View topic - Feel a new large "C" - Conservative party coming o :: Free Dominion - Principled Conservative - Party and Canadian Politics

...of course dear old Mikey will be approached to lead it. Can't wait. Strong Alternative can hand over both the PCs and the Alliance membership lists, so away we go.

April 14, 2002
Unite-the-right talks are doomed
Both parties unwilling to bend
By BEN MULRONEY -- Tor the Sun

Whenever two parties enter into contract talks, there is a fundamental condition that must be met -- both sides must come to the table with willingness to negotiate in good faith.

It is a golden rule of contract law. No good faith, no legally binding contract. In fact, it is the basis of every social contract that exists in Canada, from our trust in the police to our belief in the integrity of the institution of journalism.

So if this indispensable condition is the bedrock on which all successful relationships is based, why is anyone surprised that last week's meeting between Stephen Harper and Joe Clark ended in failure?

Since the beginning of the United Alternative movement, there has not been a single good faith unity overture from either side.

That is not to say the Canadian Alliance and Tory leaders have been consistently hoping talks would fail. But when one party's initial bargaining position is both intractable and unpalatable to the group on the other side of the table, negotiations are doomed before they ever begin.

WILLING TO TALK

Stephen Harper's very first foray into unity talks began with the statement that, while skeptical, he was willing to talk with Clark. However, the Tory leader must know that the Alliance is, and shall remain, a powerful force on the political landscape.

It doesn't take a genius to read between those lines. The existence of the Alliance is not up for discussion. Harper's united right would only occur under his party's banner. Hearing this, it's no wonder Clark left the table faster than the B.C. nurses.

It bears noting that the Alliance leadership does not own a monopoly of suspect negotiating tactics. Seven months ago, the Tories seemed to have warmed to the idea of rapprochement with their estranged political cousins. No doubt, the birth of the PC-DRC Coalition, as well as the Alliance freefall in the polls, contributed to this openness.

In essence, the Tories were seeking to dictate the terms of a partnership with a weakened Canadian Alliance, seemingly fighting for its survival. That's like negotiating a contract when one of the parties is under duress -- it can nullify a contract and is tantamount to bad faith.

REFUSING TO BUDGE

There is no shame in embracing self-preservation, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to improve one's bargaining position. The problem resides in adapting a position and refusing to budge.

Both the leadership of the CA and PC parties have been clinging to "take-it-or-leave-it" strategies, hoping one side will self-destruct and fold its remnants into the other by default. That doesn't sound like the ideal blueprint for a united big-tent conservative party.

Canadian democracy demands a united right in order to keep the Liberals in check. The next time they bypass protocols and buy $101-million worth of planes for the prime minister on a whim, claiming that his old plane flies like a Sam Snead slice, a united voice of opposition built by common vision, purpose and above all, good faith, should be heard from the Canadian right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Mulroney on Sundays and watch him on talktv's the chatroom and Canada AM on CTV. Reach him at [EMAIL]benedictmulroney@hotmail.com. [/EMAIL]

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com .

(Feel free to FReep Benedict Mulroney if you so choose)

Legal Opinion Time

The lawyer is open for business this morning only to deal with two issues which have recently arisen. As it is Sunday I will close after this Post. I read the above article and the opening comment. I need to correct two legal mistakes.

Firstly, Ben Mulroney stated:

quote:

In essence, the Tories were seeking to dictate the terms of a partnership with a weakened Canadian Alliance, seemingly fighting for its survival. That's like negotiating a contract when one of the parties is under duress -- it can nullify a contract and is tantamount to bad faith.

Secondly, Wild Rose stated:

quote:

Strong Alternative can hand over both the PCs and the Alliance membership lists, so away we go.

Here is what is legally wrong with these two statements.

1. It is not Duress, it is either Undue Influece or an Unconcionable transaction. For it to be duress there must be threats of force or violence. Undue Influence arises where there is a special relationship or a created situation of trust. The writer could easily find this out by looking at any basic business law text. I would be glad to reommend some. Or, he could Read Chitty's law of Contract - both volums.

2. The lists can not be handed over. C-6 Federal Privacy Legislation could apply. As an executive director for a riding it is my role to protect the members money and information. I will not be handing over any membership lists. These lists contain Personal Information. This party has had enough problems with lists ending up in the wrong places. No more, we should be more careful.

Thus endth the lesson.

quote:
It is a golden rule of contract law. No good faith, no legally binding contract. In fact, it is the basis of every social contract that exists in Canada, from our trust in the police to our belief in the integrity of the institution of journalism.

We have faith in the integrity of the institution of journalism? The media acts in utmost good faith? When does all this start?

quote:
Since the beginning of the United Alternative movement, there has not been a single good faith unity overture from either side.

Formation of the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance was a good faith move on the part of Reform.

quote:
That is not to say the Canadian Alliance and Tory leaders have been consistently hoping talks would fail. But when one party's initial bargaining position is both intractable and unpalatable to the group on the other side of the table, negotiations are doomed before they ever begin.

That is exactly the position since January 2000. Mr. Clark and the PCs have consistently refused to bargain in good faith.

quote:
Stephen Harper's very first foray into unity talks began with the statement that, while skeptical, he was willing to talk with Clark. However, the Tory leader must know that the Alliance is, and shall remain, a powerful force on the political landscape.

In essence, the Tories were seeking to dictate the terms of a partnership with a weakened Canadian Alliance, seemingly fighting for its survival. That's like negotiating a contract when one of the parties is under duress -- it can nullify a contract and is tantamount to bad faith.

It doesn't take a genius to read between those lines. The existence of the Alliance is not up for discussion. Harper's united right would only occur under his party's banner. Hearing this, it's no wonder Clark left the table faster than the B.C. nurses.

The genius got it wrong. First he slipped a cog. The Alliance is the Reform move to unity. Second, Harper made it clear that the Alliance will not be joining the PCs. Harper proposed a parliamentary merger which would have left the details of a full party merger where it belonged – in the hands of the respective memberships.

quote:
Both the leadership of the CA and PC parties have been clinging to "take-it-or-leave-it" strategies, hoping one side will self-destruct and fold its remnants into the other by default. That doesn't sound like the ideal blueprint for a united big-tent conservative party.

This illustrates the position of the PC party, not the CA. Mr. Harper has made an offer which Mr. Clark ignores at his own peril. Mr. Harper has the backing of the largest party membership in Canada. Mr. Clark does not have member backing for his negotiations stance.

quote:
Canadian democracy demands a united right in order to keep the Liberals in check. The next time they bypass protocols and buy $101-million worth of planes for the prime minister on a whim, claiming that his old plane flies like a Sam Snead slice, a united voice of opposition built by common vision, purpose and above all, good faith, should be heard from the Canadian right.

Canadian democracy demands it be left to run without undue influence by people unconcerned over their responsibilities as representatives of the people.

The political right is not an array of forces to be controlled by a group of elitists mainly concerned over acquiring and maintaining the powers of governance.

Conservatives demand to be allowed to choose leaders that will represent their wishes for smaller, less intrusive, efficient and effective governance at a cost that does not infringe on citizen freedoms including the right to acquire property and accumulate wealth.

[Viking]

[ 04-14-2002, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: WestViking ]

"2. The lists can not be handed over. C-6 Federal Privacy Legislation could apply. As an executive director for a riding it is my role to protect the members money and information. I will not be handing over any membership lists. These lists contain Personal Information. This party has had enough problems with lists ending up in the wrong places. No more, we should be more careful. "

Really Braveheart, you must have missed these earlier posts. Better read up on them and be prepared to contact Ken Kalopsis.

Comments from the roving reporter:
"The discussion group that elected senator in waiting Bert Brown participated in, came up with an idea Brown referred to as: “The best idea I have heard in politics for 20 years”.

Brown’s discussion group arrived at the conclusion that a “new conservative association” needs to be formed issuing “instant conservative association memberships” to both Canadian Alliance members as well as federal PC members.

This new “conservative association” would take PC and CA memberships at par and would encourage both the CA and the PC parties to continue to reposition themselves until a NEW party with a NEW leader who supports Senate Reform, would be formed from this “conservative association.”

This new association would of course, have control of both memberships. Unfortunately, it seems that the “Strong Alternative” group has already attained CA membership information because not only has this group posted the list of all our CA presidents on their website, they have been continuing to email Canadian Alliance members from across Canada with “Strong Alternative grassroots” meeting notice information."

Quotes taken from:
http://www.freedominion.ca/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000068

Then we have:
http://www.freedominion.ca/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000342

And finally:
http://www.freedominion.ca/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000655

Last time we checked the CA president's email list is now delinked but the PC president's email list is still posted.

Someone else from the CA must have noticed too. [Big Grin]

[ 04-14-2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Wild_Rose ]

	The time now is 09/ 02/ 10 10:19 pm
	Home ∴ Forum ∴ Recent ∴ Register ∴ Profile ∴ Log in to check your private messages ∴ Log in FAQ ∴ Search ∴ Donate ∴ Activist's Toolbox ∴ FD Links ∴ FD Swag [ Login to join chat ] FD Arcade - Click Here-->