Our Parliament and its MPs - What do we want?

[August1991]

Glenda Jackson is a Labour MP and she sits on the government side of the aisle:

"I wanted a Labor government because I didn't like what was happening to my country, and I didn't like what was happening to my fellow citizens. Anything I could have done to get the ghastly Thatcher and her odious government out," Jackson said bluntly, in a way she's clearly said before, "I was prepared to have a go at."

The first go failed. The second, in 1992, succeeded. Jackson has since served as minister of rail transport, staged an unsuccessful run for the mayoralty of London and emerged, since early this year, as Blair's most ferocious critic on the war from within his own Labor Party. She has called for his resignation after finding "no legitimate reason for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq."

The weapons of mass destruction argument earns her withering scorn. "But the government soon shifted ground by speaking not of weapons but of Saddam Hussein's 'programs.' So what were we under direct threat of? Chopped-up tons of paper? Confetti? Was that what he was going to throw at us? Scandalous."

San Francisco newspaper

----

What Garth Turner has said about Stephen Harper is minor compared to what Glenda Jackson has said about Tony Blair.

Stephen Harper is respecting Parliament, and the right of a Member of Parliament to have an opinion, to express it and to suffer the consequences before constituents. This respect extends to the right of a member to cross the floor and vote with the government. Would you want trained seals? Is that better?

We, in Canada, are confused by all this. In the past, with only a Liberal PMO Politburo, we don't know what a Duma is.

Faced with glasnost and perestroika, the usual suspects conclude the "leader is disorganized".

[geoffrey]

We, in Canada, are confused by all this. In the past, with only a Liberal PMO Politburo, we don't know what a Duma is.

Faced with glasnost and perestroika, the usual suspects conclude the "leader is disorganized".

Good example, maybe a little extreme.

Glasnost and Perestroika also ended the Soviet Union though, so this populist attitude towards MPs knows best actually might make for a very unstable parliament.

[D.B.]

Stephen Harper is respecting Parliament, and the right of a Member of Parliament to have an opinion, to express it and to suffer the consequences before constituents. This respect extends to the right of a member to cross the floor and vote with the government.

I think you're confusing things. Free votes and an open parliament are good things. I would argue being elected with one party and crossing the floor two isn't. It certainly isn't respecting the democratic process.

Stephen Harper ran a campaign on accountability and ethics. How is this being accountable to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway?

[geoffrey]

Stephen Harper is respecting Parliament, and the right of a Member of Parliament to have an opinion, to express it and to suffer the consequences before constituents. This respect extends to the right of a member to cross the floor and vote with the government.

I think you're confusing things. Free votes and an open parliament are good things. I would argue being elected with one party and crossing the floor two isn't. It certainly isn't respecting the democratic process.

Stephen Harper ran a campaign on accountability and ethics. How is this being accountable to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway?

If its a free vote, what side of the aisle you sit on is really irrelavent isn't it?

[Vancouver King]

D.B.:

Stephen Harper ran a campaign on accountability and ethics. How is this being accountable to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway?

Another negative angle on the Emerson affair is this:

the three main sources of endorsement for the move are Gordon Campbell, Jack Poole and the Vancouver Board of Trade, a trio of "good ol boys" suspected here as having plotted this move before the election and having as an irresistible side benefit for them, the entire travesty was performed on the backs of a horde of leftist rabble. If class warfare still has merit this dustup was victory for the suits.

These conspiracy theories abound in a half-century leftist fiefdom like Kingsway and it can be argued that Harper - coming from a political environment that has not had a left of centre opposition for four generations - had understandably and seriously underestimated the strength of opposition to implementing a rightest agenda in an activist/progressive riding.

Harper has expended considerable political capital on this miss-step and it contributed significantly to a less than stellar opening two weeks for his young government.

[Argus]

Stephen Harper is respecting Parliament, and the right of a Member of Parliament to have an opinion, to express it and to suffer the consequences before constituents. This respect extends to the right of a member to cross the floor and vote with the government.

I think you're confusing things. Free votes and an open parliament are good things. I would argue being elected with one party and crossing the floor two isn't. It certainly isn't respecting the democratic process.

Of course it is. You simply don't understand what the democratic process is. It's about voting for someone to represent your area in parliament. The system doesn't care who that someone is, or if they're members of a party. That's why that someone can cross the floor, or quit a party to sit as an independant if he or she doesn't agree with the party. Their party affiliation is secondary to their status as your representative. Now if you vote only for the party, with no care or concern, or even interest, in who the representative is, well, shame on you.

Does Emerson's riding have a reprentative? Yup. They have one who is arguably more influential than he would otherwise be, and was specifically drawn across in order that his city have a representative to the government. Sounds pretty democratic to me.

Stephen Harper ran a campaign on accountability and ethics. How is this being accountable to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway?

Quite obviously by drawing one into his government and cabinet in order to get their views on subjects at hand.

[Black Dog]

Of course it is. You simply don't understand what the democratic process is. It's about voting for someone to represent your area in parliament. The system doesn't care who that someone is, or if they're members of a party. That's why that someone can cross the floor, or quit a party to sit as an independant if he or she doesn't agree with the party. Their party affiliation is secondary to their status as your representative. Now if you vote only for the party, with no care or concern, or even interest, in who the representative is, well, shame on you.

Funny: you've come along way since last May when you said Stronach "betray(ed) her party and those people who voted for her." Oh and that "(a)nyone who sells themselves, throws away the principals they said they believed in, in exchange for some kind of personal gain can be termed a whore. And is."

Mmmmmmm. Hypocricy.

(Oh and just so you know I'm not making it up, it's all here.)

Also: I came across some figures attributed to the Canadian Election Study (which examines voter behaviour) which indicate that a large majority of voters place their votes based on the party. Preference for the local candidate is a distant third. Perhaps that's shameful, but that's the reality (it's also understandable, given the prominence of party leadership during elections).

[Spike22]

Trained seals controlled for once by the voting public.

[Argus]

Of course it is. You simply don't understand what the democratic process is. It's about voting for someone to represent your area in parliament. The system doesn't care who that someone is, or if they're members of a party. That's why that someone can cross the floor, or quit a party to sit as an independant if he or she doesn't agree with the party. Their party affiliation is secondary to their status as your representative. Now if you vote only for the party, with no care or concern, or even interest, in who the representative is, well, shame on you.

Funny: you've come along way since last May when you said Stronach "betray(ed) her party and those people who voted for her." Oh and that "(a)nyone who sells themselves, throws away the principals they said they believed in, in exchange for some kind of personal gain can be termed a whore. And is."

What of it? Did I ever say people shouldn't be allowed to cross the floor? Or that they ought to be forced to get re-elected?

Nor are the two defections the same thing. Stronach was elected as part of a newly merged party fresh from her leadership run where she had come close to actually leading the party. The people who voted for her wanted the Liberals gone, and the Liberals were very close to being gone before they essentially bought her vote to help cling to power. By crossing the floor just to sell her vote, and doing it in the way she did - using the Liberals scaremongering lies against the same party she had tried to lead, she certainly betrayed everyone who voted Conservative. They wanted that government gone, and she deliberately kept them in office.

As for Emerson, what those who voted for him wanted was a Liberal government, presumably with the Liberals' policies. But that didn't happen, and nothing he could do could change that. His crossing the floor will neither help nor hinder the tories in passing whatever legislation they want. He has certainly betrayed his party, but how has he betrayed those who voted for him? He will stand for, on the government side, everything he said he stood for when running for office. He will do a better job for his constituents on the government side than he could have done as a Liberal back bencher.

[Black Dog]

What of it? Did I ever say people shouldn't be allowed to cross the floor? Or that they ought to be forced to get re-elected?

Nor are the two defections the same thing. Stronach was elected as part of a newly merged party fresh from her leadership run where she had come close to actually leading the party. The people who voted for her wanted the Liberals gone, and the Liberals were very close to being gone before they essentially bought her vote to help cling to power. By crossing the floor just to sell her vote, and doing it in the way she did - using the Liberals scaremongering lies against the same party she had tried to lead, she certainly betrayed everyone who voted Conservative. They wanted that government gone, and she deliberately kept them in office.

Given the fact that the same voters who you claim put Stronach in as a Conservative to oust the Liberals sent her back to Ottawa as a Liberal would indicate the people were more forgiving than you say. But at least they had a chance to pass judgement on Stronach's decision: the voters of Vancouver Kingsway are going to have to sit and wait while Emerson gets to hang on until the Harper government falls.

As for Emerson, what those who voted for him wanted was a Liberal government, presumably with the Liberals' policies. But that didn't happen, and nothing he could do could change that. His crossing the floor will neither help nor hinder the tories in passing whatever legislation they want. He has certainly betrayed his party, but how has he betrayed those who voted for him?

Because its reasonable to assume that, government or not, the vast majority of voters in his riding did not want to be represented by a Conservative, hence that party's distant third-place showing.

He will stand for, on the government side, everything he said he stood for when running for office.

Certainly: he will continue to stand for his MP's salary, his government expense account and his chauffer service.

He will do a better job for his constituents on the government side than he could have done as a Liberal back bencher.

Irrelevant. The people voted for David Emerson, Liberal, government or no government. A lack of representation in a new government is a risk one undertakes everytime one casts a ballot. Hell, thousands of people cast votes for candidates they know had no chance of winning, yet did so out of principle, something you and Emerson clearly know nothing about.

[na85]

What of it? Did I ever say people shouldn't be allowed to cross the floor? Or that they ought to be forced to get re-elected?

Nor are the two defections the same thing. Stronach was elected as part of a newly merged party fresh from her leadership run where she had come close to actually leading the party. The people who voted for her wanted the Liberals gone, and the Liberals were very close to being gone before they essentially bought her vote to help cling to power. By crossing the floor just to sell her vote, and doing it in the way she did - using the Liberals scaremongering lies against the same party she had tried to lead, she certainly betrayed everyone who voted Conservative. They wanted that government gone, and she deliberately kept them in office.

As for Emerson, what those who voted for him wanted was a Liberal government, presumably with the Liberals' policies. But that didn't happen, and nothing he could do could change that. His crossing the floor will neither help nor hinder the tories in passing whatever legislation they want. He has certainly betrayed his party, but how has he betrayed those who voted for him? He will stand for, on the government side, everything he said he stood for when running for office. He will do a better job for his constituents on the government side than he could have done as a Liberal back bencher.

Everyone always claims Belinda was bought. While it's true that everyone has their price, I can't see the libs being able to funnel enough of the adscam money to buy Stronach. I mean, she's rich as Roosevelt. Daddy made millions and she's got quite the nest egg as well. To buy her vote would take a lot, IMO.

[geoffrey]

Everyone always claims Belinda was bought. While it's true that everyone has their price, I can't see the libs being able to funnel enough of the adscam money to buy Stronach. I mean, she's rich as Roosevelt. Daddy made millions and she's got quite the nest egg as well. To buy her vote would take a lot, IMO.

It's a metaphorical bought na85.

Though the $40mil that is up in the air might be enough.

[na85]

Everyone always claims Belinda was bought. While it's true that everyone has their price, I can't see the libs being able to funnel enough of the adscam money to buy Stronach. I mean, she's rich as Roosevelt. Daddy made millions and she's got quite the nest egg as well. To buy her vote would take a lot, IMO.

It's a metaphorical bought na85.

Though the $40mil that is up in the air might be enough.

They paid her 40 mil?

[geoffrey]

Everyone always claims Belinda was bought. While it's true that everyone has their price, I can't see the libs being able to funnel enough of the adscam money to buy Stronach. I mean, she's rich as Roosevelt. Daddy made millions and she's got quite the nest egg as well. To buy her vote would take a lot, IMO.

It's a metaphorical bought na85.

Though the $40mil that is up in the air might be enough.

They paid her 40 mil?

No no, thats the apparent "missing money" from adscam. I'm poking fun at the Conservatives while condemning the Liberals, everyone should be happy.

[Spike22]

All this banter about crossing the floor and who is worse; the liberal that did it or the conservative baaa.

They are the same color of horseshit brown and if you have dealt with the government whoever is in office the only differnce was the shade as they all smell the same.

Boo hoo so they changed parties - suck it up your constituents that voted for you will either like you or hate you and you may pay the penalty during the next election.

Hopefully with a nice cabinet position he (Emerson) can weasel some lucrative things for his area and hold onto his seat. Good Luck:-)