301 Rule Means Different Things To MacKay, Membership -- CON/COM/NET D&D

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

Subject: 301 Rule Means Different Things To MacKay, Membership

Author:
MIchael Watkins

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:08:53 06/19/03 Thu
Author Host/IP: h24-83-223-13.vc.shawcable.net/24.83.223.13

Just in case you missed it, in a 1-2-3 punch today the very meaning of the "301 Rule" has been redefined, forshadowing the potential of another MacKay backroom deal, and breaking an agreement with David Orchard barely two weeks old.

1. Hugh Segal in a national op/ed paints a picture suggesting the PCPC 301 rule is not binding. Segal, former Mulroney Chief of Staff (a noted anti-merger anti-CA personality) suggests that the 301 rule really doesn't mean what the delegates which voted for it meant - that a PC will run in every riding, not just those which we agree alongside the CA not to split.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=3C8A77B7-3076-493B-A6A7-C7B65A6F4723

[The crack is open and air rushes in.]

2. MacKay's speech contains a direct reference to negotiating electoral cooperation.

"I believe we must first find common cause and common goals and establish trust before setting out a common electoral strategy." -- Peter MacKay

http://www.pcparty.ca/doc/730/

A "common electoral strategy" is not what the majority of delegates voted for in Edmonton 2002.

[Joint Slate breathes its first breath.]

3. On national TV, MacKay tells Don Newman that he would consider putting a reccomendation for electoral cooperation with the CA in front of PCPC Management Committee and National Council if he and Harper manage to find agreement in their private tete a tetes.

[The Joint Slate lives.]

I wonder how long it takes before the membership wakes up and realizes what is going on, especially since fully half of the traditional Tory membership (excluding the Orchard support) want no part of such a deal, and its a safe bet that 100% of the Orchard support are dead set against this.

This link will host the Politics show clip for one week from today, move the clip forward to about the 27 minute mark; following the MacKay spot, pundits sound off.

href="http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/clips/rm-newsworld/politics/politicspm_thu.rm">http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/clips/rm-newsworld/politics/politicspm_thu.rm

Note how carefully MacKay stresses the word "AIM" when discussing the 301 rule. His poor ability to deliver a message is betraying what's going on in his mind.

Following the interview there is a definite sea change in the tone of Geoff Norquay, PC Pundit, and CA Pundit Powers is even "polite" in his approval.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]