revolt ignited among 20+ Tories MP

[RNG]

I too agree heartily with her statement. But sadly the reality is the reason she makes such a statement is because she really is there without a team. If she had a delegation of say 40+ MPs that she had the opportunity to whip into line to accomplish her objectives, she'd be singing a different tune. Politicians, including "Liz", lust after power first and foremost.

Yes, I remember a time when the NDP bragged about how their MPs were allowed free votes on all bills. Mind you, that was when they had virtually no MPs.

[August1991]

The problem is there is still a miasma around the conservatives, caused by a concerted effort on the part of the opposition and parts of the media, to portray them as anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-french, anti-minority, etc. etc. So one or two yahoos opening their mouths on something stupid can easily be used to cast a bad light on the entire party. In point of fact, the party itself has been staunchly middle of the road, regardless of what anyone else might think.

I tend to agree Argus.

This is mostly a "Laurentian media" complaint. (Laurentian?) It's an anglo (Toronto/Ottawa) centric complaint.

Few people outside anti-Harper anglo Toronto/Ottawa media circles care or know about this group in the federal Conservative caucus.

====

IOW, this is a beltway story. The Toronto Anglo media hates Harper, and wants to stir the pot.

Edited March 29, 2013 by August1991

[scribblet]

Stephanie Dion was on the 12 member all party committee along with other opposition MPs who all deemed the motion out of order. Actually the opposition parties really want the motion blocked because they don’t want the embarrassment of voting against it.

It was rejected again by a three-member (one from each party) vote, which means NDP and Libs also voted against it at committee.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/25/how-mark-warawas-motion-was-rejected/

[Argus]

Ah, So when you said

You didnt really mean it.

Don't be so pedantic. What I said was truth insofar as the party identifies a variety of issues. It's likely the gun registry was not so identified when those particular MPs were candidates. However, we do know, because the party has stated it, that pro-life views are not considered acceptable in candidates, for example, any more than opposing same-sex marriage would be acceptable. No would-be candidate would be allowed to run if they did not agree with the party on those and other views. So for the NDP to state "We are united" on these views, while portraying the other parties as divided is absurd. They are only 'united' in that they shun anyone who doesn't share their view. Therefore, their censorship happens right at the beginning, rather than while an MP is in the Commons.

[Argus]

I am in favour of voter initiated referendums out the wazzoo! I must also agree with very nearly every word you wrote! Nice post!!

The problem I have with voter initiatives is that the general populace is, by and large, selfish and ignorant.

[Argus]

If only there were no political parties.... Imagine no national advertising, local candidates racing around the riding trying to get people to vote for THEM, and not the party they represent, the increased scrutiny that would bring, perhaps even increased interest. Would we wind up with better people? I think so. Oh we'd get a number of yahoos, more than now, but I think by and large we'd be better off. Of course, once elected they'd then have to vote for who would get to be the prime minister and who would be in their cabinet. But that could produce better results too.

All of which is sheer fantasy, of course, as it'll never happen.

[Bonam]

The problem I have with voter initiatives is that the general populace is, by and large, selfish and ignorant.

As opposed to our politicians, who are selfless and wise?

[RNG]

I wish I could remember the source but there is a great quote from an ancient Greek who apparently said words to the effect that democracies are inherently doomed in that at some point the electorate will discover they can vote themselves the keys to the government treasury.

I think you are seeing that phenomenon to some degree in the US with their Democrats right now.

[Argus]

As opposed to our politicians, who are selfless and wise?

The government at least generally has a greater grasp of the complexities, though I wouldn't attest to their honesty or competence.

[punked]

This is the media trying to drive the story, just like how they want me to believe everyone and their mother is going to vote for Justin Trudeau. Stop making the news and start reporting on it media because as of right now I am not trusting you nearly as much as I use to and Canadians aren't dumb enough to fall for it.

[shortlived]

I wish I could remember the source but there is a great quote from an ancient Greek who apparently said words to the effect that democracies are inherently doomed in that at some point the electorate will discover they can vote themselves the keys to the government treasury.

I think you are seeing that phenomenon to some degree in the US with their Democrats right now.

sounds like there may have been some cover up on this guy.

[scribblet]

Governments have muzzled employees, etc. since Trudea days & probably before him .. it's nothing new but there were fewer activists as there are now and less media exposure.

True..

Trudeau like Mulcair would rule with an iron fist. Trudeau has just confirmed that he would not allow his MPs to vote their conscience on abortion and would kick any anti abortionists out of his caucus. How about that for muzzling MPs hmmm

I

I guess Tom Wappel, Jim Karygiannis, Paul Szabo, John McKay et al wouldn't be allowed in Trudeau's caucus either.

Wasn’t Liberal MP Pat O’Brien kick out of Paul Martin’s caucus for not supporting the SSM bill and Bev Dejaines of the NDP was also kicked out of the NDP caucus for the same thing.

Edited March 29, 2013 by scribblet

[Argus]

True..

Trudeau like Mulcair would rule with an iron fist. Trudeau has just confirmed that he would not allow his MPs to vote their conscience on abortion and would kick any anti abortionists out of his caucus. How about that for muzzling MPs hmmm

I

There have been a lot of people who say the Liberals need to move more to the right to outflank the Tories, but I can't believe Trudeau won't move them further to the Left and away from the centre. Certainly if his 'tweets' are an indication Liberal MPs will no longer be free to have independent opinions or beliefs on matters of conscience. That would leave the Conservatives as the last 'big tent' party willing to accept people who have a variety of beliefs along a spectrum from centre left to centre right. The new Liberal Party would be sharply left of centre and competing with the NDP for same basic voter block.

BTW, Ya gotta love the predictability of Left wing political types. Every time they start out declaring their support for censorship they preface it with a statement about their belief in freedom.

[eyeball]

In the meantime some of us are trying to stay focused on the real underlying issue driving this revolt, the mockery of representation known as Parliament and the never-ending concentration of power into...the C-suite.

And if power should ever fall into the hands of the L, N or G-suite it would still be the same bucket but just filled with slightly different shit is all.

If the majority of comments about this issue are any indication most Canadians would rather pick through the shit than clean the bucket.

[shortlived]

I was actually surprised to read that the 'freedom fighters' are not letting this go, and intend to keep at it even after the Easter recess is over if it takes that long.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I predict this will get very messy. There is no wiggle room for anybody, there are lines drawn in the sand everywhere. The gray world of politics has created a contrasting world of polarized positions.

This is rapidly becoming a matter of face. Anywhere else in Canada Harper would be charged and treated as a bully. In fact the anti-bully legislative efforts of recent governments bring a particularly cruel hypocritical lime-light to focus on himself. Yet it is not just Harper, but in fact our very system that supports his efforts. We have two sets of rules, one applied to those in power and one applied to everyone else. That is the truth, like it or not.

There are now at least 24 MP's, duly elected representatives of the people that are being compelled to choose between supporting either their leader or their constituents. The leaders demand loyalty from their followers on the threat of pain in political consequence, and it has always been that way. The show is about to start.

[scribblet]

Where are the opposition on this as their committee reps. voted against allowing time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think there is more here than meets the eye. I don't think the real issue is as simple as Harper controlling the message about the motion in question as much as it is about the fact that Harper is controlling the message in the first place. Harper is not doing anything different than any other Prime Minister or partisan leader. If I am not mistaken the NDP had some issues with rogue MP's when gun control came to the floor.

What is different here at this point is that Harper actually faces consequences that are not completely predictable. Harper cannot afford to lose the voting power of that many MP's. A block of that size can actually facilitate a non-confidence motion on an opposition day. Those 24 MP's being either unwilling or unable to support the Prime Minister being the difference running the government or sitting in opposition. One simple motion, within which the mathematical possibility exists, could have the entire House of Commons decide whether or not Harper can keep his job. Without an election the government could change hands. Opposition leaders could actually walk into the Governor Generals office and seek the approval of the Crown to allow a coalition government to be formed that would replace Harper by majority consent of Parliament. This reality should give everyone something to think about.

Harper may lose his government over this.

[scribblet]

If some have their way I suppose. It's too bad that most of the media (from what I've read) are laying this strictly at the feet of Mr.Harper, yet it was the all party committees who voted against him speaking.

[shortlived]

Is there some reason he cannot motion or introduce the bill?

Why is it any MP is being prevented from a motion?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch12&Seq=4&Language=E

If there is enough support then why not just replace the speaker if he isn't willng to hear motions and the house wants to hear motions.

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[scribblet]

Name the last PM who didn't keep a tight leash over their caucus, Chretien, Trudeau, and Mulroney were all strong on caucus discipline, cracking the whip on a regular basis.

When Harper does it he's a dictator, when Chretien did it, it was called "leadership" . No difference, only in how it's presented, but perception becomes fact. Don't forget more Liberals were expelled from caucus under Chretien then Conservatives have done.

Just remember that ALL members of ALL parties voted together to deny Warawa the right to speak. Was it at the best of ALL the respective leaders, if so, let's be clear that this 'muzzling' is done by ALL parties.

[eyeball]

When Harper does it he's a dictator, when Chretien did it, it was called "leadership" .

Harper's actually just a follower...Like Chretien. ALL of them are followers..

Just remember that ALL members of ALL parties voted together to deny Warawa the right to speak. Was it at the best of ALL the respective leaders, if so, let's be clear that this 'muzzling' is done by ALL parties.

So just to be clear you think muzzling is wrong but you're still defending the practice anyway?

I guess our representatives are only as good as the people who vote for them who in turn are getting the government dictatorship they seem to want.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

From my point of view the issue in question, a motion to ban sex screening abortions, now has less relevance than the reaction which stemmed from it. The fact is that ALL partisan factions believe they have to use this partisan parliamentary tool of whips to achieve desired ends. The MP's have always been talking heads doing the bidding of their masters, it should be expected that a rogue representative will be encountered, that is a given. This system we use in fact regularly deals with this issue of rogue MP's. However this is no longer about either the original motion, or now even about the muzzle effect reaction by partisan leadership, because the situation is morphing into an internal partisan strife based on a following of sympathetic backbench Conservative MP's.

The situation is simply this, there are sufficient numbers of rogue MP's that Harper is now unable to follow his own precedent and have the rogues be ejected from caucus. To do so would effectively eliminate his majority in the House of Commons by not being able to whip a vote to his advantage. Without the support of a majority of members, Harper will surely face a non-confidence motion at the first opportunity by opposition members. That being the case, the ABC's of logistics rule, Anybody But Conservative versus everybody who is Conservative. . He only has one decision to make, to eject or not to eject............ that is the question.

[scribblet]

Harper's actually just a follower...Like Chretien. ALL of them are followers..

So just to be clear you think muzzling is wrong but you're still defending the practice anyway?

I guess our representatives are only as good as the people who vote for them who in turn are getting the government dictatorship they seem to want.

Hey, if that's the way you choose to interpret it, who am I to burst your bubble.

[scribblet]

.............................

The situation is simply this, there are sufficient numbers of rogue MP's that Harper is now unable to follow his own precedent and have the rogues be ejected from caucus. To do so would effectively eliminate his majority in the House of Commons by not being able to whip a vote to his advantage. Without the support of a majority of members, Harper will surely face a non-confidence motion at the first opportunity by opposition members. That being the case, the ABC's of logistics rule, Anybody But Conservative versus everybody who is Conservative. . He only has one decision to make, to eject or not to eject............ that is the question.

Has he said he would eject them or is that just speculation ?