Belinda Stronach Turns Liberal
- Thread starter jwmorrice
- Start date
Bottom line...
The fact is the people in her riding voted for her because they wanted to vote CONSERVATIVE. She has betrayed them and shown that she cares nothing for the people she was elected by. As I stated before, the honourable thing to do would have been to wait for the next election and declare herself a fiberal. Then see if she gets re-elected.
On another note - I hear that one of the people in her riding is thinking of launching a suit against the traitor to get the money back that was donated for BS's campaign. I hope it's true - and that more do the same.
The fact is the people in her riding voted for her because they wanted to vote CONSERVATIVE. She has betrayed them and shown that she cares nothing for the people she was elected by. As I stated before, the honourable thing to do would have been to wait for the next election and declare herself a fiberal. Then see if she gets re-elected.
On another note - I hear that one of the people in her riding is thinking of launching a suit against the traitor to get the money back that was donated for BS's campaign. I hope it's true - and that more do the same.
question: if Stephen Harper had not voted with Gilles Duceppe, against the 2005 budget, would Belinda Stronach have left the Conservative Party?
Stephen Harper:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/biography/
Gilles Duceppe:
http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/le_chef.asp
(do they even have an English website?)
Belinda Stronach:
http://www.belinda.ca/
Stephen Harper:
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/biography/
Gilles Duceppe:
http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/le_chef.asp
(do they even have an English website?)
Belinda Stronach:
http://www.belinda.ca/
The following is the Statement made by Belinda Stronach, MP in Ottawa at a Press Conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin, Tuesday, May 17, 2005.
Thank you, Prime Minister.
After difficult reflection, I reached a conclusion. I cannot exaggerate how hard this was for me. The political crisis affecting Canada is too risky and dangerous for blind partisanship. I watch and listen and feel that the interests of individuals or parties are often placed above the national interests. The country must come first.
The current political crisis is too risky to enter into partisan politics. I have observed, I've listened, and I believe that the interests of persons and parties have superseded those of the national interests. Our country must be our priority.
I entered politics in the first place both to be a strong voice for the citizens of Newmarket and Aurora, and to try to make my country stronger and better. To have healthy politics in Canada, we need the checks and balances of more than one strong and vibrant party.
Over time, the Conservative Party will mature and grow to provide that option. There are many good and talented folks that I have a great deal of respect for in the Conservative Party. But I find myself at a crossroads forced on me by the decision of the leader of the Conservative Party to try to force the defeat of this government this Thursday.
It is now the moment to stand and be counted because the consequences are serious. I've been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the leader of the Conservative Party has been taking.
I tried to the very best of my ability to play a constructive role within the Conservative Party to advance issues that really mattered to Canadians in cities, to women, to young people, to many Ontarians.
But regret to say that I do not believe the party leader's truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and how big and complicated Canada really is.
Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Québécois 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.
After agonizing soul searching, I just cannot support such a large risk with my country. I'm as offended as any Canadian by the arrogance of entitlement at the core of the sponsorship scandal.
Today, the Prime Minister has given me the chance to serve my constituents and my country by making a difference at a critical time.
Among several things, he's asked me to take aggressive action on the lessons that will come from the Gomery inquiry, and to put priority on renewing the Canadian democracy.
Our political structures and institutions need renewal. Canadians are crying for political stability. Only in this way can we direct the focus of government once again to growing a competitive economy that safeguards our quality of life.
Only when the people of Canada have renewed confidence and faith in the systems of government can we return to ethics and civility.
Thank you.
Belinda Stronach
info@belinda.ca
http://www.belinda.ca/inside.asp
Thank you, Prime Minister.
After difficult reflection, I reached a conclusion. I cannot exaggerate how hard this was for me. The political crisis affecting Canada is too risky and dangerous for blind partisanship. I watch and listen and feel that the interests of individuals or parties are often placed above the national interests. The country must come first.
The current political crisis is too risky to enter into partisan politics. I have observed, I've listened, and I believe that the interests of persons and parties have superseded those of the national interests. Our country must be our priority.
I entered politics in the first place both to be a strong voice for the citizens of Newmarket and Aurora, and to try to make my country stronger and better. To have healthy politics in Canada, we need the checks and balances of more than one strong and vibrant party.
Over time, the Conservative Party will mature and grow to provide that option. There are many good and talented folks that I have a great deal of respect for in the Conservative Party. But I find myself at a crossroads forced on me by the decision of the leader of the Conservative Party to try to force the defeat of this government this Thursday.
It is now the moment to stand and be counted because the consequences are serious. I've been uncomfortable for some time with the direction the leader of the Conservative Party has been taking.
I tried to the very best of my ability to play a constructive role within the Conservative Party to advance issues that really mattered to Canadians in cities, to women, to young people, to many Ontarians.
But regret to say that I do not believe the party leader's truly sensitive to the needs of each part of the country and how big and complicated Canada really is.
Also, by forcing an election before the Conservative party has grown and established itself in Quebec, the hold over Quebec of the Bloc Québécois 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.
After agonizing soul searching, I just cannot support such a large risk with my country. I'm as offended as any Canadian by the arrogance of entitlement at the core of the sponsorship scandal.
Today, the Prime Minister has given me the chance to serve my constituents and my country by making a difference at a critical time.
Among several things, he's asked me to take aggressive action on the lessons that will come from the Gomery inquiry, and to put priority on renewing the Canadian democracy.
Our political structures and institutions need renewal. Canadians are crying for political stability. Only in this way can we direct the focus of government once again to growing a competitive economy that safeguards our quality of life.
Only when the people of Canada have renewed confidence and faith in the systems of government can we return to ethics and civility.
Thank you.
Belinda Stronach
info@belinda.ca
http://www.belinda.ca/inside.asp
I was thinking that if I were to read something like this in public, I'd lose it and blow up laughing (as actually happened to Gagliano once). You have to admire her spunkiness and steel, if nothing else.hjwolf69 said:
This sounds like it was written by a friggin' party demographer. I imagine that the original had "18-29" crossed out and replaced with "young people"
F
feminista
please name those who have admitted to being crooks.
She is high profile in the community and many people I know who voted for her have never voted conservative before (and i doubt will again). Some vote for the individual and some vote for the party.
Newmarket-Aurora was LIBERAL for the past 11 years before she ran as a conservative. I suggest this indicates they voted for her moreso than for the party.
feminista said:
if I lived in Edmonton, I'd vote for Rona Ambrose ... only 1 of my 2 brains gets to vote at any one timeHugh G. Rekshun said:
http://www.ronaambrose.com/about/default.asp
F
feminista
I know Helena.
She used to sell hotdogs out of a wagon with her husband. Then she became Joe Tascona's (conservative MP from Barrie) secretary and now she's an MP ......and people talk about Stronach's lack of background.
She used to sell hotdogs out of a wagon with her husband. Then she became Joe Tascona's (conservative MP from Barrie) secretary and now she's an MP ......and people talk about Stronach's lack of background.
Mrs Dithers Speaks Again. More B.S. from B.S.
B.S. is an OXYMORON
"But I find myself at a crossroads forced on me by the decision of the leader of the Conservative Party to try to force the defeat of this government this Thursday."
She has said in the past, that she would support free votes(that the MP vote with their constituants wishes, and not necessarily vote along party lines). Which she has done, and has voted with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, when she saw fit, including the vote last week to vote for a non confidence vote. If she didn't want to toe the party line, why did she stand and vote yes to a vote of non confidence?
So now that she is a Liberal cabinet minister, she has to vote whichever way Paul Martin tells her. So she can't vote the way her constituants want her to vote. She can't have it both ways.
Once again this proves the stranglehold the PMO has on the country, and we have a democratically elected dictatorship.
B.S. is an OXYMORON
"But I find myself at a crossroads forced on me by the decision of the leader of the Conservative Party to try to force the defeat of this government this Thursday."
She has said in the past, that she would support free votes(that the MP vote with their constituants wishes, and not necessarily vote along party lines). Which she has done, and has voted with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party, when she saw fit, including the vote last week to vote for a non confidence vote. If she didn't want to toe the party line, why did she stand and vote yes to a vote of non confidence?
So now that she is a Liberal cabinet minister, she has to vote whichever way Paul Martin tells her. So she can't vote the way her constituants want her to vote. She can't have it both ways.
Once again this proves the stranglehold the PMO has on the country, and we have a democratically elected dictatorship.
I don't think the Conservatives were allowing free votes on that bogus non-confidence motion last week or on the budget yesterday. Harper has been talking about exactly what his party would and wouldn't support as if they were all in his pocket. Besides, everyone knew that last week's so called non-confidence vote was just a gimmick because they weren't voting on a major money bill.pussylicker said:
The Conservatives hardly have a monopoly on thinking they're right! The only real difference in this respect between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives tend to believe in a reasonably consistent and enduring agenda: fiscal responsibility, promotion of business development, a cautious and slower approach to recognizing social changes through legislation, etc. The Liberals, on the other hand, have no historically consistent platform. They are the party of "tell people what they want to hear during an election campaign, then do whatever the hell you want once you're elected". They just proved this again by their unprincipled adoption of the NDP sponsored portion of the budget. Did they adopt these items because they believed in the policy behind them? No! They'll just do anything to hang on to power.Winston said:
And why do they crave power so much? Not for the purpose of implementing a "Liberal Agenda", because no such thing exists. It turns out that they only want to govern in order to cash in on government contracts, collect government pay cheques, and receive government pensions. There's no social agenda at all!
There is waste in every government. There is corruption to some degree in every government. However, this government is simply rotten to the core and has to go!
That is correct.Winston said:
As though that somehow weren't true of red Tories (I won't even get into the Liberals or NDP). Red Tories, especially from urban areas, often seem to think that they can have their cake and eat it too, thinking they can just slag off constituencies they don't happen to like when those same constituencies are their own natural allies. For example, I don't personally like religious or family-values types, to be sure. But it would be profoundly- and, ultimately, irreversibly- suicidal for a party that calls itself conservative to not give this constituency anything, the way a lot of Red Tories would like to do. The Progressive Conservatives paid the ultimate price for this sort of thinking- and yet some people continue to reason as though the 1993 general election never happened. To assert that red Toryism has failed is much more than an arrogant personal opinion.
Free Votes
The Conservatives didn't back the same sex (marriage definition) bill, but B.S. voted in favour of the change to the definition of marriage to include same sexslowpoke said:
One of the reasons that the Parliament buildings are so large is so that the MPs can fit in along with their enormous egos. Nobody can stand up before a nation of 30 million and say "make me your leader" without having a huge ego. BS has a huge ego, Mr. Harper has a huge ego, Paul Martin's ego overshadows them all. Big ego people work together every day all the time.ice_dog said:
On the issue of gay marriage, Harper said he would allow a free vote:pussylicker said:
"...NDP Leader Jack Layton has said his caucus will vote in favour of the bill, while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose party is split on the issue, says it will be a free vote....."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09/scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
It was probably that mention of a free vote which lulled many into believing that Harper was allowing free votes on everything. Not necessarily so. I'd be surprised if he allowed free votes on these recent confidence motions. So there was nothing sinister or disloyal about BS voting in favour of gay marriage that day.
It all depends what you mean by 'big egos'. Paul Martin has 'big ego', but he made a concession in his budget in exchange for the support of NDP. In the case of Belinda and Harper, neither side wanted to give in. If your boss makes it clear that 'you have no future in this party', you either suck it up and throw your pride out of the window, or jump ship if you have a big ego.
This is really Human Relation 101, what is the big deal ?
This is really Human Relation 101, what is the big deal ?
johnhenrygalt said:
Or bide time and mount a palace coup - like Paul Martin did against Jean Chrétien; like Jean Chrétien previously did against John Turner; like John Turner tried to do against Pierre Trudeau back in 1975; like Stephen Harper did against Stockwell Day; like Stockwell Day did against Preston Manning; like Brian Mulroney did against Joe Clark - and the list goes on.ice_dog said:
Only BS knows her own personal motives - but if she has Prime Ministerial ambitions, they will not likely be satisfied in the Liberal Party either.
... if Stephen Harper voted for the budget and Belinda Stronach was still a member of the Conservative Party, would Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party be in a stronger or weaker position today?ice_dog said:
