Let the games begin

[Tingkai]

Ah, the old "blame the media" routine. Always a convenient excuse.

[Ben Kenobi]

And maybe membership has to be more careful about who gets nominated.

That's the best way to get involved, is in the Conservative nominations, especially because they do not appoint their candidates.

I did that, and I think the Conservatives would have done better in both ridings, had the candidate I supported won. Both of them were better organised, and more attractive in the general election then the candidates that did run.

One lost due to a backroom deal between two inferior candidates, and another lost because the Conservative voters did not represent the riding population in any appreciable measure.

I counted something like 1:2 ratio of Beemers to non-Beemers at that meeting.

I'm not stupid NYE. I know that many people do not support abortion, but for people like Cheryl Gallant, who have considerable support in their riding, they ought to be encouraged to speak their mind, to show that the party can work with the ideas of people, rather than muzzling them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Okay. So how does the opinion of one candidate in one riding in Ontario affect the position of the Leader?

If we vote for Leaders and parties only, then Cheryl Gallant cannot represent the party.

I didn't say that we vote for parties and leaders only. Read it again. Icons. In this past election, many voted on Gallant, whether they were in her riding or not. Couldn't help but do that. She put herself forward as a symbol, and part of the result is the verdict on her and her position.

I could care less. I vote for my MP, and not for Cheryl Gallant. I vote for the Conservative party, and their leader Stephen Harper.

Either way, her opinion does not matter outside of her own riding.

Wrong. Quaint, but wrong.

I have to ask if you actually care about supporting a realistic alternative to endless Liberal governments?

You're a smart guy. I can't see you missing the connections.

The media blew this out of proportion to deflect people from the real issues of the campaign, such as the democratic deficit under Martin.

Sure, you can say Cheryl Gallant killed her party, but the only reason her face got on the national media is because they made it an issue, and not her.

Actually, after the initial rush, she just didn't shut up. She went on. And on. And then the media carried it on, again.

She had the opportunity to be a tempest in a teacup, but she was dumber than a sack of hammers and spoke up again. She should have STFU. She didn't. In future, when Tories are creeping up in numbers in Nova Scotia and Quebec, such outbursts will cost seats.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

I vote for my MP. I want to know where he stands on the issues. I know where the party stands. But the biggest influence I can have on parliament is to vote for the candidate that best represents my interests.

If that candidate happens to be a conservative, then I will vote for the conservative party. If that candidate happens to be a liberal, then I vote for the Liberal party. Any other method diminishes my influence drastically.

And none of that involves going before the national media and saying 'I'm right, and you all are wrong, dammit.'

A simple 'it's been overblown and I'll speak with my constituents' would have been in order. A reinforcement of the original flap was not. She did the later.

She cost seats.

It's that simple.

[Ben Kenobi]

She put herself forward as a symbol, and part of the result is the verdict on her and her position.

And that's just what the papers want you to do. Make this election a referendum on abortion. And meanwhile, the Liberals escape defeat.

Much better to look at each individual liberal candidate, and see what they have accomplished during their time in power. Let's start with Hedy Fry...

The Liberals are stronger when the attention is off of their individual candidates, and on the positions of their opponents.

They don't have a very strong party compared with years past. Look at some of the members they have had to appoint to cabinet positions.

I have to ask if you actually care about supporting a realistic alternative to endless Liberal governments?

I am. Provided that alternative is really an alternative, and just not a liberal dressed in conservative clothes. And I voted against the Conservative in my riding who almost managed to finish third to the NDP. He had no chance, he did nothing during his entire campaign. He sat for 2 months and did not challege the liberal, Ujjal Dosanjh.

Instead, I voted for the Heritage Party candidate that I thought would make a better MP, even though he had no hope of victory.

Actually, after the initial rush, she just didn't shut up. She went on. And on. And then the media carried it on, again.

So what? Let them report about the great candidate in Ontario, who represents the riding of Nipissing.

You see, you are reverting to the way the Liberal party works. If the party does not take action to muzzle the speech of their candidates, this automatically means that the party approves of the statements.

It does not. Harper made his stance clear. The party has no stance on abortion.

What more do you want, NYE? To muzzle the candidates just like the Liberals do? To make sure that no one deviates from the party line?

She had the opportunity to be a tempest in a teacup, but she was dumber than a sack of hammers and spoke up again. She should have STFU. She didn't. In future, when Tories are creeping up in numbers in Nova Scotia and Quebec, such outbursts will cost seats.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I know Diefenbaker complained of the same thing, losing a seat because of comments made by people on Ontario. But he won later on, regardless of the redistribution of his riding, and regardless of party affiliation, even though his views did not change.

If you are a conservative candidate who is unable to make sure that the people of the riding see you, and not another candidate, then you are running a poor campaign. If they see you, then regardless of what the other Conservatives say, they will vote for you, and your seat will be much more secure than it will be otherwise.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Because I see people win when they connect with the people in their riding, and lose when they ride on the coattails of a party.

And none of that involves going before the national media and saying 'I'm right, and you all are wrong, dammit.'

And Ms. Fry accused people from Prince George of burning crosses on their lawns.

Yet the same is true of both. If you serve your constituents, they will be loyal to you. They vote for Ms. Fry in Vancouver Centre, because they know her, and she has done a good job for them.

The same is true for Cheryl Gallant. If she serves her constituents well in Nipissing, she will establish a Conservative stronghold in Ontario.

She cost seats.

We need better candidates, who are willing to fight for their ridings, to make themselves known over the party.

[notyoueither]

Wishful thinking, Ben.

The idea is not what makes you vote how you vote. The idea is what makes THE REST OF CANADA vote the way they vote.

'Our' party is trying to win them. They do not owe 'us' anything. 'We' need to win their confidence, not the other way around.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Speech given by the Govenor General to both Houses of Parliament that outlines the intentions of the government in broad strokes for the session of Parliament that is just beginning.

Wait, I thought you had a single-house Parliament... or do you make a speech to the English Parliament?

And why would it not being passed cause new elections?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Wait, I thought you had a single-house Parliament... or do you make a speech to the English Parliament?

Good question indeed. Perhaps NYE was talking about the Senate?

And why would it not being passed cause new elections?

I think that it is required to enterinate the legitimacy of the government, but I'm really not sure.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ben's not on ATM, but I would say that painting the picture that Gallant's views spoke for the party was demonising.

Possibly. But Ben claimed that the media demonised those two individuals...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Wait, I thought you had a single-house Parliament... or do you make a speech to the English Parliament?

There is also the immensely powerful Senate.

[Fake Boris]

KH, the Senate is not that weak. It can block any laws; but since the PM can nominate any number of senators that suits him, he would counter a hostile senate by appointing X required number of new senators favorable to his position.

[KrazyHorse]

"Parliament" consists of a Lower House (the House of Commons) and a castrated Upper House (In Britain it's called the House of Lords, in Canada it's called the Senate).

The Upper House in Britain wields more power and is less democratic than the Upper House in Canada, though only slightly. Essentially the Senate is an unelected rubber-stamp body. The Prime Minister appoints its members for life (though they're now forced to retire at 75). Since the Liberals are always in power the Senate consists almost entirely of Liberals, and they don't generally try to kick up any fuss.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait, I thought you had a single-house Parliament... or do you make a speech to the English Parliament?

Speech from the throne, the throne being the Crown of England. The speech is made by the representative of the Queen in parliament, our Governor General.

We are a constitutional monarchy, in a bicameral system, with an upper house, (senate), and a lower house, (commons).

Now, in our system, the senate is supposed to be higher up than the commons, but most of the legislative power we invest in the commons.

[Ben Kenobi]

But Ben claimed that the media demonised those two individuals...

They have.

They don't froth at the mouth just because they are prolife.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Speech to the throne

Speech from the throne, not to it.

the throne being the Crown of England. The speech is made to the representative of the Queen in parliament, our Governor General.

Made by the G-G...

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you.