Liberals Never Learn

[Colpy]

Well, it seems Joe Volpe, contender for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, is exceptionally well-suited for that position.

Under new rules for contributions to political campaigns, it is illegal to make a contribution in someone elses's name, or to supply money to someone for them to make the contribution.

However, the CEO and the President of Apotex, and their respective families are so impressed by Mr. Volpe that the Ceo, his wife, the President, his wife, and all six of their kids have made the maximum $5,400 contribution to Mr. Volpe's leadership campaign, for a total of $54,000.

Hoe nice of the children (four of whom are in their teens) to sacrifice their lunch money, and their college savings funds for such a good cause.

Now, Mr. Volpe may not have been aware, and can not be held responsible for the actions of these folks, IF he returns the cash.

That said, what concerns me most about the whole affair is the reaction of Steve MacKinnon, President of the Liberal Party of Canada......"there is absolutely nothing illegal about these donations" (paraphrased)

Sense of entitlement, anyone?

Sense of being above the law?

From the President.

If the Liberal Party is to "renew" itself, it had best start by skimming off the scum that has run the party for the last 15 years.

 

[Jay]

nice of the children (four of whom are in their teens) to sacrifice their lunch money, and their college savings funds for such a good cause.

:lol:


But in the long run, the Liberals will be promising a national wide lunch program and a national wide college system, so it's worth it!

 

[FiveParadox]

I thought that Mr. Mike Eizenga was the President of the Liberal Party of Canada?

 

[gc]

I think it should be a pre-requisite for any potential liberal leadership candidate to not be involved in any scandals, past or present.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am of the position that we should return to the practice of having the leader of a party selected by the caucus, rather than the populous membership of the party. This would ensure that the leader would have to respect the opinions of his caucus, instead of the dictatorship-like practice that seems to have been adopted by both the Government of Canada, and its predecessor.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Liberals Never Learn

I thought that Mr. Mike Eizenga was the President of the Liberal Party of Canada?

I read this in a newspaper I do not have at hand.....perhaps I got the position wrong?

Who is Steve MacKinnon?

Edited to say:

I googled Steve MacKinnon, and it came back he was National Director (what the hell is that?) of the Liberal Party during the election.

What is he now?

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: MacKinnon's Position in the Grits

What is he now?

I have found that Mr. Steven MacKinnon is the National Director of the Financial Management Committee of the Liberal Party of Canada. This position is of much less consequence than that of Mr. Eizenga. I am unsure as to what he was doing during the election, though, so I imagine you would be more knowledgeable in that area than I, Colpy.

 

[Finder]

Fiveparadox, it is amazing how..... (blank) you are when it comes to democratic dession making. I believe the members of the party should have one vote per member to chose their. Paradox do you not see the political parties in Canada weakening over time, hell there was even a CBC special on this issue alone during the last election that party membership was down, confidance in our politicians are down and confideance in any of the parties are way down. If we remove yet another connection these parties have with the average person... wow do I even have to explain what I think may happen.

I support the notion of party members being allowed to vote. However, to become a party member is something to the party to determine. I've been a member of two different parties. The first party I joined I had to be around party events for awhile and pay dues and read the party constitution. I quit this party when I was 19 years old because of political differences (they were too left wing). I joined the NDP when I was 24 and all I had to do was "agree" to follow the party constitution, and there it was full party membership, as long as I pay dues.

 

[gc]

I agree with finder, I think all party members should be allowed to vote on who the leader of the party is. The way it is now I feel like I have no influence on who the next leader will be.

 

[Finder]

I do believe currently the liberals send delgates to a convention to vote, as many parties do. But if you give it only to the caucus that makes it just that much worse!

 

[FiveParadox]

As has become your preferred practice, Finder, you have taken my post out of context, and assumed that I am somehow an opponent of democracy. This is not the case, and if you would read the entire post and consider my arguments, instead of latching onto one point and attacking the merit of the entire post, then perhaps our conversations could get somewhere, on occasion.

Some decades ago, when party leaders were invited to form governments, and were selected by the caucus, that leader not only needed the support of the House of Commons to govern, but the support of his or her caucus to continue to act as their leader. As things stand, take The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada as an example of this situation. Dissent in his Government of Canada is crushed or humiliated out of existence; this could not have been the case decades ago, when it would have been the Prime Minister trying to keep the support of his caucus, instead of the caucus trying to keep the support of the Prime Minister.

On the one hand, it may seem anti-democratic to suggest that only the members of the caucus should select their leader; however, on that same token, is it no anti-democratic to suggest that one person, the party leader, should have ultimate and unfettered authority over everything that the party does? Why should one person speak for the entire party, and the rest of the members have to crawl behind the party leader, begging for his support?

 

[Finder]

It doesn't just seem undemocratic to me but.... well VERY undemocratic for lack of better terms.

That only the privilege few may chose the leader of the party and the nation.

Edit: sorry not saying you don't have a right to believe what you believe... I just don't believe in it. lol. If you ask me democracy is about enfranchising people, giving people more say in there government and thus making them more interested in helping our nation. Dis-enfranchisment or not enfranchising more seems to be going backwards to me and thus making the problems we already have that much more worse.

Edit (2) for typo

 

[FiveParadox]

I understand where you're coming from, Finder.

However, selecting the leader of a party through votes such as we do now, ensure that the leader has "more" of a mandate than any of the other members of that caucus — which is why, for example, during this present Government of Canada, the Prime Minister can exert such a stranglehold on his own caucus. This should not be the case! We should not have one person running the Government on his own!

 

[Finder]

Paradox I think we are having a misunderstanding here. I never said the PM should be directly elected. What I am saying is the Leader of a political party should be directly elected by party members. Currently I believe the Liberal party is still doing with deligations but there has been talk of having one member one vote being used in the past as well.

From what I hear from you however you seem to be supporting that the leader should be chosen by cacus members in government?

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, Finder.

In this situation, assume that I am referring to the governing party. The governing party is in the midst of a leadership campaign, under our current common system of delegated election. The person elected by the party membership has terrible chemistry with the caucus, and he cannot compile a cohesive Cabinet — should this person continue to act as leader and Prime Minister, even if this person does not have the support of his caucus?

This is the situation presented when the caucus does not have a strong hand in the selection of the leader. I would urge you to look to the resignation of the late The Honourable Sir Mackenzie Bowell, P.C., K.C.M.G., a former Prime Minister of Canada, on how the previous practice delivered another check on the power of the head of government.

 

[bluealberta]

If you allow caucus only to select the leader, you run the risk of having a special interest group within the caucus pulling the strings on the leader. Personally, I like the fact the members of a party select the leader, simply because he can then go so dissenting caucus members with a mandate.

Can you imagine if Svend and his group pulled the strings on Martin? Or Randy White and his group pulling the strings on Harper? Think about it, folks, that is what could happen if caucus is the sole group picking the leader. The leader becomes somewhat of a enuch in this way, and instead of leading, always pandering to a certain group within his own party to keep support.

 

[Finder]

and thus ended the political job of a pretty nasty PM. Your point Fiveparadox?

If a leader of the NDP, Conservatives or Liberals does not carry the support of his governoring cacus or members, or one or the why should he lead? I think it's purely a democratic princible. you know what if the cacus doesn't like the person the party chose they can up and leave, split or force an election and then when the riding associations chose who can run in the next election they will pay the political prices for there dessions, Fiveparadox.