Topaz Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Harper has warned backbenchers not to bring forward pet projects in private members bills or motion that would stir up or disrupt Harper's plan for the next four years. One hot topic would be the abortion, which could cause debates within the party, pro and con. I guess what Harper is saying party line rules over what your constituents want from their MP??? http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/conservative_backbenchers_warned_not_to_dredge_up_controversial_bills_or_issues_in_majority_government_06-02-2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) I guess what Harper is saying party line rules over what your constituents want from their MP?You, of course, would be salivating if Harper allowed this and a few anti-abortion measures got introduced. You would waste no time critizing Harper because of it. Yet when Harper takes measures to stop this from happening you criticize him for denying the rights of MPs. Sorry, your hypocracy does not impress anyone. In fact, it is hypocrites like you that make these rules necessary. In an ideal world, the press would not try to claim that a private member bill represents government policy and Harper would have nothing to lose by allowing MPs to table bills that are interested to them. Edited June 3, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Harper has warned backbenchers not to bring forward pet projects in private members bills or motion that would stir up or disrupt Harper's plan for the next four years. One hot topic would be the abortion, which could cause debates within the party, pro and con. I guess what Harper is saying party line rules over what your constituents want from their MP??? http://www.hilltimes.com/dailyupdate/view/conservative_backbenchers_warned_not_to_dredge_up_controversial_bills_or_issues_in_majority_government_06-02-2011 Liberals are always free to open those debates. Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 If as true and binding as it is made to sound, then that's good, good news. However it sounds rather more like the same beginning of term pep-talk that would be handed out in every new government caucus: "Try not to embarrass us all." It's fine, but not particularly meaningful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I see nothing wrong with Harper coaching his back benchers. That is what his job really is within our political system as it stands. The PM calls the ball, get over it. Given that he is now in a majority position, I would suggest to any naysayers that retribution will be quick. Harper now holds all the cards, any agenda he has will be realized shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 “That’s as obvious as night following day,” Mr. McGuinty said.“He is definitely setting out on an eight-year roll out here, everything he has done since he’s arrived has been about trying to consummate his relationship with the Canadian people in this sense,” he added. “He’s desperately been trying to re-invent himself as the leader of the united Conservative party. He has had to take the rough edges off, he’s had to deny his background, he’s had to deny a lot of what he has said and written over the last decade, he got away with it.” Translation: The Liberal Party tried to scare Canadians about a majority Harper government, but now that a majority government is reality, the reason it isn't scary as promised is that it's apparent the Conservatives want to be re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_ON Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Harper has warned backbenchers not to bring forward pet projects in private members bills or motion that would stir up or disrupt Harper's plan for the next four years. One hot topic would be the abortion, which could cause debates within the party, pro and con. I guess what Harper is saying party line rules over what your constituents want from their MP??? This is a good thing. I don't care how it's achieved, I just don't want the more whackado fringe elements of the CPC to put forward their pet hot button topics. Now is not the time to stir up controversy. I think this is a very smart move on Mr. Harper's part. I don't know why you're surprised by this Topaz, it's not as if Mr. Harper has heretofore had a laissez faire attitude, toward party discipline. He's always run a tight (lipped) ship why would that change? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 (edited) In a similar vein, here's some of the NDP ideas that are bubbling beneath the surface. I'm sure Jumpin' Jack will do his best to keep these creative individuals and their ideas as far from the public eye as possible. ........The self-described socialist caucus knows what it would like to see when the party gathers for its 50th anniversary later this month in Vancouver. Its wish list of convention resolutions include calls to close the Alberta Tar Sands, legalize marijuana, boycott apartheid Israel, nationalize the auto, bank and insurance companies and repeal the Clarity Act. The chair of the socialist caucus, Barry Weisleder, says theyve succeeded in getting some of the resolutions endorsed by riding associations and youth clubs. Few, if any, of them, however will make it to the convention floor as they are likely to be weeded out by a closed-door session at the start of the convention that controls what issues will be allowed for debate. Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/to-survive-the-ndp-has-to-turn-left-diehards-tell-layton/article2045763/ Edited June 3, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Liberals are always free to open those debates. Why not? Yeah, right! Good joke! Remember the first Liberal Bill for gay marriage? Many liberals with religious or moral objections had promised to vote against it according to their conscience. Then their Whip told them to vote with the Party or be forever damned! I can still see the tears on the faces of some of the Liberal MPs as they toed the line. They had been under great pressure from their constituents and had been forced to betray them. This was perhaps the most obvious example of one of Reform's strongest criticisms of the old parties, that they would force their MPs to vote the Party line over the wishes of the people in their riding who had voted for them! It was only one straw on the whole pile but still, I've not doubt that it helped in some way to eventually cause the collapse of Liberal support we saw last election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't get the Cons, they seem deathly afraid to state their honest position on issue such as abortion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't get the Cons, they seem deathly afraid to state their honest position on issue such as abortion... Of course they are! Mind you, there are differences of opinion amongst conservative supporters like anywhere else. Still, only those who support a woman's right to choose dare to open their mouths. Any MP Tory or other who opens his mouth against abortion will instantly have the wrath of the media and just about every leftwing tv commentator in the country come crashing down on his head! Much as some folks (perhaps yourself) would find this to be great fun you really shouldn't be surprised that Tories don't volunteer to be the butt of your joke. I myself have always supported a woman's right to choose, due to my Libertarian, classic Liberal values of the rights of the individual. Still, I have some sympathy for those who feel otherwise. Leftists in this country just don't seem to understand the right of others to disagree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't get the Cons, they seem deathly afraid to state their honest position on issue such as abortion... I guess you have not noticed Harper saying over and over he has no intention of opening the debate. Is there something doishionest about that. Like many Christian Cons, Liberals, NDP he no doubt has a personal opinion on it, but acknowledges that the majority of Canadians support the right to choice, so will let it be. His two predecessors- Martin and Cretien- were both church attendees and avowed Christians, and they took the same course. But nobody cared about them....... and all of them know there are no net votes to be gained...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 . Leftists in this country just don't seem to understand the right of others to disagree with them. I understand the optics to what you are saying, but experience says otherwise (for me anyhow) The arguments discussion whathaveyou, that I have had all got heated because of a fundemental lack of understanding the issue from a 'rights' perspective. Ask anyone who is against abortion if they support the persons right to privacy. They say yes. Ask them if they support abortion (and support is not the best word) and they say no. Right there is the problem. Hey, you can do anything you want to or on your body , well, except that The Cons are very smart to have cleared the deck on this issue and said they will not table anything on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Ask anyone who is against abortion.......Ask them if they support abortion...... And therein lies a part of the4 problem in this discussion: characterizing people in terms whereby if they either oppose or support abortion. Like so many people, I do neither. I support the right of a woman to choose. If she chooses to not abort, fine. Choose to abort, fine. It is not my business or right to choose for her. And that is far, far away from supporting or opposing abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 And therein lies a part of the4 problem in this discussion: characterizing people in terms whereby if they either oppose or support abortion. Like so many people, I do neither. I support the right of a woman to choose. If she chooses to not abort, fine. Choose to abort, fine. It is not my business or right to choose for her. And that is far, far away from supporting or opposing abortion. Ahh yes, you are absolutely correct. And I agree with the way you framed it much better than I did. One caveat, fair to say one side does not support abortion and one side supports the choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 One caveat, fair to say one side does not support abortion and one side supports the choice?Fair, as long as you don't lump all conservatives in with the anti-choice crowd. What people fail (or do not wish to) acknowledge is conservatives are far from united on this point and it is unlikely that a bill would pass with a free vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 One caveat, fair to say one side does not support abortion and one side supports the choice? Yes, I think that is pretty accurate. It is also true that both sides have shades of conviction. For example, some pro lifers would permit abortion in cases of rape and incest, others think it wrong in any circumstances.Fair, as long as you don't lump all conservatives in with the anti-choice crowd. What people fail (or do not wish to) acknowledge is conservatives are far from united on this point and it is unlikely that a bill would pass with a free vote. Yep, and classic liberals are far from united either. it is truly an issue where just about everybody has a strong opinion and it is not directly related to political conviction. But those that oppose abortion have won the semantics war, hands down. They have appropriated the highly charged 'pro-life' phrase, which implies that if you are not prolife you must be pro-death. Brilliant, though not apparently entirely convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 The reason a posted this story because there are voters out there that vote for their local guy not realizing that that person, won`t be able to do anything about any thing they bring forward if the leader of the party is totally against it. So when the next election comes around they may think twice before voting for that person. This goes to all parties and all leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 The reason a posted this story because there are voters out there that vote for their local guy not realizing that that person, won`t be able to do anything about any thing they bring forward if the leader of the party is totally against it. So when the next election comes around they may think twice before voting for that person. This goes to all parties and all leaders. That's not the fault of the MP...it's how your whipped Parliament works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Like I've said a million times, there hasn't been local representation in God knows how long in Parliament. This isn't always a bad thing, like in the OP case. Good for Stephen Harper, trying to do the right thing and govern from the middle. We'll see how it plays out, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Don't know what the fuss is about. Harper said he was going to be moderate with no drastic changes. It's in his, and the CPC's interest to do so. Lure people a little more to the right. This is him doing exactly that. Edited June 4, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Don't know what the fuss is about. Harper said he was going to be moderate with no drastic changes. It's in his, and the CPC's interest to do so. Lure people a little more to the right. This is him doing exactly that. All true. Now is the time for the Conservative vision for this nation to take hold and produce results. Now is when we will see if there ever was a Conservative or Harper agenda, and if there was or is such an animal now would be the time to implement it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 I guess you have not noticed Harper saying over and over he has no intention of opening the debate. Is there something doishionest about that. Like many Christian Cons, Liberals, NDP he no doubt has a personal opinion on it, but acknowledges that the majority of Canadians support the right to choice, so will let it be. His two predecessors- Martin and Cretien- were both church attendees and avowed Christians, and they took the same course. But nobody cared about them....... and all of them know there are no net votes to be gained...... You may not have noticed, but Mr. Harper has a track record on the subject, in which he has given remarkably free rein to the 'whackados'. The active anti-choice rep of both party and prime minister relies partly on the PMs apparent personal opinion; partly on the wink-wink failure to quell Lunney and Bruinooge, that whackjob from Humboldt and so on, the all-round general suckup to the anti-choice crowd AND on things like the mealy-mouthed dodge game played around the third world healthcare initiative that led to the utterly hypocritical, anti-healthcare notion that maternal health could somehow be properly served if abortion was utterly removed from the menu of healthcare options. It's not picked out of the air. What's more, 'unlikely' isn't even close to good enough protection when it comes to challenges to that most basic of rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 While I profoundly disagree with Harper muzzling his MPs, let's not pretend that this is unique to the Conservative Party only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Remember those Dipper MPs who dared support abolishing the long-gun registry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.