Conservatives Angry: Prime Minister Can speak without Notes. (No time

[applegrove]

to call Mr. X through mysterious Australian Campaign genius helping the neocons in Canada get elected, who has nothing to do with Karl?)


"Policy written on the back of a napkin
11 January 2006
Issue: The Liberal platform leaked to the media last night did not contain any reference to Paul Martin’s "first act of a new Liberal government" – a commitment to eliminate the federal government’s ability to use the notwithstanding clause.

Facts:

Leaked copy of the Liberal Platform was created on January 9, 2006 at 12:53pm.
The Leader’s Debate where Paul Martin announced his new policy on the notwithstanding clause was at January 9, 2006 at 8:00pm – only 7 hours after the platform was written.
The policy on the notwithstanding clause was not in the copy of the Liberal platform released to the media last night.
The Question:

Exactly when did Mr. Martin decide to add his new "first priority" to the Liberal platform? Six hours prior to the debate? Two hours prior the debate? Five minutes prior to the debate? During the debate?
Paul Martin will say anything to hang onto power. You just can’t believe anything he says." :cry: cry my addition

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/38556

Exactly when did Mr. Martin decide to add his new "first priority" to the Liberal platform?

Obviously Somewhere Around The Time When You Didn't Find Out About It!

[RogueTrooper]

1. Lynton Crosby

do you mean?

[applegrove]

2. I'm not good with names. But whoever got the last Australian PM into

power is a consultant with the Conservatives in Canada. And they volunteered that information. As soon as Harper says the words "fancy pants" I'm on it!!

[tjwmason]

3. That's Crosby.

He came over here to work with the British Tories as well during our election last year.

[applegrove]

4. Is he a real person? Or just a borg? Seems Rove was involved in

the Campaign in England at first - and then had to disappear. He may have had to disappear before the election in Britain started - I wasn't paying much attention.

[tjwmason]

6. I believe that Rove played no part over here

Bush wanted Blair to win.

The Tories supported the invasion of Iraq, but then (in a sense doing their job as the opposition) started to question certain aspects of its implmentation - the White House threw a queenie fit and effectively demanded that Michael Howard (then Conservative leader) crawl over broken glass apologising for daring to criticise Blair.

The new leader is trying to repair relations, as the Republican and the Tories traditionally got on very well (including major assistance in the attempt to get Bush Snr. re-elected); and now nobody's really talking about Iraq here. But many British Tories are distinctly unkeen on Bush, it is thought that perhaps most of the Conservative M.P.s wanted him to lose in 2004 - on election night I saw an interview with a Tory foreign affairs spokesman who effectively endorsed Kerry (at the U.S. Embassy party of all places).

But it was always going to be win-win for Bush. Despite some mildly critical rhetoric, the Tories would have been fully behind Bush in Iraq.

[applegrove]

7. I just read up and there were some wedge issues. I thought there was

a scandal about Rove being too close the Blair before the election was called? Was it a rumour?

[tjwmason]

8. Oh yes - he was close to Blair.

Which is what's odd. Republicans normally support the Conservative, and Democrats to Labour.

They kept it quiet because nobody over here likes Bush - especially potential Labour voters.

[applegrove]

5. Do they always "drug" their candidates? Is that the new thing?