August1991 Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) MP MacKay is leaving and its another Tories retiring from politics, unless all of them are go to the senate later. His decision is completely irrelevant and of no bearing on anything, even the 32 seats in the Maritimes Stephen Harper, like Mackenzie King, will win another federal election. (Welcome to the 2010s; they're like the 1930s.) Uh, not. Except for the King-Harper comparison. ==== Harper, Wynne, Notley, PKP; whadda country! Edited May 31, 2015 by August1991 Quote
Michael Hardner Posted May 31, 2015 Report Posted May 31, 2015 Stephen Harper, like Mackenzie King, will win another federal election. (Welcome to the 2010s; they're like the 1930s.) Election prediction ! Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bob Macadoo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Exactly.......For example, John Baird in just a few months has since been named to the Boards of Directors of CP rail......I expect Mackay, near 50, to spend a few years with his young family and then to be the next Secretary General of NATO, a first for a North American.Neither of those jokers would've been appointed to a salad bar without the influence they might be able to pedal. McKay would've been filling out real estate forms at his father's behest. Quote
jacee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 There's a plan in the works to re-awaken the Progressive Conservatives. Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised. It's much more palatable to Canadians than the Harper brand of dog-eat-dog autocratic control. . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised. It's much more palatable to Canadians than the Harper brand of dog-eat-dog autocratic control. . He's pulling your leg, both the party and cabinet are still stuffed with former Federal and Provincial Progressive Conservatives, likewise the Party learned its lesson with the fracture into the rump PCs, Reform and elements of the Bloc/ADQ post Campbell......... I've heard further speculation that MacKay, if he doesn't end up as Secretary General of NATO, will be our next Ambassador in Washington.. Quote
jacee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 He's pulling your leg, both the party and cabinet are still stuffed with former Federal and Provincial Progressive Conservatives, likewise the Party learned its lesson with the fracture into the rump PCs, Reform and elements of the Bloc/ADQ post Campbell.........Pity.A little more progressiveness among conservatives would be useful. . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Pity. A little more progressiveness among conservatives would be useful. . Why? They/we are conservative.......there are already "progressive parties" currently in the House to choose from.......The "Progressive" name was a political ploy to win back classic liberal King supporters, and to a lesser extent Socreds (that later seeded the Reform Party), during the war. Quote
PIK Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Can t be in parliament and run for the leadership of the party. That is what is going on. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Can t be in parliament and run for the leadership of the party. That is what is going on. What ? Why not ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Why? They/we are conservative.......there are already "progressive parties" currently in the House to choose from.......The "Progressive" name was a political ploy to win back classic liberal King supporters, and to a lesser extent Socreds (that later seeded the Reform Party), during the war. so... no distinction between Red and Blue "Tories"? Who knew! Quote
Big Guy Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) To Derek 2.0 - How could anyone trust MacKay to do anything? He is a liar and manipulator. If you remember, he was running for the leadership of the federal PC party on May 31, 2003 (interesting that Jim Prentice was also in the running). By the third ballot he was at about 40% and starting to fade. Another contender was David Orchard who had about 25% and rising. Dave and Peter met in a back room where Peter promised a number of things including never to enter into talks with the Alliance Party about any kind of merger. Dave was smart enough to get Peter to put that on paper and sign it. Peter did, Orchard threw his support behind Peter and MacKay won the leadership with over 65 % of the vote. It was only five months later that MacKay was in talks with Harper on an amalgamation. He was sure he would come out the leader of this united right front but he grossly underestimated Harper. MacKay lost and handed the old PC party to the Alliance. He was kept around as a show that not all of the party was Alliance/Reform dominated and shuffled through a number of portfolios which Harper basically controlled. Now Prentice, Baird, MacKay et al are gone and there is no pretense that the old Reform/Alliance is firmly in control. That will remain the legacy of Peter MacKay. To trust his word, his promise or even his signature has been proven to be a mistake He cannot be trusted with any position of importance in any government. Edited June 1, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) To Derek 2.0 - How could anyone trust MacKay to do anything? He is a liar and manipulator. ........ That will remain the legacy of Peter MacKay. To trust his word, his promise or even his signature has been proven to be a mistake He cannot be trusted with any position of importance in any government. Lord no - are you saying that a politician went back on his word! Say it ain't so! But seriously, sometimes you have to put your country first - and I believe that McKay did just that. A divided Right did nothing for Conservatism and nothing for the country. The old PCs were in the toilet. It made all the sense in the world to unite with the Canadian Alliance at that time. In retrospect, his actions gave Canadians an alternative to the corrupt Liberal years - an alternative that continues to this day. Edited June 1, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
cybercoma Posted June 1, 2015 Report Posted June 1, 2015 Lord no - are you saying that a politician went back on his word!Maybe you should have higher standards. Quote
Big Guy Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 To Keepitsimple - Are you saying that the end justifies the means? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
cybercoma Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Leaving before the election will earn Peter Mackay an additional $1.3 Million. Who would turn down $1,300,000? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 To Keepitsimple - Are you saying that the end justifies the means? Sometimes. When conditions change, conditions that are profound and compelling - yes - sometimes you have to go back on your word. If you gave your word that you would sell your company - but found out that he would fire most of the people and weren't expecting that, would you consider going back on your word? We don not really know each and every factor that McKay had to consider but I do know that Canada is a much better country for it. Quote Back to Basics
Je suis Omar Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 We don not really know each and every factor that McKay had to consider but I do know that Canada is a much better country for it. MacKay leaving politics. I couldn't agree more. Was this slimey or what? MacKay was not my first choice at the June leadership convention - I supported Scott Brison on the first two ballots but after that I gave my vote to MacKay because I took him at his word. He said he would support the strongly endorsed decision of the party at its national convention in Edmonton in the summer of 2002 that there would be 301 Progressive Conservative candidates in the next federal election. My reaction to the agreement in principle, signed secretly by MacKay and Stephen Harper in October, 2003, was first of all one of incredulity, then anger that the party decisions so strongly expressed in Edmonton and endorsed by MacKay during the leadership campaign could be so easily jettisoned. Further, the fact that he would willingly preside over the demolition of a historic 150-year-old institution that has done so much to build this country leaves me asking how he defines integrity and principle. (1) -- Flora McDonald http://pushedleft.blogspot.ca/2009/05/peter-mackay-and-death-of-tory-party-in.html?m=1 Quote
drummindiver Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Never fear though, the obsequious sycophants like Chris Alexandre and Pierre Poilievre are still hanging out with team Blue. Isn't "obsequious sycophants" a superfluous extraneous tautological redundancy? Quote
drummindiver Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Neither of those jokers would've been appointed to a salad bar without the influence they might be able to pedal. McKay would've been filling out real estate forms at his father's behest. Yeah, cause JT hasn't invoked a little nepotism along the way. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Isn't "obsequious sycophants" a superfluous extraneous tautological redundancy? Have you ever listened to these bozos...obsequious is as close as the English languages provides as a descriptor. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 so... no distinction between Red and Blue "Tories"? Who knew! What of it? The term is clearly descriptive in itself, a stripe of politician that is/was found in the center of both parties......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Helpful that the Tories are imploding even more rapidly coming into the election campaign. Perhaps even the old stalwarts will realize the time has come to replace them before they do eve more damage. Quote
waldo Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) so... no distinction between Red and Blue "Tories"? Who knew! What of it? The term is clearly descriptive in itself, a stripe of politician that is/was found in the center of both parties......... both parties? I'm not speaking to anything other than the CPC. Or do you simply choose to discount the presence/existence of 'Red Tories'... and the apparent uncertainty of how MacKay leaving might impact upon them? Edited June 2, 2015 by waldo Quote
Topaz Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Posted June 2, 2015 One would think that if PC supporters were really peeved off about what MacKay did they wouldn't support the Conservatives but they do, now that MacKay is gone, will they NOT support this Alliance party under the name of Conservatives and start over with the PC name?? Quote
drummindiver Posted June 2, 2015 Report Posted June 2, 2015 Have you ever listened to these bozos...obsequious is as close as the English languages provides as a descriptor. Yes I have. Pierre Polievre hardly comes across as an ass kisser IMO. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.