Belinda Stronach Defects

[Matt]

News story from: sympaticomsn.ctv.ca

 

Stronach crosses the floor, joins Liberal cabinet

CTV.ca News Staff

 

In a move that's given a sudden boost to the minority government while sparking calls of betrayal from the Tories, high-profile Ontario MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor Tuesday to join the Liberal party.

 

Stronach, who was considered one of the rising young stars of the Conservative caucus, has joined the Liberal cabinet and was rewarded with the portfolio of minister of human resources.

 

Her move gives Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberals a better chance of surviving a crucial confidence motion on the federal budget on Thursday, and consequently avoid being forced into a summer election.

 

"I have been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the leader of the Conservative Party has been taking," said Stronach.

 

Seated next to Martin at a morning news conference in Ottawa, Stronach said she doesn't see Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper as being "truly sensitive" to the needs and the complexities of Canada.

 

"Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Quebecois can only grow into the vacuum. The result will be to stack the deck in favour of separatism, and the possibility of a Conservative government beholden to the separatists."

 

'Betrayed'

 

"A number of our caucus members are feeling quite devastated, quite betrayed by this," said Harper at his own press conference shortly following the Liberals' announcement.

 

He said the move obviously makes the defeat of the government on Thursday "much less likely."

 

But Harper added it "doesn't, in any way, change the principled position that our caucus has taken on this issue that the governing party is corrupt."

 

Martin said he and the 39-year-old Stronach share common beliefs on questions of policy and politics, including the Gomery commission investigating the sponsorship scandal.

 

"Based on these shared beliefs, she and I have agreed that she fits more comfortably, can serve more appropriately and can contribute more substantially as a member of the government caucus," he said.

 

Martin said he and Stronach sealed their deal Monday night.

 

"What Ms. Stronach has done is a courageous gesture," he noted, especially in light of the uncertainty surrounding the party as the budget vote looms.

 

"One vote will not make a difference in Thursday's vote," said Martin. He pointed out that what is so "gutsy" about Stronach's decision is that she made it "knowing that there's the possibility of the fact that we're going into an election campaign."

 

Stronach admits the deal was largely brokered by former Ontario premier David Peterson. She ran into Peterson at an event in Toronto last week, and discussed her next move with him before he arranged meetings for her with federal Liberal members and, eventually, Martin.

 

Two weeks ago, Stronach warned that teaming up with the Bloc Quebecois to defeat the federal budget in the confidence vote might be a bad move that could backfire on the Conservatives.

 

"I do have concern that lining up with the Bloc is not good for Canada, to defeat this budget and to trigger an election," said Stronach.

 

She said critical portions of the budget -- particularly the billions promised for municipal infrastructure -- were extremely important to individuals in her riding north of Toronto and other constituencies in the area.

 

In a question and answer session following the announcement, Stronach refused to answer a reporter's questions regarding the future of her relationship with Conservative House Leader Peter MacKay.

 

Stronach, the former president and CEO of Magna International, made a bold entry into politics by challenging Harper for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2004.

 

While she lost that battle, she went on to win the riding of Newmarket-Aurora in Ontario.

 

The Numbers Game

 

While Stronach's defection to the Liberals has narrowed the gap, it by no means guarantees the Grits will win Thursday's budget vote.

 

Prior to Stronach crossing the floor, the Liberals, with the support of the NDP, had 150 votes. That left them three votes shy of the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois, whose combined 153 members planned to vote against the budget.

 

Now that Stronach has defected, the Liberals and the NDP now have 151 votes and the Tories and the Bloc 152.

 

Carolyn Parrish, a former Liberal MP who now sits as an Independent, has said she will vote with the Liberals, bringing their numbers up to 152.

 

That leaves the two remaining independents, David Kilgour and Chuck Cadman. If both vote against the budget, the government will fall.

 

If one votes with the Liberals and the other against, there would still be a tie.

 

And that would likely be broken in favour of the Liberals by House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken.

 

Tory MP Darrell Stinson is still expected to be absent because of illness, but the government has said one of its members will sit out the vote if that is the case.

[Gob]

Belinda lusts to lead a political party, which she would have had no chance of in the conservatives. At least she didn't defect during an election.

[Doc]

She might as well have, considering the current political climate in Ottawa.

[Ravenous Yam]

Yeah no doubt. Way to screw the whole western half of the country over. How are we gonna get the thieving Libs out now?

Edited May 18, 2005 by Ravenous Yam

[Bizud]

Belinda Stronach is not beholden to "the whole western half of the country." She represents the voters of Newmarket-Aurora, and she will have to answer to them one way or another. This is not a west vs. rest issue. I live in BC and don't want an election yet. The majority of Canadians agree. We want that budget passed, because it's got a lot of things we need in it. Same goes for the east. I want that same-sex marriage legislation passed. And I want things to cool down in Quebec so that the Bloc won't sweep every seat there and hold the balance of power in the new parliament. The Conservatives have lost their lead in the polls, both in Ontario and nationally. An election now would lead to another Liberal minority, but one where a Liberal/NDP alliance could not have anything close to a combined majority - instead, the Bloc, with at least 65 seats, would hold the balance of power, free to choose which party will govern, and free to make demands for that. And, in a perfect position to bolster the separatists, hoping for a PQ win in Quebec in 2007 and a successful referendum in 2008. That's what Belinda Stronach says, and I buy it. Do I think those are her motives? Of course not, she's in it for the job, like all of them are. But that doesn't mean what she says isn't true.

[Matt]

This is why I do not believe in proportional representation, because parties that do not have the majority of elected members can hold the balance of power like that.

[Bizud]

That's called democracy - the majority wins. Think about that for a second - for a party to be holding the balance of power in a PR system, they would have to be representing actual voters. If a PR system elected 20 NDP seats and 100 Liberals, versus 110 Conservatives, in an election that would have otherwise resulted in a Conservative majority, who deserves to lead? The Conservatives? Why? The majority has expressed their preference for the left. The Liberals and the NDP would govern together, with the Liberals rightfully having more clout due to more seats, and the people would get what they voted for.

 

Welcome to the 21st century. Coalition politics is the proper way to run a parliamentary democracy. Single-party majorities are old-fashioned, unfair and tyrannical. Most people continue to vote against the federal Liberals, and they keep on winning by virtue of being the largest party. Should they get the most seats, of course. Should they get all the power? Of course not. It's only a fluke that they didn't this time, because now there's a strong regional party (which is itself a product of Single-Member Plurality) depriving anybody of a majority.

 

The Bloc actually only do so well because they're a regionalized party, which Single-Member Plurality encourages. Under MMP they'd get their rightfully deserved 12% of the seats. Now you know why they never talk about proportional representation.

Edited May 18, 2005 by Bizud

[Matt]

Flip flopping, eh? Why make exceptions, it is okay for the left to have the balance of power but not the right apparently. Well that is not true democracy either. This minority government has proven (at least to me) that proportional representation cannot work here. Why should the voters vote for one party who then makes a deal with another one (for more power) which means the voters get something they did not vote for? That is not true democracy to me. That is not about the majority, that's back room deals.

[Bizud]

Flip flopping, eh? Why make exceptions, it is okay for the left to have the balance of power but not the right apparently. Well that is not true democracy either. This minority government has proven (at least to me) that proportional representation cannot work here. Why should the voters vote for one party who then makes a deal with another one (for more power) which means the voters get something they did not vote for? That is not true democracy to me. That is not about the majority, that's back room deals.

 

Where's the flip-flop? I never commented on left- or right-wing parties holding the balance of power. Surely you're not calling the Bloc right-wing.

 

I think this minority situation proves that Canada desperately needs proportional representation. The Bloc are going to win more seats in this next election than the Canadian Alliance did in 2000, do you realize that? They're a really major party now, and when you have three major groups, and none of them can form coalitions (Liberal-Conservative? obviously no, and the Bloc have a policy against being in coalitions), you've got a serious problem. But it's only a problem because the third party is a regional party that would cease to wield this kind of clout in a PR system. In a PR system, they'd have to learn to get along, like they do in most other countries. In this system they could use some lessons in cooperation too, but the nature of the system makes that impossible.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Belinda did a pretty nasty thing. I think her motives were both of what she was saying, but also had a big deal to do with the fact that she hated Harper (not just policies, they never got along personally and were both competitors for the Tory leadership) and that she wants to PM one day or lead a party...which wasn't going to happen with the Cons.

 

If this was just a matter of differences with the direction of the party & its policies, the right thing for Belinda would have been to leave the Conservatives and sit as an indepedent and vote on the budget whichever way she chooses. And then if the budget is passed & no election is called she could have taken her sweet time to choose if she wanted to join the Liberals or return to the Cons, or just continue to sit as an indepedent and represent the people of Newmarket-Aurora. If the governement did fall, she'd could go to the Liberals (if she wanted to keep her seat) or stayed an independent (which would have been the honourable thing, but she might have lost her seat...which makes no sense anyways because all the people who voted for her in Newmarket are fucking PO'd now @ her and she may lose her seat anyways).

 

Defecting to the Liberals 2 days before the vote just smells like ass. It was an obvious power-grab. Someone with almost zero political experience and is unilingual is now a member of the Liberal cabinet?

 

I think Belinda thinks of herself too highly in the political relam. She's can't speak french, has barely any political experience, and just ran a company her daddy let her run. If she's going to lead any party it will take her at least 5-10 years to get there, but she seems to want it right now.

 

I just wish it was Harper who bolted instead of her. ;)

Edited May 19, 2005 by Moonlight_Graham

[Bizud]

A lot of smart people that I'd gladly vote for can't speak a word of French. Also, people cross the floor all the time.

[Moonlight_Graham]

A lot of smart people that I'd gladly vote for can't speak a word of French. Also, people cross the floor all the time.

Don't you live in B.C.? Of course i'd vote for someone who can't speak french, but i'm just saying that someone unilingual would have a hard time getting voted Prime Minister.

 

And yeah people cross the floor all the time, but not 2 days before a very close and important vote.

[ecnarf]

I find it a bit odd that she switched to the libs... she's a political opportunist, let's face it.

 

I'd still do her.

[Bizud]

A lot of smart people that I'd gladly vote for can't speak a word of French.  Also, people cross the floor all the time.

Don't you live in B.C.? Of course i'd vote for someone who can't speak french, but i'm just saying that someone unilingual would have a hard time getting voted Prime Minister.

 

And yeah people cross the floor all the time, but not 2 days before a very close and important vote.

What does living in BC have to do with it? I speak French, and I've lived here all my life. However, if it's your assertion that people from the West aren't really expected to know French, and if it's also your assertion that knowing French is key to being a Cabinet minister, then it would follow that Westerners don't make good cabinet ministers, right?

 

I'm actually very glad she did. I don't doubt that opportunism played an important role in this (interesting, however, that no one slapped Scott Brison with the same criticism, and certainly not with the same offensive, derogatory statements her former colleagues have been spouting off these past couple of days), but she's not wrong when she says that an election right now would be playing right into the Bloc's hands, and potentially very damaging to the federalist cause.

[TheKwas]

I'd still do her.

That's becoming my motto when it comes to discussing Belinda.

[Moonlight_Graham]

i'd still do her too.

[Matt]

We do not need proportional representation, the current situation proves we cannot "get along" well enough to make it work because the same situation can occur under proportional representation because a coalition such as the ones currently made tend to happen in proportional representation. Also under proportional representation back room deals sometimes happen such as the one that happened between the Liberals and the N.D.P. I believe that the people who voted Liberal voted for the Liberal solution to the budget, yet what they got was the N.D.P. one, that's not the majority speaking at all.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Matt

[Bizud]

The people who voted NDP certainly didn't get an NDP budget, Matt. ;)

 

It's called compromise.

[Bizud]

There is no coalition currently in place. A coalition is when the cabinet contains members of multiple parties. This is what's known as a "support agreement." It's very common, and it just means that one of the opposition parties, while remaining in opposition, will support the government in matters of confidence and supply in exchange for some demand or other. It's perfectly reasonable.

 

NDP budget? The budget in question is a Liberal budget that contains one concession to the NDP, which most people, including Liberal supporters, are in favour of anyway (the Liberals "wouldn't have made it if it wasn't in line with Liberal values," now would they?). Furthermore the budget already was leaning to the right of usual Liberal budgets because it was crafted back when it looked like the Conservatives were going to go along with it, remember? Calling this an "NDP budget" is beyond absurd.

 

Compromise.

[Dan #2]

Belinda? i'd be her lover. i'm very pleased that there will be no election.

 

At first i was pissed off, but now i think that that MP from ontario who didn't vote was very noble. it's not the conservative's fault that he had cancer treatment.

 

so when is the same-sex marriage legislation going up for vote?

[SHARPE]

its too soon to be saying this, but id like to see Belinda leading the Liberals at some point. Martin is a fool, and i think that its soon going to be time to have a womans touch and grace in world issues and in Canadian Leadership.

[ecnarf]

its too soon to be saying this, but id like to see Belinda leading the Liberals at some point. Martin is a fool, and i think that its soon going to be time to have a womans touch and grace in world issues and in Canadian Leadership.

Are you kidding? Belinda Stronach is the Paris Hilton of Canadian politics, she's got nothing to bring to Canadian leadership.

[Bizud]

Why, because she's attractive?

[SHARPE]

i believe she has much sincerity. Politics is a dirty game, and the sponsorship scandal is a good example of it. I consider myself loyal to the Liberal Part of Canada, and going through all the times of accusations and corruption within my party of choice its always come across to me that people are blaming liberals as a whole and not the ones responsible for takign advantage of the program.

 

we know that stronach is very socially-driven, and was a fish out of water in the conservative party. her 'defection' is the first step to recovering whats left of the good in the Liberal Party. it was an extremely difficult decision she had to make, and she did it because of her beliefs of what would be best for canadians and her future in service of canadians. every party, every MP/Government Official wants what they deem to be the best for Canada and Canadians. It just so happens that i agree with Stronach and her views/policies. If i lived in her riding shed have my vote, and if she had run for leadership of the party/nation she would have my vote/support.

 

to the comment concerning Stronach having nothing to bring to Canadian Leadership. What we need is an image and substance. Martin is no public speaker. we've all seen that, and to deny it would be ludicrous. stronach is passionate and serious about the issues that we need to address, and she is something that Canada has not seen but wants to. A fresh, young, and intelligent potential to lead our government in the future. she may not be ready now, but in time she will be.

 

mon deux cent!(sp?)

[ecnarf]

Why, because she's attractive?

No, because she would be nowhere without her daddy. Frank Stronach tried to run as an MP and couldn't even win the nomination in his riding, and all of a sudden, Belinda, the daughter of the rich guy, comes from being absolutely nothing to running for the leadership of the conservative party. Did I just miss something?

 

Although I'll admit being attractive has something to do with her popularity.

 

Sharpe has a point, though, at one point in the future, she may be able to bring something to canadian political leadership, but right now, she has proven nothing of herself. Paul Martin was a successful cabinet minister for over 10 years, and he can make a good speech when he wants to, it's just policy decisions that he's not so great at.