After years of uninterrupted Liberal rule, there are millions of Canadians who desperately want a change in government.
But right now, many of them aren’t comfortable with the leadership and policies of the federal Conservatives.
Belinda Stronach has been making it clear that, like many, she doesn’t like the current focus of her party on same-sex-marriage, etc.
It seems to me the brave thing to do would have been for Belinda to stay and fight for the kind of Conservative party she believed in.
It would have been tough. She would be in a minority within her caucus. If she voted against party lines for the budget she suddenly believes in, she could have been stripped of party position and privileges.
Apparently it was too tough. By crossing the floor she gained a place in Paul Martin’s cabinet, but only by leaving those who want a stronger opposition, and a healthier political balance in Canada, behind.
Shame.
(More at Daimnation, Let It Bleed, Andrew Coyne, et al.)
UPDATE:
Paul Wells, 11:08am:
It’s usually a bad sign for a relationship when your girlfriend refers to you in public by both names.
Canadian Press, 1:15pm (seen at Nealenews) :
Belinda Stronach has left not only the Conservative party but also one of the most closely watched romances in Canada.
Sources say her stunning bolt to the Liberals comes as she and Conservative Deputy Leader Peter MacKay take a break from their relationship.
The high-profile pair announced in January that they were dating.
MacKay was holed up in his Parliament Hill office, refusing to comment….
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says MacKay is devastated by Stronach’s decision.
Sources say MacKay only learned of Stronach’s intentions just before they were made public Tuesday.
Brutal.
May 17th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
People who don’t like the Liberals and don’t feel comfortable with the Conservatives’, er, _conservative_ position on “gay marriage, etc.” are — Ta DA! — Libertarians and should vote accordingly.
The party she really believed in?? That would be the Rich Blonde Bimbo Party, no? She obviously didn’t and doesn’t have a conservative bone in her body. Good riddance.
May 17th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Kathy does have a good point here. If Same-Sex Marriage is a deal-breaker for you, then the Conservatives are not where you will be parking your vote. The Libertarian Party is a mere shadow of its former self (which, in turn, was merely a shadow of a full-fledged party), but they’d be delighted to accept your votes.
May 17th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Kathy, Nicholas: Yes, I am a Conservative (both big and little C) who is not opposed to SSM.
That being said, I think a free vote in the House is an honourable way to settle an issue, and with the SSM genie out of the bottle, the likelihood of the notwithstanding clause being successfully used is exceedingly remote.
Anyway, I think a political party should be a place where different ideas can be not just tolerated, but embraced.
And if the Conservatives are ever to really succeed, and become an ongoing viable alternative government rather than a once-every-twenty-years hiccup, they will have to become a bigger-tent party where people of differing opinions on SSM, abortion, taxes, equalization, etc, can work together.
May 18th, 2005 at 9:55 am
Is it so transparent and corrupt that the inquiry’s findings will be swept away with her in charge? Is this so blatent that the house that was needed has now fallen on Canadians to wake up. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Just keep taking it Mertens…right where you know where.