Crossing the Floor in Heels? Use Caution.
Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach switched parties this week, leaving the Conservative caucus for the Liberals, at a time when the minority government Liberals are riding out two weeks of threatened non-confidence votes over their budget. (How to bring down a minority government under the parliamentary system primer here.) Her former party members responded by essentially calling her a dumb blonde. Quotes:
“She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick, with what she's done here today. She is, at the end of the day, going to paint herself as something of a joke,” - Ontario MPP Robert Runciman. Tony Abbott, a Conservative member of the Alberta legislature, described Ms. Stronach as a “political harlot” and called the situation as one of “a little rich girl who is basically whoring herself out to the Liberals.” (Conservative Party Leader) Mr. Harper, meanwhile, told reporters in Montreal: “I've never really noticed complexity to be Belinda's strong point.” Headlines around the country also described Ms. Stronach's announcement as a “blonde bombshell.”
Because she couldn't have possibly done it for reasons of political principle, being a pro-choice, pro-equal marriage woman in a party of social neanderthals. And I don't remember Jim Jeffords getting this kind of harassment in 2001.
posted by fabulous girl at
11:24 AM
5 Comments:
As an emigrant Canadian, I'm curious, does Canada have the same crappy two party system that we do? Are the party roles the same - liberals steal from you while conservatives preach at you and steal from you?
By
Anonymous, at 2:48 PM
No, not the same system, there are currently four parties with seats in Parliament. Try this link for a complete overview: http://tinyurl.com/7qdfb. Liberals are socially and fiscally more relaxed than Conservatives, and Conservatives are pro-big business but not as turbo-religious as Republicans. The NDP are essentially socialists and the Bloq Quebequois is too hard to explain in a blog comment.
By
fabulous girl, at 3:42 PM
NDP are socialists???!!! Sheesh. You have obviously been out of the country too long, girl. We're environmentalists, too. And Liberals when we need to be.
If I grant you that the Conservatives are a bunch of gay-hating, business-loving freaks of nature, there are still major red flags about this lady if you look at the facts here. I will list the facts for the sake of clarity:
1) Belinda worked within the Conservative Party for well over two years, during which time they were quite publicly regarded as a bunch of elitist bigots. Why?
2) Belinda sought to lead this very same gang of anti-choice, anti-gay freakazoids. Why?
3) Belinda was sleeping with the deputy leader of said freakazoids. Why?
Given facts 1-3, and assuming that she is a relatively smart person, you can conclude only one of the following:
a) She was suppressing her own conscience by working with, sleeping with, and vying for the leadership of said freaky party for a greater good of the party.
b) She was suppressing her own conscience by working with, sleeping with, and vying for the leadership of said freaky party for a greater good of the country.
c) She was suppressing her own conscience by working with, sleeping with, and vying for the leadership of said freaky party for her own personal gain.
If all of her work to now was for the benefit of the Conservatives, she would be beating the royal crap out of her own conscience at every step and losing in her own best efforts at affecting change within the party, with hopes of leading these wayward souls towards a more progressive way of thinking. Seeing as we have granted that BS (heh) is smart, this could not have been the case-- she must have known early on that there was no way to win the freaks over.
If her work to Monday was for the good of the nation, she could have been far more effective at this by working for another party aligned more to her conscience. That way, she wouldn't be making an absolute sham out of our own political process by crossing the floor. And the only way that this doesn't embarrass the entire federal political process (thereby INCREASING separatist sentiment in Quebec) is if the Libs and Cons aren't so different after all, which, as you point out, is a ludicrous suggestion. I mean, those Conservatives are freaks!
So, we are only left with the third option, which is summarized as blatant, open-faced opportunism on the part of Belinda Stronach.
It makes sense that she would vie for the head of the party she holds no values in common with for the sake of opportunism. It makes sense that she would sleep with Peter MacKay, then dump him in under a heartbeat, overnight, for the sake of opportunism (he looks so sad! :( ). It makes sense that she was offered a cabinet post in exchange for her crossing the floor, for plum postings are the currency of opportunism.
This explanation also happens to pass Ockham's Razor by explaining the most with the least effort-- another mark to its credit.
All told, she crossed because she's on a quest for power, anywhere. Doesn't matter if she's heading a corporation, a bunch of freakazoids, or a federal portfolio, because power is power.
To return to the accusations levelled against BS in the ensuing media onslaught. There were definitely strong words chosen, and a few people went too far. But let's not go so far as to defend her actions, which is what your blog seemingly does. She played for power, and now she's got it, but I am sure her constituents won't let that last for long.
By
camarooned, at 9:45 PM
My fellow Canadian ... glad I was sitting down, wineglass in hand for your onslaught. I was painting with a broad brush when I said the NDP were socialists and it wasn't meant as an insult - I'm a fan of Jack Layton. Clearly Belinda's provocative. Why shouldn't she be an opportunist? This is politics, not the ivory tower. She's a fiscal conservative but a social liberal, so she's either going to be on the left wing of the Conservatives or the right wing of the Liberals, and sometimes the twain shall meet. Her sex life is irrelevant, and it and her quest for power wouldn't be factors if she were male. She's a pragmatist, and a damn good player. Wish there were more women like her who were willing to enter politics.
By
fabulous girl, at 10:24 AM
I agree that her sex is irrelevant, and that her sex life may be also (though I couldn't sleep at night if I was sleeping with a Conservative). But your whole fiscal Conservative/ fiscal Liberal distinction, ergo party overlap analysis is a crock--feel free to ask around if these two parties differ drastically in their fiscal policy. So it comes down to values, and it seems like Belinda's always been at odds on that front. Which leads back to the question of why she would join the party in the first place.
Still, her quest for power is a factor. It is actually the factor that makes this so infuriating. It makes Dosangh's alleged sell to Grewal repulsive. It would be no less frustrating if a man did the same thing. Even the former Premier of BC (NDP) was raked across the coals when he decided to run for the Federal Liberals.
And why should she not be an opportunist? Sorry, I seem to be caught up in this antiquated notion that people are motivated to enter politics to put a social face to their own values, and choose their party accordingly, rather than enter politics for personal gain, and choose a party accordingly. Belinda's move reeks of personal gain.
And finally, why should she not be so publicly humiliated? She is the driver of her own image, which is very public, and very flash. She knows the rules of the game, and she should receive equal measure of dump per pound of self-hype. And I bet Jesse Who? (or, to keep with CDN examples, Keith Martin) did too.
To rush to defend Belinda from the sexist comments levelled against her immediately following her announcement (of which there seem to be only two, or one if guys can be whores, which I think we have every right to be) is one thing, and is the right thing to do; to defend her actions is another.
To try to round this up into some sort of conclusion, I tend to have serious reservations about someone who jumps from a failed leadership bid in one party (whose stated values she has always been at odds with) to a plum cabinet post in another. It makes me question the motive for being in politics in the first place. I want to think more highly of my politics, and my politicians (like Chuck Cadman, Jack Layton, Jenny Kwan (BC)). Yes, this is politics, but I would still rather model politics after an ivory tower than a trough.
By
camarooned, at 7:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home