Sat 11 Feb 2006
Garth Turner: Long-Term Plan
Posted by kaqchikel under elections , federal politics , general , leadership & leaders , political partiesGarth Turner continues his PR-engineered political Calvary. He feels, he says, unwelcomed and persecuted in the CPC, and hints that he’ll go independent (see here and here).
That would be good. Just as long as Turner remembers that in order to change party status in the House, he has called for MPs to resign the seat and a seek approval of constituents in a by-election.
It’s not stupid martyrdom. Turner has calculated this well. He has sensed that there is a significant wave of discontent over the cabinet appointments –if nothing else by media perception, and he wants to ride it. If he does leave the party and resigns the seat, the by-election will give him enormous national play and whether he wins or loses it will call significant attention to the Emerson issue. Emerson may have to follow suit.
In the end, this is not about sticking it to Emerson. It’s about sticking it to Harper for passing him over and G-d knows what else. The what else is leadership. Turner has for long had leadership ambitions that were frustrated by Brian Mulroney –who never quite gave him the time of day. Check Turner’s recent remarks about the former PM. Turner’s hopes for propulsion were later dashed with the Campbell debacle. Madame Campbell had brought him into the Privy Council for the summer.
Win or lose the present gamble at the ballot box, Turner will elevate his national exposure. If he wins, he’ll be a poster-boy for “integrity,” he’ll take one vote away from the CPC, and he’ll be in the House to remind Harper when he lends his vote to others. Net result: two votes contra Harper. If he loses, he might split Conservatives to allow for another to take the seat. Gary Carr of the Libs was less than 3% behind Turner.
Turner knows well that he will be undermining Harper. By undermining Harper’s government, Turner hopes to undermine Harper’s leadership. All the while, with improved visibility on himself, Turner expects to increase his stock for his future run at the leadership of the CPC. He hopes all will be sparked by the one-man rebellion that he leads.
Turner will never become party leader, but be he’s as good as gone, unless the Tories buy him off right now with a promise.
Let him go….
Gee, I wish I’d thought of that. But I didn’t.
I’m REALLY not convinced. Sounds like a moonbat theory to me.
Garth is rapidly losing credibility. His public displays of self-deprecating hubris are almost as intolerable as his ‘I’m willing to sit in a broom closet for you . . . ‘
You didn’t, Garth?! Like hell you didn’t! One can’t be that stupid.
Of course, just because the messenger is an attention seeker doesn’t mean the message is wrong.
If you don’t like the Emerson/Fortier dealings, then Harper was wrong. If you do like the dealings, you have to admit that it was handled with utter incompetence by Harper’s people.
Either way, Harper screwed up this week. Doesn’t mean I don’t think he should be PM or that I would vote against the CPC because of it. But, Garth’s position is right: Harper made a bad choice.
It’s NOT about whether Harper made a bad choice or not. It’s about attention-seeking Garth. He may be right but he’s going about it the wrong way. If he didn’t go about it wrongly, I suggest you read the post above this time, surecure. He wants something out of it.
harper may have made a couple of unpopular decisions. at least he made them. lets see if the great and ethical(barf)turner can. bet he can’t or won’t.
Someone should tell Garth that his 15 minutes are over. His drama queen comments regarding his potential rat infested office were the turning point for me. I initially thought he was presenting a valid point, but then he just went too far into the pity party routine.
If he is so disenchanted, disenfranchised, (disingenuous), he should go. Garth, be a liberal/ndp/green/ anything, but stop trying to convince Canada that you are a Conservative.
And on the way out, please pay back the conservative riding the money they spent to get you elected.
Wait for Harper and his team, which Turner obviously is not a part of now, to reduce the GST, people will forget all about Emerson and Turner. What an opportunist Turner is, but, he shot himself in the foot on this one. The only way he can maintain any kind of credibility now is to disappear into his basement office OR step down and run in a by-election.
Sorry kaqchikel, but I don’t necessarily buy it. You can go ahead and say that Garth just has sour grapes and leadership ambitions, but then you might as well put that same lense on Harper and say that he is power-hungry and really had no intention of changing how things are done in Ottawa (i.e. elected Senate).
I don’t believe the later, so I’m not as quick as you guys to jump on the former. I know that when one runs out of legitimate comebacks to counter an argument, one always argues the source to discredit and thus ease the level of thought it takes to actually debate a point. I really don’t see this thread as being anything more than that.
Some CPC supporters are holding their nose over this whole episode and saying it’s alright, and some are legitimately cheesed at how badly this has played out (either in terms of bad policy or bad publicity control). I think we know where we both stand here.
Mr. Turner obviously does not know that Canada operates under a party system. The party has a platform and you stick to the platform publicly. Harper said he didn’t agree with floor crossing but did not think the system should change because it would give to much power to the leader of the party (how undemocractic of Mr. Harper).
Turner could have made his position known and say he would work to make the changes he wants. In the meantime he supports the leader and his decision to accept Emerson in the caucus. It’s called communication 101. He did not have to give up his principles. However, Turner decided he could make the changes he wanted by feeding the press in their frenzy and thus keep the story going. All the stories about the Emerson crossing included what Turner said etc. This allows the opposition parties to view the party as divided and when the party is perceived to be divided the public abandons them. Is this what Turner wants? Maybe so.
Turner knows all that, I am sure, Merv. He’s playing a game. Garth’s game, and one does not play for nothing. He expects something out of it for himself. He is not stupid.
The greatest lesson I ever received in democracy was from a man (president of the organization) who strenuously argued a point at a meeting. The vote went against his desire and he immediately began working to meet the desires of the majority vote. Many at the meeting thought that because he held his feelings so strongly that he would continue to oppose the plan. He simply stated that this is what the meeting decided and it was his duty to carry out the wishes of the majority. I never heard him speak ill of the decision and he did a great job in bringing the task to completion. I fully support Garth’s right to free speech but there comes a time to accept that other people’s points of view are more important than your own.
That is a great story about duty to others, Joe.
Very true… now, once the CPC gets together and decides that Conservative MP’s are not allowed to speak their minds for the sake of creating the appearance of party solidarity on all fronts, that story will apply. Until then, Garth can say what he wants.