Parrish: Should She Join NDP?

[stamps]

Since this is an NDP topic I was just wondering if that just maybe there is outside forces infulencing this party and its policies.... I'm just speculating here but the one thing they seem to be adament about is the NA missle shield and its flawed logic as to why they are against it.... the weaponization of space is going to happen eventually anyway and I would be alot more comfortable knowing that we are up there first and not at the mercy of somebody else...whos best interest are we looking out for here.. whos purposes would best be served for us to not take that first step..... maybe I'm just being paranoid here but I can't help but think that there is some validness to this concept....

[KrustyKidd]

Sorry KK, the NDP and the CBC offer ample opportunity for Parrish-type views

I had to look at it from an opposite point to come to that conclusion. What if, for example, we didn't live in a bizaro world and people we elect make sense. I vote for Parrish BECAUSE she is one of the few MPs in a government that is blatently pro US. Then, when she speaks against party policy but for me and almost half of Canada and says she thinks Americans and Bush are the best. Then gets fired.

I would be pretty concerned that my elected officials and my voice in government was being trodden under foot.

That's my point. The woman is an a-hole of the first order but freedom takes supersession.

[Big Blue Machine]

If you don't have anything good to say about something, don't say anything at all.

[Guest eureka]

August, I like contrary views to be heard and seen. In that, I am very far removed from this American administration. I would not be posting on this site if it did not pit stongly held opinions, intelligently argued aginst one another.

This tactic of calling someone who is concerned about the decay of world order and the slaughtering of innocents, a "knee-jerk, anti-American is something that I do not consider contrarianism. It is despicable. It is also a card of the same suit that Bush played so well under instruction of Karl Rove -the phony patriotism.

[Guest eureka]

Can you read, Stoker? Your response seems completely unconnected to what I wrote.

[Argus]

I expect Parrish will become something of a folk-hero now. Imagine! An elected official stating a opinion and not kowtowing to the party line! The very nerve! +

I think she stinks, but some people don't. And the ones that don't are the ones who elected her.

Most unlikely. Those who elected her probably barely knew her name. They voted Liberal, not Parrish.

[Argus]

his tactic of calling someone who is concerned about the decay of world order and the slaughtering of innocents, a "knee-jerk, anti-American is something that I do not consider contrarianism.

Uhm, just who is not concerned about the slaughter of innocents? As for world order, there never was any.

[Argus]

Argus!

If you really want that kind of exchange, I would take you on and take you any time but Greg won't like it.

Perhaps true. But as I tend to try to restrain myself as much as possible to attacking your silly position rather than you I doubt he'd be too concerned about what I say.

You post nothing but statements of prejudice and you think you can slide around your inability to respond with that juvenile stuff.

To respond to what? You tend to post opinions based on emotion and ideological belief rather than reality. I have pointed out repeatedly the importance, nay, the absolute requirement of staying on good terms with the US government. I have pointed out that having public figures ridicule the US government and president serves absolutely no purpose other than to make foolish people feel a reinforcement of their sense of self-righteous moral superiority. No one has shown any real eagerness to challenge either assertation with anything approaching logic or facts.

Try reading the lead up to World Wars one and two to find what your type of compliance to aggressors leads to.

I am reasonably confident I know far better than you do about the origins of the two world wars. The US is not an aggressor nation and nothing comparing them to the Germanies stands the test of logic.

Don't accuse others of Anti-Americanism to cover the cowardly role you would have us perform.

Cowardly? That suggest that snarling and snapping at the Americans is somehow brave. In what way do you think those who are hyper-critical of the US are being brave?

Sorry, I don't see those attacking the US as bravely defying some great menace but immature people yapping and bitching about things of which they have very little knowledge.

[Argus]

I would rather listen to an angry person like Parrish than an arrogant heartless tyrant like Bush.  Iraq did not attack America, was not a threat to America; had no WMD;

We have gone over this before. I don't believe Iraq was neccesarily invaded due to WMDs or because it directly threatened the US. I think it was invaded as part of a US plan to try to democratize the middle east, to provide an alternative political outlet (alternative to Islamic Fundamentalism) for those miserable people living in poverty under authoritarian regimes. If it works it would provide an almost insurmountable challenge to the mullah rule of Iran, and could eventually affect Syria and the Saudis.

In addition, control of Iraq's oil reserves would help the US put pressure on Saudi Arabia, the chief sponsor of Islamic radicalism and terrorism in the world today. These are worthy goals. Whether they can possibly succeed is questionable, of course. But I find nothing morally repugnant in the attempt, especially as Iraq was a murderous rogue nation anyway.

[kimmy]

Sorry KK, the NDP and the CBC offer ample opportunity for Parrish-type views

I had to look at it from an opposite point to come to that conclusion. What if, for example, we didn't live in a bizaro world and people we elect make sense. I vote for Parrish BECAUSE she is one of the few MPs in a government that is blatently pro US. Then, when she speaks against party policy but for me and almost half of Canada and says she thinks Americans and Bush are the best. Then gets fired.

I would be pretty concerned that my elected officials and my voice in government was being trodden under foot.

That's my point. The woman is an a-hole of the first order but freedom takes supersession.

This is a very good post, because it addresses the shortcomings of Canada's parliamentary system rather than the possible shortcomings of Carolyn Parrish.

The Reform Party and its offspring have long argued in favor of giving MPs more ability to represent their consituents' views. I believe the NDP had something similar in their election platform. The Liberals, though, have always maintained that backbenchers are "nobodies" and "trained seals", as Trudeau put it. Certainly Da Little Scumbag from Shawinigan was of similar mind.

Then along comes new leader Paul Martin with many promises of great things, including parliamentary reform, a bigger role for backbenchers, and "addressing the Democratic Deficit." And like pretty much everything Paul Martin has promised, the action has failed to live up to the hype, and like pretty much everything Paul Martin said he believed in, his actions thus far have showed otherwise.

-kimmy

[August1991]

This is a very good post, because it addresses the shortcomings of Canada's parliamentary system rather than the possible shortcomings of Carolyn Parrish.

Parrish is free to speak her mind, in or out of the Hoiuse of Commons, but she is not free to associate the name Liberal Party of Canada with her spoken words.

How, in any way, shape or form, has PM PM infringed on freedom of speech?

Parrish still represents the constituents who voted for her since she still sits in the House.

The Reform Party and its offspring have long argued in favor of giving MPs more ability to represent their consituents' views. I believe the NDP had something similar in their election platform.

I always considered this to be demagogic on the part of the Reform Party. It was an attempt to curry favour among western voters who felt disenfranchised.

As we saw in the last election, Canadian voters seem to interpret "loose cannons" as an indication of "party incompetence". Or, as you note, the Liberals may have trained seals but the seals always seem to win.

[kimmy]

All of that might be true, August.

I merely point out that people who voted for the Liberals have no business complaining that their favorite trained seal has been muzzled.

-kimmy

[August1991]

In fairness to your viewpoint Kimmy, I am still trying to imagine what it would be like if someone with the stature of Glenda Jackson sat on, as they say, the government benches in Canada.

Is the difference the member or systemic?

[kimmy]

In fairness to your viewpoint Kimmy, I am still trying to imagine what it would be like if someone with the stature of Glenda Jackson sat on, as they say, the government benches in Canada.

What it would be like? I'm not sure what it would be like; propose what you think it would be like, and suggest the point you want me to take from the situation, and I'll consider it.

I have a feeling that what you're leading me towards is that the Reform and NDP notions of more vocal, active backbenchers would not work very well if those parties ever formed a government, for reasons Paul Martin discovered first-hand thanks to Ms Parrish. Harper got a taste of that dilemna himself during the election when he was forced to juggle his support for Gallant and White to speak their minds with his reluctance to have their controversial remarks damage the party. It might be that a Chretienesque Iron Fist is the only practical way to run a government in Canada. Reform and NDP will probably never have the chance to discover for themselves. But again, nobody who voted Liberal really has any business griping about Parrish being dismissed; you knew what you were getting when you voted for them.

Is the difference the member or systemic?

The difference between what and what? I'm sorry, but I'm just not sure what you're asking.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I would think that the difference is more systemic. It is in the nature of the increasing powers of the PM's office and the downgrading of the roles of members. It is not all that good in Britain, either, but backbenchers do still have more influence in committee and on policy.

Had control not become so centralised in Canada, then Parrish might well have been less frustrated and have been better able to air her concerns within the apparatus,

She might then have had some support and sympathy.

[Argus]

I have a feeling that what you're leading me towards is that the Reform and NDP notions of more vocal, active backbenchers would not work very well if those parties ever formed a government, for reasons Paul Martin discovered first-hand thanks to Ms Parrish. Harper got a taste of that dilemna himself during the election when he was forced to juggle his support for Gallant and White to speak their minds with his reluctance to have their controversial remarks damage the party. It might be that a Chretienesque Iron Fist is the only practical way to run a government in Canada

I rather prefer the US system, where democrats and republicans often cross party lines, wheeling and dealing on behalf of their constituents. It doesn't stop legislation from being passed, but it does require the government take different groups into account.

[August1991]

REBEL Labour MP for Hampstead and Highgate Glenda Jackson widened her rift with Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday when she accused him of giving right-wing American policies “an unnatural home in 10 Downing Street”.

Miss Jackson, whose outspoken opposition to the Iraq war led to recent speculation she would be expelled from her party, made her remarks as she answered audience questions at a charity event to raise money to refurbish Hampstead arts centre Burgh House.

Local London Paper 11 Dec 2003

The difference between what and what? I'm sorry, but I'm just not sure what you're asking.

My question is whether Glenda Jackson gets away with these kinds of remarks because of who she is (member) or because the British parliament is different from ours (systemic). I suspect the latter.

IOW, the ordinary British MP can remain in caucus while voting against the party and even criticising the leader.

Why is this possible in the UK but not in Canada? I have no ready answer except to note that Canadian politics are primarily regional, not ideological.

[KrustyKidd]

Most unlikely. Those who elected her probably barely knew her name. They voted Liberal, not Parrish.

That is not a problem of the Governent who muzzled her, that is voter apathy and ignorence of the issues. If they wanted to have an idiotic ranter so they can have a Liberal government then that is the choice they made. Parrish was well known for what she was and hence, was a package for her voters - the way she was. Not the way she may evolve or whatever.

Parrish is free to speak her mind, in or out of the Hoiuse of Commons, but she is not free to associate the name Liberal Party of Canada with her spoken words.

True. and thereing lies the problem. Since when is an MP not supposed to voice the opinins of their constituents? What if she went out during the Cretien government and ranted on about how we must invade Iraq alongside the US and called Cretien an idiot? It would make half the people mad and the other half would feel she was a heroine standing up against the bad old senile peckerhead. When he ousted her, half the forum would applaud the act and the other half would say that freedom of speech was lost on that day. As a regional MP, her first duty is to those who elected her, not Martin. Those people elected a Liberal politician, not an independant. Martin could have done a lot of other things rather than this.

A disclaimer: I can't believe I am of this view as I think this woman belongs on a rant board rather than in politics but freedom and the system are what they are and must be upheld, even in the face of one who tries to challenge it out of triviality.

[caesar]

. As a regional MP, her first duty is to those who elected her, not Martin. Those people elected a Liberal politician, not an independant

The people in that riding voted for PARRISH not the party.

Her views were well known and approved of by the community she was running in.

The vote MUST always be for the candidate as they can change parties without voter approval and keep their seat.

[KrustyKidd]

The people in that riding voted for PARRISH not the party.

When I buy a car I buy it as is, not with the tires removed when I go to pick it up. She was a package deal and Martin took that package away from the people.

While I may value the stereo more than the tires, it does still not take away from the fact that I bought a car, complete. Hence, some may still feel that she represents them as an independent and other may not. In any case, all of her supporters got screwed here. You are trying to gloss over this repressive transgression by Martin but it doesn't wash. The people lost the voice they voted for.

[August1991]

You are trying to gloss over this repressive transgression by Martin but it doesn't wash. The people lost the voice they voted for.

People voted for Parrish as a Liberal knowing that if she did something PM PM didn't like, she wouldn't be a Liberal for long.

The Liberals may have a tendency to, how should I put this, prevaricate but on being a Liberal, I don't think there's much doubt about their position.

[KrustyKidd]

People voted for Parrish as a Liberal knowing that if she did something PM PM didn't like, she wouldn't be a Liberal for long.

No, it is as I said, she was part of a package deal. If she was told to shut up and was given every opportunity to do spo without compromising herself or her constituents then it is her problem. If that's the case, then she should be fired from political office altogether for breach of trust in both her party and electoriate as, by her refusal to follow one of her commitments, also failed her people.