Consevatives versus More Conservatives

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15082006/2/nati...-candidate.html

Apparently, this is one of a few ridings they are going to challenge the sitting MP.

[watching&waiting]

Replay of dumb and dumber as I see it.

[jdobbin]

Replay of dumb and dumber as I see it.

I take it you don't like Garth Turner.

I used to like his newspaper columns. I don't know what he is like as an MP.

[Ricki Bobbi]

If Garth can win his riding so be it.

Sort of a tradeoff for moderates in the party. Nobody really wants to see SSM foes beat a moderate. But in this case the moderate is Garth Turner who puts the I in team player....

[jdobbin]

I can remember when the Conservatives didn't protect Chuck Cadman. That sort of bit them in the ass.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It's a matter of principle. Nobody gets protected. Why didn't Cadman go out and sell more memberships?

You gotta wonder if the Cadman thing really bit the Conservatives in the butt. Would they have won a spring 2005 election? Nobody knows, but it is fair to say the were more likely to have lost that election than to have won a majority.

[jdobbin]

It's a matter of principle. Nobody gets protected. Why didn't Cadman go out and sell more memberships?

You gotta wonder if the Cadman thing really bit the Conservatives in the butt. Would they have won a spring 2005 election? Nobody knows, but it is fair to say the were more likely to have lost that election than to have won a majority.

Yes, I remember what the argument was that he should have been out selling more memberships.

Still, the Conservatives have changed a number of rules to keep the party from being hijacked by an outsider. I think they were stung by the Cadman incident and realized that you could have bitter battles for ridings that would lead to other parties winning.

The NDP went through the same thing when they tried to take out Bev Desjarlais. She ran an an indpendent and the Liberals won the riding. Now Desjarlais works for a Conservative minister.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yes, the party did change the rules for nomination meetings. I don't really think it was as a direct result of the Cadman incident. Probably more attributable to a party that is still in its infancy and didn't have time to get its organizational act together in advance of the last two elections.

If you look at the changes they aren't really designed to keep people from challenging sitting members. More directed towards making sure that anyone who is going to challenge for a nomination is serious about it. Guidelines on number of memberships sold, a bigger deposit those sorts of things.

Yes, I remember what the argument was that he should have been out selling more memberships.

Still, the Conservatives have changed a number of rules to keep the party from being hijacked by an outsider. I think they were stung by the Cadman incident and realized that you could have bitter battles for ridings that would lead to other parties winning.

The NDP went through the same thing when they tried to take out Bev Desjarlais. She ran an an indpendent and the Liberals won the riding. Now Desjarlais works for a Conservative minister.

[jdobbin]

More nomination battles.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/23082006/2/nati...troversial.html

[Ricki Bobbi]

Interesting stuff. Can't see party HQ going out of their way to protect either Anders or Grewal.

Maybe these challengers didn't meet the membership or deposit requirements. Won't really know til they speak up.

[jdobbin]

Interesting stuff. Can't see party HQ going out of their way to protect either Anders or Grewal.

Maybe these challengers didn't meet the membership or deposit requirements. Won't really know til they speak up.

I'd like to hear but a lot of times these things never do get out into the public.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Fair enough.

Unless people are willing to go to a primary system (pardon the term *US Style*) than it likely won't be made public. Really does suck Anders won't be challenged though...

I'd like to hear but a lot of times these things never do get out into the public.

[geoffrey]

Interesting stuff. Can't see party HQ going out of their way to protect either Anders or Grewal.

Maybe these challengers didn't meet the membership or deposit requirements. Won't really know til they speak up.

I think the party unforunately would like to see Anders gone, not likely to protect him.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I guess it depends who you consider the *party* to be.

He's definitely no favourite of Harper's and the Nelson Mandela incident only helps to prove why. Anders can't really grasp the big picture and gets himself (and the party) in a lot of trouble as a result.

The party isn't protecting anybody, and you are right, if they did Anders would be close to the bottom of the list. (After garth of course....)

I think the party unforunately would like to see Anders gone, not likely to protect him.

[geoffrey]

Anders does respect alot of views in this area of the country, not necessarily mine, but it would be a loss of representation in the party for a small select group. Maybe about the same size of a group that support people like Prentice in Alberta.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Anders is a plague on the party. He was muzzled in the last election for a reason. Expect the same in the coming election.

The progressive wing, i.e. Jim Prentice supporters, of the party is growing. Harper realizes that it has to in order for the party become a viable, long-term, alternative to the Liberals.

Anders voted against giving Nelson Mandela honorary Canadian citizenship?!! wtf is up with that?

His private reason for doing it was because he wanted to make a point about the Liberals not following proper parliamentary procedure in putting forth the motion for honorary citizenship.

I guess being politically tone-deaf is better than opposing Mandela with some ridiculous argument about him being a terrorist.