rest of the way. This leadership race was but one battle for control of the CPC however the battlefield is littered with fallen, Reformers like Crawford in Dufferin, Lois Brown in Newmarket, many riding associations now under the control of Red Tories, MP Chuck Cadman in BC. I wish you well Reformer4life and hope you can advance a Reform agenda but Tories will be Tories.

[lethbridge_east]

I have to say that the leadership campaign left me cold.

I like greg mcneely said supported the best.... of the worst. The AIP was something I have real trouble with even to this day. So I have helped Harper win under the hope he can institute most of what I want while not giving any more away.

This is not a positive position.

My preference at this time is to work provincially to force the Alberta Agenda into provincial politics and get those lazy so in sos in Redmonton a kick in the uknowwhat.