dnsfurlan

Exactly. You get your opinions from them? Hmmm. I don't think you're making observations at all. I think you are making comments directed against the new party. Boy, you really must be scared. It didn't take you half a day to try to put in your two cents worth. Martin doesn't seem to mind the new party. You sure do!

Littlefinger, Why are you so eager to provide us all with a doomsayer's analysis of the new party? If you're not scared, then why try so hard to convince us of the error in our ways? And I thought you were watching this fram afar. You sound like you're getting pretty close to me.

And you're more than happy to do your part to try to point those swords, aren't you? The merger has only just been announced and the Liberals already seems to be scared of a united alternative. Jack Layton too.

(Nice to be back. What a time for the website to go down. Just our luck ) I guess I have two views of the creation of the new party: 1) The tremendous challenge that still awaits this party. It needs to be in election shape within a matter of about six months. In the meantime, it needs to clear the hurdle of a two-thirds majority ratification within the PC Party itself. Apparently, the Orchardites are already at work trying to sabotoge this thing. Some suggest that as many people as possible should try to buy PC memberhip cards ($10) if they want merger approved. 2) If the above can be managed, then there has to be significant upside to merger. Until now, Canadians were not given a clear alternative to the Liberals. Now, I think they have been. One voice, two combined constituencies. This should mean clarity for those who thought about voting for someone other than the Liberals but just saw a mess of choices. It should also mean that 1+1=2, or something to that effect. The West is in. So is Atlantic Canada. And now Ontario may finally be at play. Don't believe the people who say this will not make a difference. These are the same people who said that both the Alliance and the Tories were in danger of extinction after the next election. They seem more annoyed at the prospect of Paul Martin being challenged than anything else. This party is here to stay. It will form the official opposition in the next election. It will form the basis of the conservative movement for the future of Canada. It can end vote-splitiing. Stated simply, it provides Canadian voters with one strong choice as opposed to two questionable ones. And for those people who say that many voters will go Liberal or NDP because they won't like the new entity, think about some of the people who have voted Liberal for the last decade that might want to go back to voting for a real conservative alternative. Experts tend to look at one side of the coin and not the other. The challenge now is that this new choice indeed be strong. And it will be a challenge. But lets hope this new entitiy becomes a professionally run machine within the next six months that will finally give Canadians a sniff of democracy once again. I still don't know how its going to be done. Lets just try to do everything we can to make sure it does. Peter Mackay and Stephen Harper have done theire part. Now lets do ours. P.S. Any thoughts on a new leader? My bet is still on Harper, although I realize the challenge he has in presenting himself as a big-tent leader. If you look at what he did to stabilize a party that many people were laughing of the political stage, perhaps such a smooth touch could be used for the volatile entity the new party is. He speaks french - an almost invaluable asset. And I thought he sure looked good in today's press conference - almost like someone who believes he has a shot at becoming the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada?

Where are you from?

Why isn't this message getting out there? Isn't this part of the problem with the current opposition? I hope someone has a gameplan set up against Martin. And they better start implimenting it in time for the next election. :angry:

Didn't they approve Al-Jazeera, but Fox has still not been approved? Since when did it become "Canadian" to resent America? Yeah, I'll definitely take a look at that petition.

Don't you think there is a big difference betwenn Ernie Eves and Paul Martin? Eves micro-managed his way back into politics and got turfed. Martin has been planning to be the next PM for the last decade. And Martin is setting himself up as the agent of change. Unless someone can seriously challenge that assertion, its gonna be Paul Martin's country all the way, isn't it?

But how do you do that? That's the million dollar question. And how do you do it without negotiating?

Gugsy, come on. There has to be SOME compromise on the part of the PCs. You just can't form a new party requiring sacrifice from one side only. That's just a non-starter. Politics is about the art of compromise - its not a charity. If Mackay sticks to his position of non-compromise than there cannot possibly be any deal. Politics just doesn't work the way. Harper is the leader of a political party, not the United Way. Requiring such benevolence from him, even if for a good cause, is asking for foolishness. I don't think in the history of negotiations has anyone ever made a deal where one side was required to make sacrifice. It just can't be done. SOMETHING has to come from Mackay. Let's remember, there are two parties in these negotiations, which means that both sides want to have something happen -which means both sides have to give up something. Expecting anything more of Harper is competely unfair. What Mackay is essentially asking of Harper is to cut himself in the throat in order to donate some blood. The focus here shouldn't be on Harper, since way too much is being asked of him. The focus, in my opinion, should be on Mackay. If he is that stubborn about not wanting a deal, then he should say so and then we can all go on with the rest of our lives.

The problem with this is that I think he has no shot at being leader of the new party, even if the terms are that favourable to the PCs. I think its one of the reasons why I don't think he is sincere about merger. For Mackay, this may be about power, but its about the power of being leader of the only party that wants him there - the PC Party of Canada. If I am right, and he doesn't want merger, then the only thing that will get him there is pressure from behind the scenes. I think its this pressure that got him to start these merger talks in the first place. And I think its the only thing that will get him to sign on the dotted line in the last place. You know, I saw a political discussion panel criticize these talks because it took a plane to Toronto in order to get them to sit down together. Why couldn't they just walk down the hall in Parliament and sit down to talk. Well, guess what? That's exactly what Harper wanted to do but Mackay wanted none of it. No talks. Nothing. To me, Harper is the only one working hard to get something done. Mackay seems more keen on having his Thanksgiving dinner.

If you go by what's happened so far, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if Harper called Mackay on the offer. The question is whether Mackay is bluffing or not. Besides, what kind of a way is that to negotiate? It never ceases to amaze me how PCs seem to go ga-ga over proposals which only require compromise from the other side. Mackay as interim leader? Terrific! Equality of all ridings? Why the hell not! Keep the PC constitution? Sounds fair to me. Come on. This is no way to negotiate - requiring benevolence from one side only. Mackay seemed to have no problem in compromising the PC Party principles when his ambitions were at stake. Its called the Mackay/Orchard Pact. Now, in order to save that job for himself, he is not open to any compromise whatsoever. If it is his position that a merger will happen if equality of all ridings is preserved, I think Harper will come back with a counterproposal which accepts it, only with other compromises added. Then, we'll probably see Mackay squirm again. What a way to run negotiations. :angry:

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. You say there is no other option to merger. But, if Mackay is seen as the spoiler, does the Alliance become that option? And how viable an alternatve would it be? You see, there are many people who seem to want this thing to happen. If it doesn't, will they say "the heck with it" and go Alliance? I would like to think that all of this has not been an exercise in futility. If merger doesn't happen, will a rally around the Alliance be the consolation prize? I just wonder how realistic that possibility is.

I think you guys have raised an interesting point as it relates to Mackay's handling of this whole affair, especially if you want to look at all of this from a broader perspective. Unlike Gugsy, I question Mackay's sincerity in these talks. I think Harper does too, which is why I think Harper started leaking to the media a couple of weeks ago. He wanted to call Mackay's bluff. I think he has. So, if it is true that Mackay has simply been trying to run out the clock, and that he will be seen as the reason for no merger, what then? Will there be serious consequences for his apparrent obstruction? Neal raised the possibility of some PC MPs crossing the floor, and of financial taps being turned on for a Canadian Alliance/Conservative party entity. I guess I just wonder how realistic such an outcome might be. My sense has been that Mackay has been forced into these talks to give the appearance of wanting unity. If he doesn't convince the right people of his sincerity, will we see some kind of exodus to a Canadian Alliance centred conservative party on the Right? And I'll even throw in a doozy. Is there the possibility that Brian Mulroney would endorse some kind of exodus to the Alliance, or some hybrid thereof? I'm just wondering how significant the consequences are of Mackay's perceived insincerity. Because the current status-quo seems impalatable to many. So, would such a drastic possibility in fact become reality? Could we see a shift of power over to the Alliance in the wake of Mackay's bungling? How realistic is this? Otherwise, all these talks were an exercise in futlility, thanks to Mr. Mackay. I wonder how many people will be satisfied with this state of affairs.

I think Stephen Harper seems to agree with me: Chances of uniting right dim, memo says In the article, a leaked memo reveals Harper's view that Mckay has not offered any compromise in the talks, and that any progress made so far looks better on paper than it does in reality. Get this beauty from Mackay. I can't believe he actually said it: Hey, with compromises like that, it should take until about the twenty-third century for this merger to take place.

You see - this is what Mackay had to say about the prospects of a merger: Alliance, PC merger talks may resume next week The guy already can't wait for the clock to run out, so that he can get a crack at running as leader of the PCs in the next election. The ONLY alternative explanation I can see here is that he is looking as though he is fighting the good fight before any inevitable merger does materialize. It also might explain why he's in the talks in the first place. That's part of the puzzle here. On the one hand, his actions seem to suggest he's looking to squirm out of merger. On the other hand, he has come to the table, at the very least to look like he wants merger. But how can he have it both ways - wanting merger and not wanting merger? Is he coy, or simply out of the loop?

What I'm gonna find interesting is just how Howdy Doody is going to deal with the province's financials, especially since the usual Liberal Modus Operandi in such matters is to buy people off, or tax the rich. Good thing Ontario doesn't have a military, since you know liberals love gutting defence. He's already trying to downplay expectations by saying it will take time. And, of course, whatever mess he makes he'll blame if on Ernie Eves. Howdy really finds himself in a fine predicament. He promised no new tax cuts. He also didn't promise to raise taxes either. And he promised spending. Something's going to have to give. He won't be able to deal with the defecits by holding to his campaign posture. You know liberals always have something up their sleave. I wonder what it will be this time.

Seems to me that the PCs are stuck in the same frame of mind they've been in for the past ten years - waiting for the day when Canadians return to the fold. The problem with that attitude is, of course, that they may never be back. Also, CA members were once part of that fold. And I doubt they'll be coming back if some of the open hatred of them is seen to scuttle these talks. But sometimes I get the feeling that the PCs don't care. They would rather die believeing they were right then change their attitudes towards anything. I hope I'm wrong. I hope these merger talks weren't an exercise in showmanship - by either party. But what I see from the PCs isn't inspiring. I see Gerald Keddy referring to us as a "Pit of Snakes" and I see Mackay doing everything he can to play the clock out. He's even declared Thanksgiving as the final buzzer. And he seems more than content to hear it ring and end a process which would see him lose his job, or get the PCs to embrace something new for a change. Again, I hope I'm wrong. The next few days should be telling.

My sense here is that Mackay is playing coy. I don't think he has ever wanted a deal. And, as he did last week, he's trying to make it look like he's open to a deal. But his caucus is still angry at the thought of any merger. From my reading of the reports, the Alliance has compromised on one-member, one-vote. I haven't seen any compromise from Mackay. There is so much jockeying and positionig going on here. Its hard to make out what is really going on.

This is an interesting report I picked up on the internet: Tory-Alliance merger talks in limbo: Insiders An interesting couple of nuggets: 1) It APPEARS as though its the conservatives who are not compromising on the issue of equality of all ridings. I know the Alliance has already proposed some kind of weighted system, which is a compromise from them. The PCs still seem to be stuck on their original position. At least it appears that way. Springer might be interested in this twist: 2) Harper would step aside and allow Mackay to run for the leadership. This one does not make sense to me whatsoever. But Mike Duffy reported it. I wish he would have interpreted it as well.

I never started a forum with this title, either. Are these boards going whacky?

Ouch!

Springer, I tend to agree with a lot of what you have to say. I have never seen the appeal people have for Martin. He has always looked like a bit of a bumbler to me. I guess people ignore it when they think he's some kind of financial whiz. Come to think of it, kind of reminds me of Defence Minister John McCallum. While he was chief economist at Royal Bank, it was easy to see him as some kind of financial guru. Now that he's in politics, he looks like he has trouble finding his own office - and buying armoured vehicles for our troops. As for Harper, I also agree with much of your sentiment. I think he's a cool customer. He has openly admitted to spending the last year mainly engaged in policy development. He is also aware of the traditional mid-term status of the Alliance in the polls. People have gone Alliance in the run-up to an election. Logic dictates that it is possible again. Having said that, all of our hopes for Harper are still speculation. He is still vulnerable because of his low poll numbers. The recent Mike Harris bandwagon is a good example of it. Saying he is capable of big things is one thing. Him proving it is another. Thats what a leadership race would test, wouldn't it? Certainly, I don't think Harper could be leader of a new party without one. And Harris does seem like the very popular frontrunner - if a new party is indeed formed. You know, popularity means a lot in politics. Harper doesn't have much of it beyond Manitoba. Harris does. So does Paul Martin. You and I might see the substance in Harper. Many others probably don't. It'll be interesting to see if he has a few tricks up his sleave, as all good politicians do.

Confirming that sentiment:Talks to unite Canadian right set to resume As for the issue of a new leader, the two obvious candidates do seem to be Harper and Harris, although I wouldn't rule out Mackay as a candidate to preserve "the values and traditions of the PC Party of Canada" or something to that effect. But maybe the hill would be too high for him to climb. I don't know if there is anyone else who could play such a role. Clearly, Harris would have all the immediate momentum. There seem to be conservatives all over the place (these boards are evidence of that) that think Mike Harris is a good blend of small-C conservative, voter-rich Ontarian, and good old Tory to boot. (Remember, he never did come out in support of the Alliance). But I still don't know if he is up to the job. He does seem open to the idea. And I don't think he would be unless he thought he had a good shot at winning it. I don't think any of it should be blamed on Harris. One of Eves' failings was to flip-flop on the common sense revolution. I don't think Harris would ever be guilty of that. Harper is a contrast to this. Although long on policy and organizational skills, Harper has yet to prove he can be popular west of Manitoba. What better way of proving so than in a leadership run against the Mike Harris the Giant. But I'm not completely convinced he wants the job. But I also don't think he would dissapoint the Alliance faithful by completely abandoning their interests and not running. One observation about Harper. Either: 1) He's boring and what we have seen is what we will get. Nothing more. 2) He is saving his best for when it counts. I think a leadership run for a new conservative party might be one of those times. The great thing about a united conservative party is that people who would not have considered putting their careers on the line for either the Alliance or the PCs might well come out of the woodwork. As for this idea of just giving the leadership to Harper, I don't think it would fly. First, I don't think he's earned it. Like I mentioned above, he hasn't done much to increase his appeal beyond traditional Alliance country. Second, I don't think it would do much to unify the new party. PCers are already skeptical of being "swamped" by the Alliance. Just giving it to Harper could throw some fuel on the fire. A well run leadership campaign by Harper could alleviate the fears. But even that is a big "if" at this moment. I think Flaherty is too much of an unknown from a federal perspective. That means a lot can go wrong within a short period of time. Just ask Stockwell Day. As for other names, no other surprises have arisen yet. Would we be in for a Harris vs. Harper matchup? And if we are, who would win?

They do? Why would they want to read what a bunch of dolts like us have to say? Wait a minute, we're talking about the media. Never mind. (Ha Ha) Sounds very reasonable to me. Expecting equality of ridings may be much to ask for from the PCs, becasue it doesn't acknowledge some of the strenths of the Alliance as a party. Similarly, one member one vote would all but make PC members an after-thought in the new entity. For the PCs, what's the point of merging if it means becoming the smaller partner from the get-go. Harper has already signalled compromise on this point. And I have said all along that I cannot see how this is a stumbling block to a real willingness to merge. Yes, the difference in size of the parties is probematic. But I don't see how some fair compromise formula couldn't be worked out. You can even get an objective third person to create one, perhaps.Watcher, That may be one of the best analyses of the federal PC Party that I have read on these boards. You're absolutely right. The PCs have been trying to "play out the clock" even until recent events, in the hopes of regaining past glory. The problem with that is, of course, that the past may not be as glorious as you think, and you need to look beyond the past in order to give Canadians some kind of political vision. And nothing of the sort has come from them since Free Trade and the GST.