Conservative Party's plan to acclaim incumbent MPs draws criticism

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/17/...ve-calgary.html

The federal Conservative Party is moving ahead with reforms to its process of nominating candidates for elections that will mean incumbent MPs won't have to fight for nominations in their ridings.

The proposal would declare incumbent MPs acclaimed as candidates in the next election unless two-thirds of members in their ridings ask for an open nomination contest.

The party is sending ballots on the issue to its members. Only those with a Conservative Party membership as of March 10 can vote.

Seems a lot of Conservatives are very unhappy about this.

[Alta4ever]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/17/...ve-calgary.html

Seems a lot of Conservatives are very unhappy about this.

whatever the CBC is such a great source for knowing what conservatives are thinking.

[jdobbin]

whatever the CBC is such a great source for knowing what conservatives are thinking.

As I suspected, attack the CBC.

I am reading the same thing in Tory blogs.

My guess is that you support this measure.

[Alta4ever]

As I suspected, attack the CBC.

I am reading the same thing in Tory blogs.

My guess is that you support this measure.

I support th idea I don't like the % that was chosen.

[jdobbin]

I support th idea I don't like the % that was chosen.

Well then the CBC was accurate then when it said many people in the party oppose how high the threshold is.

[Alta4ever]

Well then the CBC was accurate then when it said many people in the party oppose how high the threshold is.

And they can amend this at the next policy convention.

[jdobbin]

And they can amend this at the next policy convention.

Which is after the next election.

[Alta4ever]

Which is after the next election.

maybe maybe not depends on when the next election is called.

[jdobbin]

maybe maybe not depends on when the next election is called.

Last time I looked, the policy convention is scheduled every two years and this issue was supposed to be decided with last policy convention.

[Wild Bill]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/17/...ve-calgary.html

Seems a lot of Conservatives are very unhappy about this.

This is one of the very things that Reform trumpeted against with the other parties!

Again I ask, why did Manning bother?

[Alta4ever]

This is one of the very things that Reform trumpeted against with the other parties!

Again I ask, why did Manning bother?

And silent nomination campaigns led to the david orchard affair and the distration of Mike woods by Tim Uppal.

[ToadBrother]

I support th idea I don't like the % that was chosen.

So much for Tory populism.

[Alta4ever]

So much for Tory populism.

Nomination proceses are costly and while an Mp is hard at work in ottawa, a sect of population could be working to take over the riding assocation and get a poor nominee nominated. I think it is fair for the membership to decide whether or not the incumbant has been doing a good job, I just think that 2/3rds majority is a little high, i think the number should be closer to 40%. If the incumbant can't get 60% upport from the CPC membership in his riding they should have to face a nomination race.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Alta4ever

[ToadBrother]

Nomination proceses are costly and while an Mp is hard at work in ottawa, a sect of population could be working to take over the riding assocation and get a poor nominee nominated.

Democracy is expensive, messy and sometimes unfair, but it's still infinitely better than this:

I think it is fair for the membership to decide whether or not the incumbant has been doing a good job, I just think that 2/3rds majority is a little high, i think the number should be closer to 40%. If the incumbant can't get 60% upport from the CPC membership in his riding they should have to face a nomination race.

Reform's Populism is truly dead.

Edited March 18, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Alta4ever]

Democracy is expensive, messy and sometimes unfair, but it's still infinitely better than this:

Reform's Populism is truly dead.

Really all this takes is one change at a policy convention.

Its better then having the party subverted by tim uppals and david orchards.

[ToadBrother]

Really all this takes is one change at a policy convention.

Its better then having the party subverted by tim uppals and david orchards.

Those are sufficiently rare events that I don't really see how you can justify decreasing local democracy of a political party to justify them. Other political parties have faced similar stunts and have found alternatives. The NDP in BC had a "sign up" fiasco where in some ridings, all of a sudden you'd have a ton new members magically signed up just in time for the nomination vote. The solution was simple, a person has to be a member of the party for a certain period of time (I believe it's now six months) before they can vote. There will always be ways to stack the deck, and you have to put up with it, because the alternative is a decrease in democracy. I can tell you right now, this would never have flown while Manning was in charge.

[Alta4ever]

Those are sufficiently rare events that I don't really see how you can justify decreasing local democracy of a political party to justify them. Other political parties have faced similar stunts and have found alternatives. The NDP in BC had a "sign up" fiasco where in some ridings, all of a sudden you'd have a ton new members magically signed up just in time for the nomination vote. The solution was simple, a person has to be a member of the party for a certain period of time (I believe it's now six months) before they can vote. There will always be ways to stack the deck, and you have to put up with it, because the alternative is a decrease in democracy. I can tell you right now, this would never have flown while Manning was in charge.

Six months is a long time, and to disqualify someone from being able to sit on boards of directors van have the problem of pushing new. members away.

What the conservatives have done is not remove democracy its members are asked if a nomination is needed in the riding, it jut too bad the the number for having one is too high. If a incumbant can't get support from 60% of the ridings members then their is a problem and a nomination needs to be held. So if 40% of the riding votes against the incumbant he should have to face a nomination race and the members of the riding.

Tim Uppals and David Orchards aren't rare. Look at the Alberta provincial tories they have been taken over by liberals.

[ToadBrother]

Six months is a long time, and to disqualify someone from being able to sit on boards of directors van have the problem of pushing new. members away.

What the conservatives have done is not remove democracy its members are asked if a nomination is needed in the riding, it jut too bad the the number for having one is too high. If a incumbant can't get support from 60% of the ridings members then their is a problem and a nomination needs to be held. So if 40% of the riding votes against the incumbant he should have to face a nomination race and the members of the riding.

Tim Uppals and David Orchards aren't rare. Look at the Alberta provincial tories they have been taken over by liberals.

I don't think six months is out of order. The whole point was to make sure that these were people legitimately interested in joining the party, and not just a bunch of people who a candidate seeking the nomination managed to sign up. It's not a perfect solution, but I think, in principle, it's a much more democratic one than allowing a riding association to give an incumbent a free ride.

[Alta4ever]

I don't think six months is out of order. The whole point was to make sure that these were people legitimately interested in joining the party, and not just a bunch of people who a candidate seeking the nomination managed to sign up. It's not a perfect solution, but I think, in principle, it's a much more democratic one than allowing a riding association to give an incumbent a free ride.

Realy how would you like to buy shares in a compnay only to be told that you have to hold those share for a long perod of time before you are able to vote.

[ToadBrother]

Realy how would you like to buy shares in a compnay only to be told that you have to hold those share for a long perod of time before you are able to vote.

Political parties are not private corporations. They wield, unfortunately, a great deal of influence. Protecting a party from a sign-up scam by forcing a new member to wait six months before voting is hardly a tyrannical requirement.

[Argus]

As I suspected, attack the CBC.

I am reading the same thing in Tory blogs.

My guess is that you support this measure.

I support anything which stops the rushes on nomination meetings by phony party members, most of them ethnic or religious, rounded up just before an election to support a new candidate. It's especially disgusting in a riding where the incumbant is almost certain to be re-elected because that riding always votes for that party with a large plurality. It means, for example, that if you want to be the new MP, you just bus in a hundred or so members of your church or ethnic group. They become instant members, vote for you, and then are gone again, displacing all the regular, hard-working, long serving members of the riding association.

This, in fact, seems to be how most of the ethnic MPs in the house got their nominations. Hell, Ujjal Dosanjh even used this method to become premier of British Columbia. He and his people signed up every Indian they could find - even those who had been dead for a while.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

Democracy is expensive, messy and sometimes unfair, but it's still infinitely better than this:

Reform's Populism is truly dead.

You say that like you regret it. Remember when there was talk of a nationa referendum on abortion? All the lefties went bananas! The last thing they wanted was for people to get to vote on something!

[jdobbin]

I support anything which stops the rushes on nomination meetings by phony party members, most of them ethnic or religious, rounded up just before an election to support a new candidate.

I'm not if you mean you are for or against challenging a sitting MP.

[Argus]

I'm not if you mean you are for or against challenging a sitting MP.

Generally I'd say I'm for it, but if this will help the situation I can live with it. Very, very few sitting MPs are ever succesfully challenged within their ridings other than by sudden rushes of religious/ethnic groups, or the occasional one-issue group. I seem to recall there was a nutbar Liberal anti-Abortion activist from down east who got turfed in a nomination riding by NDP activists who swarmed the riding, took out cheapie memberships, and voted in someone else. Can't remember her name, though.

[jdobbin]

Generally I'd say I'm for it, but if this will help the situation I can live with it. Very, very few sitting MPs are ever succesfully challenged within their ridings other than by sudden rushes of religious/ethnic groups, or the occasional one-issue group. I seem to recall there was a nutbar Liberal anti-Abortion activist from down east who got turfed in a nomination riding by NDP activists who swarmed the riding, took out cheapie memberships, and voted in someone else. Can't remember her name, though.

I can't speak for how the Tories want to organize their candidate selection.

I do know there are risks of a party being highjacked in any number of ways including one member, one vote. In my view, the final selection of a candidate must be at the party's discretion.

Whenever possible the local riding should choose who to run but final approval must come from the overall party. Any candidate can turn out to be grenade within the party and Preston Manning found that out all too well.