Emmerson just crossed the floor!

[betsy]

Well, I was wrong with my earlier post. Harper said Emmerson had been very loyal to Martin and he saw that he will fit right in with consevative views that's why he (Harper) called him. He also said that he's thinking of what will be good for BC.

I guess with no leader in the party, can it still be said that this is unethical? This is not exactly like Belinda Stronach's case.

[Melanie_]

Yikes, I'm posting at work!

The people of Emerson's riding voted for him based on the campaign and platform of the Liberals. This is a betrayal of their trust. If they had wanted a Conservative MP, they would have elected one - 2 weeks ago! What was the basis of his campaign? How long has he been planning this crossover? He has treated the people of his riding like fools, and I doubt they will forget that soon.

[Black Dog]

Quick question Black Dog. What were you saying when Belinda crossed? Being the big fan of consistency that you are...

I wasn't saying much. I was struck then by the sexist nature of the attacks against her, the constant references to her looks, clothing etc. Then, as now, I had no real opinion on the political angle: being neither Con or Liberal, I got no dog in that fight. But I do revel in hypcoricy when I see it, and I expect the CPC to not dissapoint. (By the way, this surely speaks to the weakness of Harper's bench: they had to bring in a ringer.)

geoffery:

The truth is that this type of behavoir isn't what I or many CPC supporters voted for. I'm currently not impressed. I'm not willing to write-off Harper yet, but he's off on the wrong foot thats for sure.

It's not what the people of Vancouver-Kingsway voted for either.

[shoop]

BD,

You were being fair and reasonable until that part I highlighted.

Harper's bench isn't weak. Unfortunately too much of the strength is concentrated in Alberta.

tsk tsk fairness and all.

I wasn't saying much. I was struck then by the sexist nature of the attacks against her, the constant references to her looks, clothing etc. Then, as now, I had no real opinion on the political angle: being neither Con or Liberal, I got no dog in that fight. But I do revel in hypcoricy when I see it, and I expect the CPC to not dissapoint. (By the way, this surely speaks to the weakness of Harper's bench: they had to bring in a ringer.)

[Riverwind]

Your anger at the Emerson appointment to Canada is rightful. If the CPC gets hammered in the press it will be over this one. The Fortier thing is fluff in the wind.

I am mystified how Harper could do such a thing because the upside is so small compared to the downside. Emerson will not get re-elected - the conservatives do very poorly in that part of Vancouver. In addition, the extra vote that Emerson brings won't help get any legislation through. The symbolic value of recruiting a high profile Liberal is lost entirely because of cynical nature of the move.

This appointment will anger mostly the traditional Reform supporters who were expecting a higher ethical standard from a CPC gov't. It also undermines the CPC credibility as it tries to bring in reforms to the parlimentary system.

If I was Harper I would have told Emerson to cool his heels and sit as an independent if he really wanted out of the Liberal party. I would have only promised him a cabinet seat after he ran and won as an CPC. Emerson needed Harper more than Harper needed Emerson. I don't understand why Harper caved.

[tml12]

Your anger at the Emerson appointment to Canada is rightful. If the CPC gets hammered in the press it will be over this one. The Fortier thing is fluff in the wind.

I am mystified how Harper could do such a thing because the upside is so small compared to the downside. Emerson will not get re-elected - the conservatives do very poorly in that part of Vancouver. In addition, the extra vote that Emerson brings won't help get any legislation through. The symbolic value of recruiting a high profile Liberal is lost entirely because of cynical nature of the move.

This appointment will anger mostly the traditional Reform supporters who were expecting a higher ethical standard from a CPC gov't. It also undermines the CPC credibility as it tries to bring in reforms to the parlimentary system.

If I was Harper I would have told Emerson to cool his heels and sit as an independent if he really wanted out of the Liberal party. I would have only promised him a cabinet seat after he ran and won as an CPC. Emerson needed Harper more than Harper needed Emerson. I don't understand why Harper caved.

Well I back you 100% there Sparkawk...and you live in Vancouver, after all you have the authority to speak with expertise on the city.

I would have been OK if he had sat as an independent for awhile first. Maybe a month or so. Crossing the floor the way he did undermines party values...I don't care he was right-wing all his life, he was in Liberal TV commercials arguing they were the best party for this country. Was he lying all along? Or like Belinda, did he just not want to be "out of the loop of power?"

I liked the Reform Party and I respected people like Chuck Cadman who put there constituents first. Say what you want, this move undermines Harper.

[August1991]

I'm with BD on this. The move smacks of hypocrisy. As a minimum, Emerson could have sat as a back-bencher for a few months before entering cabinet. Or resigned and ran in a by-election. (Up until 1930, parliamentary tradition would have required that.)

I could be wrong, I don't think Harper ever said that Stronach did not have the right to cross the floor and enter cabinet. I don't think he ever said that she should resign and run again.

In political terms, no one is talking about Dingwall today and no one will be talking about Emerson next week. The new government and the first faux pas will overshadow these minor points. At most, Harper has just made it a little easier for Stronach to become Liberal leader - which is something I'm sure he would dearly like.

[fellowtraveller]

This is the exact same scenario as went down with Stronach

Actually, it is significantly different.

Stronach swapped sides just in time to prevent the fall of a government, it was much more important than what Emerson has done.

Not better or worse, but more significant. If I were Emersons constituent , I'd be very pissed.

This is a tactical mistake by Harper, his first important one.

[shoop]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The story may have legs for a few days but that is it. My guess is that Harper will ignore it for the most part...

Actually, it is significantly different.Stronach swapped sides just in time to prevent the fall of a government, it was much more important than what Emerson has done.Not better or worse, but more significant. If I were Emersons constituent , I'd be very pissed.

This is a tactical mistake by Harper, his first important one.

[Riverwind]

This is a tactical mistake by Harper, his first important one.

Actually his second. Harper made a huge blunder when he impuned the professionalism of the civil service and the judiciary by claiming they would be a 'check' on conservative majority. Until that point the Liberal scare tactics weren't really working. After that the had an effect largely (I believe) because Harper's comments made them sound credible. That blunder likely cost the conservatives a majority.

[sage]

Does anyone actually know if Emerson is going to sit as a Conservative, or is he a Liberal sitting in cabinet.

To me the question is whether he is going to run in the next election as a Tory or not, and I am not sure we know the answer to this yet.

As for Harper being a hypocrite, I think this can spun to be exactly what it is: the Tories trying to seek representation from the major cities in cabinet. That is also why Fortier was appointed.

Everyone that criticizes Harper asks why he would do this where there is such limited upside. First people jump on Harper for not having a broad mandate from the urban centres, now Harper is trying to address this criticism and he is a hypocrite?

It is also worth noting that during the campaign Harper was specifically asked whether he supported recall legislation. He flat out said he would not support recalls despite the Stronach debacle.

If anything it should only be Emerson who has to answer to his constituents. I don't see how Harper can be chastised.

[Black Dog]

So, um, I take it the "Federal Acountability Act" won't include anything about byelections for floor-crossers?

Does anyone actually know if Emerson is going to sit as a Conservative, or is he a Liberal sitting in cabinet.

He's a Con.

As for Harper being a hypocrite, I think this can spun to be exactly what it is: the Tories trying to seek representation from the major cities in cabinet. That is also why Fortier was appointed.

Everyone that criticizes Harper asks why he would do this where there is such limited upside. First people jump on Harper for not having a broad mandate from the urban centres, now Harper is trying to address this criticism and he is a hypocrite?

Because you get representation the old-fashioned way: by winning seats. Not by poaching from other parties and appointing unelected flacks to positions of prominence.

If anything it should only be Emerson who has to answer to his constituents. I don't see how Harper can be chastised.

Well,if you campaign on ethics and accountability and then pull this crap, you should expect to be roasted.

Also: I just looked at the election results for Emerson's riding. It's not pretty. Emerson won by less than 4,500 votes. The Con candidate was a distanct third.

[shoop]

Was it a mistake? Probably. A major blunder? Absolutely not.

You conveniently omitted Harper mentioning the Senate in the *blunder* to which you refer. Since the election both the Chief Justice and Liberal leader in the Senate (may have been a different Senator) have proven Harper's sentiments correct.

The CPC were not in majority territory for long. The Liberals scary, scary, scary started to work.

At most this *blunder* of Harper's cost the party 10 seats. Definitely didn't cost them a majority.

Actually his second. Harper made a huge blunder when he impuned the professionalism of the civil service and the judiciary by claiming they would be a 'check' on conservative majority. Until that point the Liberal scare tactics weren't really working. After that the had an effect largely (I believe) because Harper's comments made them sound credible. That blunder likely cost the conservatives a majority.

[geoffrey]

So, um, I take it the "Federal Acountability Act" won't include anything about byelections for floor-crossers?

Does anyone actually know if Emerson is going to sit as a Conservative, or is he a Liberal sitting in cabinet.

He's a Con.

As for Harper being a hypocrite, I think this can spun to be exactly what it is: the Tories trying to seek representation from the major cities in cabinet. That is also why Fortier was appointed.

Everyone that criticizes Harper asks why he would do this where there is such limited upside. First people jump on Harper for not having a broad mandate from the urban centres, now Harper is trying to address this criticism and he is a hypocrite?

Because you get representation the old-fashioned way: by winning seats. Not by poaching from other parties and appointing unelected flacks to positions of prominence.

If anything it should only be Emerson who has to answer to his constituents. I don't see how Harper can be chastised.

Well,if you campaign on ethics and accountability and then pull this crap, you should expect to be roasted.

Also: I just looked at the election results for Emerson's riding. It's not pretty. Emerson won by less than 4,500 votes. The Con candidate was a distanct third.

Again, I agree with BD here.

Though the Federal Accountability Act was not supposed to have anything about floor crossers in it. Harper has never be in favour of such a measure.

[shoop]

Uhhh, no and it never did. It has been on the conservatives web site since the early stages of the campaign.

Accountability act.

So, um, I take it the "Federal Acountability Act" won't include anything about byelections for floor-crossers?

Geoffrey, read again but it sounds to me like you are disagreeing with BD.

Again, I agree with BD here.

Though the Federal Accountability Act was not supposed to have anything about floor crossers in it. Harper has never be in favour of such a measure.

[Concerned]

Emerson got Minister of International Trade.

I'm extremely disappointed in Harper right now.

We really gotta bring up that thread on Belinda Stronach.

[sage]

Well I tried to justify this one, but I must admit its a head scratcher.

There must be some reason Harper did this though, I mean the heat he's taking over this for one dinky vote in the house of commons doesn't make sense.

Again this makes me think this is honestly Harper trying to have a broader urban voice in his cabinet.

[sage]

We really gotta bring up that thread on Belinda Stronach.

Out of a sense of gender equality, Emerson is a whore.

[Concerned]

Bah.. this is why I wish that NDP proposal could be in place by now (doesnt matter who gets it there, just get it there) that makes people run in a by-election before they can cross the floor.

I guess now we know why Emerson voted against that particula motion.

This is the exact same scenario as went down with Stronach. The difference is, this guy didn't wait until the ink was dry on the ballots. I wonder: will Emerson's move be met by accusations of political opportunism or worse, "political prostitution" from members of his new caucus? No? Uh...why not? If it was a sleazy move for Belinda to pull, its equally sleazy in this case. Kudos to geoffery for consistency.

What was that word they used BD ??? Belinda the ..........Whore ????????

[scribblet]

Emerson got Minister of International Trade.

I'm extremely disappointed in Harper right now.

Me too, I didn't like it when Belinda crossed the floor and got a cabinet position, and I don't like this. There should definitely be a by election if we want to prove we are better than the liberals.

[geoffrey]

Bah.. this is why I wish that NDP proposal could be in place by now (doesnt matter who gets it there, just get it there) that makes people run in a by-election before they can cross the floor.

I guess now we know why Emerson voted against that particula motion.

This is the exact same scenario as went down with Stronach. The difference is, this guy didn't wait until the ink was dry on the ballots. I wonder: will Emerson's move be met by accusations of political opportunism or worse, "political prostitution" from members of his new caucus? No? Uh...why not? If it was a sleazy move for Belinda to pull, its equally sleazy in this case. Kudos to geoffery for consistency.

What was that word they used BD ??? Belinda the ..........Whore ????????

So we call Emerson a gigalo?

[tml12]

Well I tried to justify this one, but I must admit its a head scratcher.

There must be some reason Harper did this though, I mean the heat he's taking over this for one dinky vote in the house of commons doesn't make sense.

Again this makes me think this is honestly Harper trying to have a broader urban voice in his cabinet.

Agreed, but the Libs will use this in the next election and, probably, the NDP has the most to gain from it.

[betsy]

There must be some reason Harper did this though, I mean the heat he's taking over this for one dinky vote in the house of commons doesn't make sense.

They say it has something to do with the softwood lumber.

[tml12]

Bah.. this is why I wish that NDP proposal could be in place by now (doesnt matter who gets it there, just get it there) that makes people run in a by-election before they can cross the floor.

I guess now we know why Emerson voted against that particula motion.

This is the exact same scenario as went down with Stronach. The difference is, this guy didn't wait until the ink was dry on the ballots. I wonder: will Emerson's move be met by accusations of political opportunism or worse, "political prostitution" from members of his new caucus? No? Uh...why not? If it was a sleazy move for Belinda to pull, its equally sleazy in this case. Kudos to geoffery for consistency.

What was that word they used BD ??? Belinda the ..........Whore ????????

So we call Emerson a gigalo?

I prefer "pimp" but whatver.

I hope the story burns over but I am scratching my head...

[I Miss Trudeau]

I wonder: will Emerson's move be met by accusations of political opportunism or worse, "political prostitution" from members of his new caucus? No? Uh...why not? If it was a sleazy move for Belinda to pull, its equally sleazy in this case. Kudos to geoffery for consistency.

Apparently not. Women are whores, and men seem to be, at worst, ethically ambiguous.