The Toronto Star is by the terms of the trust that governs it a liberal leaning paper. That being said, the warning it gives to Belinda Stronach not to run for the Conservative party is more than partisan - it makes good sense. Why she - or Peter MacKay or Mike Harris who have voiced support - could attract anyone to gather around her as a candidate is beyond me. The wisdom of the lairds of Pictou County and North Bay, however, has often eluded me.
Similarly, the tale of how the new Prime Minister is treating the recently former Deputy Prime Minister and, by implication to some, the Liberal party left and perhaps women candidates, is as astounding. If anyone would stand to the move to the right of the Liberals it would be Copps standing from the NDP seats across from a Liberal minority government - which is where Martin is heading if he doesn't stop reading papers from 1999 about how he will make a great next leader of the country.
Later: Loser link fixed.
Comments
David Janes - January 16, 2004 8:40 AM
Hmmm, first link doesn't go to the page you desire.
Alan - January 16, 2004 8:51 AM
Try that - I pasted the story and linked to it internally. That Star link just sucked. Loser link. Pre-rotted brand link.
H. - January 16, 2004 10:50 AM
Bye Bye Sheila! Sheila never did anything for anyone and I can't think of one thing she accomplished in government. Yes, Sheila will have to compete for a seat for the next election, but that is because of electoral distribution. No one else is complaining that the new PM is ostracizing the left or women. If you can find any news item that identifies this I would love to see it. Moreover, when was Sheila ever the voice of the left in the Liberal Party? What did she ever do to advance so-called left wing policies. She was along for the ride during all the deficit reduction measures. Just because she holds press conferences with members of visible minority groups in the background doesn't make her a champion of the voiceless. I don't blame Jack Layton for capitalizing on Sheila's bruised ego. Maybe she should jump to the NDP and they could enjoy her company. I hope the voters in the Hamilton area see through her petulance.
Wayne - January 16, 2004 12:51 PM
"Hell knows no wrath, like a woman scorned!" But, really, are we gonna hear the "I am being ostracized because I am a woman" speel. That is so tired, really. And, nobody buys it. “Tequila” ran against Martin because she had different views. And, by that fact, and none other, she rightly does not belong in cabinet. She is so far off center, she belongs with the NDP. Votes in this country are going to come from the right in the next election. Conservative party squabbles will isolate them from the electorate. And, to get those votes, governments are required to reflect the views of the majority, not bleeding-heart self-interest groups.
Alan - January 16, 2004 1:07 PM
As always, you fail, Wayne, to appreciate the strong left and social interest in the average Canadian - something that has nothing to do with interest groups. The Magna team moving on the Conservative Party represent the most demanding self-interest group we are saddled with in Canada - the corporate welfare bum rich. <p>You are right, however, that the votes from the Tories are going to be fluid but with the Liberals moving to the centre-right, where the Diefenbaker Stanfield Progressive Conservatives sat, the left-leaning voter is also up for the taking. It will be interesting if that dynamic gels into a real three way structure in the form of:<ul><li>real right - Conservative Party</li><li>centre right - Liberal Party</li><li>left - NDP with the Bloc in Quebec.</li></ul>This would require two things happening on the left side: disaffection and defection of "Red Liberals" to the NDP and no real growth of the Greens who are now significantly eating into NDP vote in places like Ontario and BC. Green in Kingston get over 5% of the over all vote and that must take largely from otherwise NDP voters.
Rusty - January 16, 2004 1:27 PM
the concepts of "left" and "right" are becoming increasingly moribund in terms of political discourse. if i believe in universal access to equal healthcare, am i left or right? what if i, at the same time, believe that governments should be required to have a balanced budget every year? am i left or right? what if i believe that the legal right of marriage should be extended to gay couples? but, at the same time, i believe that refugee procedures should be strengthened? what if i believe in strict environmental guidelines but, at the same time, believe in the removal of regional development programs like ACOA? why should i engage in the tribalism of left and right when the host of issues in Canada are so complex and require nuanced thinking? this is the problem the Alliance faced and so are trying to remedy by joining with the PCs and it is the problem the NDP continues to face.
Alan - January 16, 2004 1:37 PM
[Ed.: <i>I think tribalism is a banned word here but I have to check with Portland who determines such matters</i>].
The reality is, as you point out there is a distinction between affiliation to party and its platform and the actual interest of any voter in any given issue. I am most disconcerted by the Green's economic statements which are not at all leftist or rightist but motivated only by sustainability. The reality, though, of the party structure is that there is left and right and we voters must stick ourselves in the most-squared round holes.
Rusty - January 16, 2004 2:26 PM
ban "tribalism"? i could see banning "onanism" ......
Alan - January 16, 2004 2:42 PM
Onanism is likely the one thing which will never actually be banned in this world.