When Should Harper Pull the Plug?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Who should they [the 87% of Canadians who want to wait for the Gomery Report] compromise with??

How about the large portion of Canadians who answered "no" when asked if the Liberals still have the moral authority to govern?

Do the math, kimmy, a large portion of them fall into the 87% too.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Look, TS, you pointed out above that you view this election as a choice between crooks and fascists.

Nah. Between fascist crooks and just plain crooks.

Do you even know what a fascist is?

Of course.

I hope you aren't going to go off on a tedious, literalistic attack on my turn of phrase now, but ...

The odd thing is that reading you and Eureka and your shrill cries about fundamentalists and fascists I get the image of both of you as being of a much similar mindset to both groups than you'd probably care to admit. Both of you are filled with fear and hate for those who you see as "enemies" because they have different opinons. Both of you are uttelry without compromise. Both of you denounce as heretics anyone who disagrees with your doctrines.

... my hopes are in vain.

[Argus]

Your apparent strong belief in how valuable authoritarianism can be as a tool of rigid political control seems to be somewhat in conflict with your espousal of freedom and equality.

Absolute nonsense. If an MP doesn't want to be bound by the party platform, they can run as an independent. There is nothing "authoritarian" about that. If an MP decides to run as a party candidate, it is not unreasonable to expect them to represent that party. The electorate can decide from there.

This is a twisted view of reality, no doubt gleaned from paying too much attention to the Liberal Party and its rigid control over its MPs. People do, to some extent, too great an extent, in my opinion, have a tendency to vote for the party, rather than the MP. But that is not the tradition, nor is it a requirement. People should be voting for their representative. MPs in the UK have much more freedom than those in Canada to vote either their conscience, or the will of their constituents. American congressmen and senators also have a very strong record of crossing party lines for votes.

Your desire that MPs "represent the party" is telling. MPs are not supposed to be in the HoC to represent their party, but to represent their constituents to the party and to the HoC. And just as almost no citizen can say that they support and believe in everything their party advocates so too is it unlikely to find any MP who supports the entirety of his party's platform. Now in some cases, ie, money bills, and I'd go so far, perhaps, as to say other serious issues which were debated and voted on by the party convention, MPs are required to toe the party line, at least to some extent, but otherwise they should feel free to vote as they choose.

[I Miss Trudeau]

People do, to some extent, too great an extent, in my opinion, have a tendency to vote for the party, rather than the MP.

Please try to stay on the topic of my post, if you're going to respond to it. This has nothing to do with what I said.

Your desire that MPs "represent the party" is telling.

If they're not willing to adopt the position set out in policy, they should join another party or run as independent. Otherwise, they are misleading the public.

And just as almost no citizen can say that they support and believe in everything their party advocates so too is it unlikely to find any MP who supports the entirety of his party's platform.

then run as an independent. Honestly, the vast majority of people vote for the party, not the MP. To be elected as the Liberal, or Conservative, MP for a riding and to then vote against the policy of the party is fraud.

Now in some cases, ie, money bills, and I'd go so far, perhaps, as to say other serious issues which were debated and voted on by the party convention, MPs are required to toe the party line, at least to some extent, but otherwise they should feel free to vote as they choose.

Back to my original point: endorsing free votes on issues of conscience makes any party policy on those issues meaningless.

[Argus]

Look, TS, you pointed out above that you view this election as a choice between crooks and fascists.

Nah. Between fascist crooks and just plain crooks.

Do you even know what a fascist is?

Of course.

I hope you aren't going to go off on a tedious, literalistic attack on my turn of phrase now, but ...

The odd thing is that reading you and Eureka and your shrill cries about fundamentalists and fascists I get the image of both of you as being of a much similar mindset to both groups than you'd probably care to admit. Both of you are filled with fear and hate for those who you see as "enemies" because they have different opinons. Both of you are uttelry without compromise. Both of you denounce as heretics anyone who disagrees with your doctrines.

... my hopes are in vain.

You regard the word Fascist as a turn of phrase? What's the word Nigger mean to you, just jargon?

You want to start throwing words like "fascist" around be prepared to back them up. Weaseling away by calling it a "turn of phrase" isn't going to impress anyone, especially in light of your vitriolic attacks on Tories.

[Argus]

People do, to some extent, too great an extent, in my opinion, have a tendency to vote for the party, rather than the MP.

Please try to stay on the topic of my post, if you're going to respond to it. This has nothing to do with what I said.

No, actually it has everything to do with what you said. You said it was illegitimate of MPS not to toe the party line on everything. I pointed out this is nonsense, and why.

And just as almost no citizen can say that they support and believe in everything their party advocates so too is it unlikely to find any MP who supports the entirety of his party's platform.

then run as an independent. Honestly, the vast majority of people vote for the party, not the MP. To be elected as the Liberal, or Conservative, MP for a riding and to then vote against the policy of the party is fraud.

You know what, if you vote for your party without caring or finding out who your candidate is or what they stand for or believe in then you have no business voting at all, much less whining when they don't vote for what you wanted. I don't care how zealously you believe in rigid, authoritarian party control. That is not what democracy is all about and that is not what political parties are all about. Why even have MPs vote if they're required to follow the party rules? Why not have one person, say the party leader, casting however many votes he has, and have a house of commons with four people in it?

Why have reports made available to MPs? Why have them briefed on anything? Why have Commons committees? Why even give them offices? What's the purpose if they're nothing more than numbers on the tally board doing and saying what they're told, as decided by the party before the previous election?

MPs are there to represent their individual constituents. They are supposed to be our representatives to the federal government. "They are formed into various parties which present a general view of what they stand for, which view is generally believed in/followed/supported by everyone who is a member of that party - to a degree. But if we had the kind of rigid control you're looking for we might as well just have a dictatorship.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You regard the word Fascist as a turn of phrase? What's the word Nigger mean to you, just jargon?

And where did you learn this tactic? At Goebels' knee belike.

...in light of your vitriolic attacks on Tories.

Vitriol? Well, tories, when you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.

[Guest eureka]

You are surpassing yourself in unreason, Argus. There is no other way that a democracy can be run than on party lines. As IMT and Sweal have been trying to grt through to you, running a country is all about knowing what the guiding policy and philosophy is. That is a question of party.

AS Burke - no socialist - said: "First my party' then my country; last my constituents. A little thought will make that sentiment abundantly clear in its wisdom.

There is a place for "Free" votes. But, it is only for unimportant matters of local interest and fo nothing of public policy. If a matter of conscience arises that is not a known part of party policy, then one who feels too strongly to vote the party line must leave the party.

Free votes in any abundance would lead to parties without policy or conscience: much like the Conservatives under Mulroney. That Party, and Mulroney explicity, opposed Free Trade and never included it in the party platform. Yet, they negotiated an agreement with the United States in virtual secrecy and put it before the electorate in a following election as something it wasn't: something to be taken on faith since the fine print was not revealed and never has been officially.

[August1991]

From the Mother of all parliaments:

Tony Blair is in an increasingly perilous position. His own party has begun to balk at the idea of joining the United States in a "coalition of the willing" to disarm Saddam, with or without UN approval. Last Wednesday, in an unprecedented rebellion that may have dire implications for his leadership, 122 Labour MPs - close to a third of his caucus - voted against Blair's Iraq policy.

Canadian Encyclopedia

GLENDA Jackson has hit back at the whispering campaign suggesting she is facing expulsion from the Labour Party over her outspoken views on Iraq.

Speaking to the New Journal, the MP for Highgate and Hampstead said she was not in danger of de-selection because of her constant criticism of Tony Blair’s policy on the war.

“On what grounds could I be expelled? I would like to see them try,” she said on Monday.

British paper

eureka, I won't comment on the independance of US Congress members despite their party membership.

[Guest eureka]

And we know that the independence of US Congress members goes hand in hand with their price!

[Argus]

You are surpassing yourself in unreason, Argus. There is no other way that a democracy can be run than on party lines

I disagree. But even if you do have political parties there need not be a rigid requirement that they tow the party line. That is not really democracy. That is just replacing one guy (the leader) with another guy every 4-8 years. Other nations, as I've pointed out, have a much broader degree of freedom among their representatives.

AS Burke - no socialist - said: "First my party' then my country; last my constituents. A little thought will make that sentiment abundantly clear in its wisdom.

An excellent reason to never vote for Burke, or anyone like him.

Free votes in any abundance would lead to parties without policy or conscience: much like the Conservatives under Mulroney.

A much more reasonable example of a party without policy or conscience would be the Liberal Party of Canada, one not noted for granting any degree of autonomy or freedom to its members. Yet it seems to be kant for your liberals to reach back the Mulroney years for some reason, even though the present party has few of its members in it. So we know that rigid party discipline does not promote conscience or morality or policy. Why then, should we suspect the reverse in parties with more freedom for individual members?

[Argus]

And we know that the independence of US Congress members goes hand in hand with their price!

The Us Congress is undoubtedly corrupt.

The Canadian government is undoubtedly corrupt.

How do you extrapolate from these that freedom of individuals creates corruption?

[Guest eureka]

Belonging to a party is a question of conscience. Belonging to a party signifies agreement with the party philosoph: in the case of the Liberals that is a centrist view of society.

To not vote the party line is an indicator of a different view and cause for moving to the philosophical views that do more closely mtch the individual beliefs. That will be with some exceptions, of course, and that should be not on matters of broad consensus within the party. There, and only there should there be "free" votes.

"Independence" of the kind found in the US Congress inevitably leads to corruption. It renders the "independent" subject to the pressures of interest groups and payment for services. Payment in the form of support or in money. As with DeLay whose wife and daughter received $500,000 out of donated campaign funds for "services" to the campaign. It leads to the "all politics are local" idea that puts local roads or whtever above national interest.

The Party line is all important and the individual is nothing.

[Guest eureka]

This whole frenzy of the opposition puts me in mind of Lewis Carroll.

"Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance,

Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, won't you join the dance."

The opposition is dancing up a storm around the walls but is afraid to actually get on the floor for fear of getting its toes stepped on.

In the meantime the business of governance is suspended.

[Argus]

Belonging to a party is a question of conscience. Belonging to a party signifies agreement with the party philosoph: in the case of the Liberals that is a centrist view of society.

To not vote the party line is an indicator of a different view and cause for moving to the philosophical views that do more closely mtch the individual beliefs.

Fascinating. So to be a Liberal means to agree on everything, from top to bottom? There can be no deviation, no acceptance that different parts of the country have differetnt needs and/or beliefs, no acceptances that the individual, or for that matter, individual constituencies might feel strongly about a particular item which runs contrary to a broad platform?

It sounds very much like you'd be very happy in Orwell's 1984, where everyone is required to think, act, dress, speak and believe exactly the same.

That will be with some exceptions, of course, and that should be not on matters of broad consensus within the party. There, and only there should there be "free" votes.

So like, if the party opposes the GST, and you win an election on that, and then the party decides to change its mind, has a "broad consensus" that the GST is a good thing, you're required to support the party? If the party position is that NAFTA is a good thing you should not belong to the party if you're opposed to NAFTA, right? Or, maybe you can belong, but you have to vote in favour of it anyway. Which makes you... what... a dishonest hypocrite?

As I said earlier, you're turning individual representatives into useless appendanges. Why even have a house of commons? Why not just have one guy, the party leader, cast however many votes the party won? Why not save money by getting rid of all the rest of the MPs? What purpose do they serve?

"Independence" of the kind found in the US Congress inevitably leads to corruption. It renders the "independent" subject to the pressures of interest groups and payment for services. Payment in the form of support or in money. As with DeLay whose wife and daughter received $500,000 out of donated campaign funds for "services" to the campaign. It leads to the "all politics are local" idea that puts local roads or whtever above national interest.

I see, and without individual freedom you won't have such corruption right? You won't see, for example, the prime minister's brother taking cash, or laywers buying judgeships or envelopes full of cash passed across tables?

The Party line is all important and the individual is nothing.

That is a very fascist position, you know.

[Argus]

This whole frenzy of the opposition puts me in mind of Lewis Carroll.

Yes, it's so sad that some people consider lying, thieving, racketeering, bribery and corruption to be important. If only they could become Liberals and underestand that these are good for the country.

[Newfie Canadian]

In answer to the question when should Harper pull the plug, how does May 18 sound?

Conservatives have introduced a motion in the House of Commons that calls on the government to resign - and the first possible date the motion could be put to a vote is May 18.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tion050422.html

[kimmy]

In light of the Liberals' decision to cancel opposition days, something like this was inevitable. The Liberals showed it was in their power to keep the opposition from introducing a non-confidence motion; the Conservatives have now shown it's in their power to get a non-confidence motion on the table anyway.

I hope this motion doesn't pass; I do think there might be a price to pay at the polls if they appear opportunistic. I think they do need to wait for a real reason to force an election.

In the meantime, Jack Layton should send Harper a thank-you note, reading something like this:

"Dear Stephen,

Thank you showing the Liberals that they can't keep a non-confidence motion off the agenda. This really gives my party a boost in our efforts to try and get the Liberals to make some compromises on socially progressive legislation.

Thanks a bunch;

Action Jack."

-kimmy

[Conservative1]

Well here is my two cents on the election matter...

Keep in mind that despite my handle I do not exclusively belong to this line of political thinking...

Too much of anything can be a bad thing. The ultimate expression of leftist thinking is communism, the ultimate expression of rightist thinking is facism, both are terrible, and opressive. Of course it can and will be sucessfully argued these are not the goals of the liberal or concervatives, and the people who argue this point are correct. (the ndp however is a different story...lol)

My point however is that we are at prestent too far to the left, and need a move to the center, center-right. The liberals have been around for a long time, and some change could really do us some good! At some point in the future can i see the Conservatives getting too far right and needing to be straightened out yes! But that is far and away...give someone else a chance!

[I Miss Trudeau]

My point however is that we are at prestent too far to the left,

We've been governed by a right of centre party for over a decade and we're too far left?!

[Conservative1]

Where do you get off saying the libs are right wingers? They used to be more centralist, which I and many liked. Over the years and especially as of late political forces have contunually pulled them further and further to the left. (ie. new immigration legislation to bring parents/grandparents of immigrants to canada...despite the fact they are unskilled, the kyoto accord, millions to reduce racism [a wonderful idea however imposible to be implemented in a useful fashion], the gun registry, ect.... this is not even close to a complete list!)

[I Miss Trudeau]

Where do you get off saying the libs are right wingers?

Well, for starters, look at their economic policy over the last decade.

(ie. new immigration legislation to bring parents/grandparents of immigrants to canada...despite the fact they are unskilled, the kyoto accord, millions to reduce racism [a wonderful idea however imposible to be implemented in a useful fashion], the gun registry,  ect.... this is not even close to a complete list!)

On what grounds do you classify these issues as right or left?

[kimmy]

Indeed. The move to increase the number of relatives being brought to Canada appears to be a transparent attempt to curry favor with immigrant voters. Not a right or left issue, just a "let's try and stay in power" issue.

-kimmy

[Conservative1]

The issues i mentioned are tradionally 'left' issues. I don't know how i could explain this in any other fashion.

[Guest eureka]

You really do need on-on-one attention, Argus, but I am not going to give it you. I have real people to attend to, and you are becoming less and less rational with every hyper post.

Think about centrism. It means combining the best interests of the greatest number and accommodating as much diversity as possible. That includes regional interests.

Fascism is what we get when we are like you in negating the basic principles of representative democracy. Representative democracy means having a guiding philosophy. True, a party should not campaign or have a platform on one thing and enact another. That brings us back to the Conservatives who have made a practise of just that It does, however, mean that voting the party line is the essence of representative democracy. You get whet you vote for.

A Fascist position is to vote for a party knowing that it espouses Facsist principles. And, latent Fascism is very apparent when so many on these boards proclaim their support for a party (the CPC) that has all the ingredients of Fascism but is saved from it only by the knowledge that the great majority of Canadians will consign it to the grave if it allows the Fascist element to take control.