CPC Convention

Now that the CPC Convention in Ottawa is done, let's look at a few of the resolutions and their results and my comments. (You'll have to excuse me for not citing the exact wording.)

• Kill a pregnant woman and the unborn child and get punished for both?  PASSED.  I read that one of the delegates who spoke said if passed, this is a slippery slope issue related to abortion and a woman's right to choose because now we're saying the fetus is a person.  It's really close isn't it.  I don't know about you, but yes, killing anyone is the worst thing. But killing a pregnant woman?  That's even worse.
  

• Two strikes your out?  PASSED.  It just seems too obvious to me that if you commit a heinous crime twice, you're screwed even worse than before.  Where's the fine line?  Well, it was when the first crime was committed.
  

• The Omar Khadr law--high treason if you're a Canadain and fight against Canadian or allied soldiers?  DEFEATED.  I preferred naming it the Louis Riel law.  It seems to make sense, but underlying this, to me, is a basic fundamental aspect of personal liberty.  I believe we should be allowed to defend ourselves if the government becomes oppressive.  Not saying that this would happen in Canada, but it certainly happens in many countries... like right now in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisa, Bharain, Angola, ... etc.  Speaking of liberty...
  
  
• Limiting powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunals?  PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.   Excellent, but why not just scrap the whole thing?  Best argument from my MP, "Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn supported the motion, saying 'we already have hate laws" and the tribunals "punish individuals for expressing legitimate — even if they're controversial — views.'"
  

• Youth wing?  DEFEATED.  I already talked about this one and glad about it.

• Leadership vote riding weight (each riding gets 100 points and up to 400 for more members)?  DEFEATED.  Not a bad idea though.  In looking at the pluses and minuses from both sides (one member one vote vs. equal ridings) we have:

• If the bulk of the membership are from a particular areas, then candidates would only need to campaign there and not in every region of the country.  I agree.  As well, in a general election, our party leader has to basically visit every region because every riding is equal, so why not in a leadership race?
  
• That said, ridings with few members could be easily taken over by a campaign team or by stealth as Belinda Stronach tried to do.

• However, having the rule that >=400 members = 400 points could give incentive for ridings to sign up more members.  However, we all know that it's the leadership campaigns themselves that sign up the bulk of the members.

Regardless, the system that was originally agreed upon as the last item to bring the Alliance the PCs together remains--with each riding maintaining its 100 points.

And hey, Stephen Harper still won.  Not that his job is in any jeopardy now whatsoever.

So all in all, a pretty harmless convention as far as policy.  I still wished they had a senatorial flogging policy for any of senator who shows signs of insenaty.

And the coalition talk continues...

It's great, isn't it? That this coalition talk has had the legs it does?

I've theorized that it's been Bob Rae in the background who's been keeping this flame alive.  Why?  Well, with Michael Ignatieff's low poll numbers, and the penchant for Liberals to continually drool at gaining power again, they'll do anything to get there.  Including supposed high-level full-out merger talks.

Was this coalition banter propped by Liberals and Dippers who point out that recently in Britain, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government, so why can't it work here with Liberals and Dippers?

Ah, but there's the difference ... UK Conservatives WON, where the Lib-Dip coalition of losers, as our Prime Minister so pointed out, did not.  The UK Conservatives had the most seats and it should be their choice who they want to form a coalition with, if any.

In Canada, Harper's Conservatives WON the last election with the most seats.  They've just chosen not to form a coalition with any of the other caucuses.  And with the way these parties have fumbled in opposition, and how unprepared they are to fight an election, why would you?

Polls are out showing that a Liberal-Democrat coalition/merger, under certain leaders, yadda yadda, would beat the Conservatives.

Yet I'm also reading online how there's no way in Marx that Dippers would join with Liberals and how Blue Liberals are very uncomfortable with some of these hard-line socialists.  Maybe they'll move to the Conservatives.  But who the hell REALLY knows at this point.  It's all speculation.

So that said, I'd like to point out that the Libs and Dips have ALREADY formed coalitions in the past. And no, I'm not talking about the Lib-NDP working relationship in the 60's and early 70's that brought us health care, the new flag, and Petro Canada. I'm talking about the last federal election--specifically in Edmonton, and more specifically, the ridings of Centre and Strathcona.

We recall in Edmonton Strathcona where NDP Linda Duncan beat out then Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, where he had enjoyed the split vote on the left for several elections.  In 2008, the Liberal candidate's campaign was very weak, yet there were a plethora of Liberals helping out the better of the "progressive" candidates in Duncan's campaign.

Same can be said in Edmonton Centre where Liberals have continually enjoyed support from Dippers who migrate over to the better campaign to beat the evil Reform/Alliance/Conservative.  Would "Landslide Annie" McLellan have ever won in 1993, 1997, and 2000 with a strong NDP campaign competing with her?  I doubt it.  So why do the NDP continually put forth a weak candidate in that riding, yet a strong one in Strathcona, where the Liberals do the opposite? 

After she finally lost to Laurie Hawn in 2004, a campaign team I was very proud to be a part of, in 2008, Liberal Andy Hladyshyvsky's campaign was also formidable, but didn't have the traction to win over as many lefties who saw the likely win of Hawn's superior campaign machine and the fact that he's a darn good MP.

So what I'm saying is that for many years Liberals and Dippers have already formed local coalitions.  Are local-level Liberals and Dippers getting together over veggie omelettes to plan this out?  I'm wondering if this has been intentional, because in Edmonton, it sure as hell seems that way. 

Which is why it doesn't surprise me that supposed "high-level" omelette talks between Liberals and Dippers are occurring at a federal level to merge both parties, let alone a working electoral coalition.

While I believe this is Bob Rae's sneaky attempt to quietly discredit Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, its also the primary method for him to become leader of a united Lib-Dem party and the only possible way he'll ever get the keys to 24 Sussex.

And do you think perhaps ol' PowerCorp, where Bob Rae AND Jean Chretien used to be on the board, is behind this merger/coalition talk?

Which is why I also think it just might happen.

Then the question becomes, should Conservatives be worried? 

Sign vandals

One thing I noticed in Edmonton... there are a lot of Conservative signs that were destroyed, moved, or broken, particularly Rahim Jaffer's signs in Edmonton-Strathcona and Laurie Hawn's in Edmonton-Centre. And I'm talking the big signs.

I noticed absolutely no NDP, Green, or Liberal signs treated the same way.

It'll make No Difference, Parlicularly when this stuff usually backfires.