NDP has better ethics than conservatives?

[sideshow]

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations.

Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

[geoffrey]

Because floor crossing is neither illegal or unethical under our political system.

Tis the way the parlimentary system crumbles.

[cybercoma]

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations.

Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

What happens if a Party's leadership ends up completely corrupt and finds themselves in legal battles, why can't a backbencher not associated with such scandals choose to switch sides?

[scribblet]

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations.

Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

What happens if a Party's leadership ends up completely corrupt and finds themselves in legal battles, why can't a backbencher not associated with such scandals choose to switch sides?

He should have to sit as an independant then, or call a by election. I believe the conservatives were planning on introducing such legislation, it was out there during the campaign, but the NDP got there first, not sure how it came about.

[Nocrap]

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations.

Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

What happens if a Party's leadership ends up completely corrupt and finds themselves in legal battles, why can't a backbencher not associated with such scandals choose to switch sides?

He should have to sit as an independant then, or call a by election. I believe the conservatives were planning on introducing such legislation, it was out there during the campaign, but the NDP got there first, not sure how it came about.

Though I was hoping for a more well behaved Parliament this time around, what little I've seen of it, still just resembles a frat house on weekends.

When Harper, in his typical arrogant matter stood up and condemned the NDP initiative, he said something to the affect that the only party compaining about floor-crossing was the one that nobody wanted to cross to. I was hoping that in that moment one of his caucus, tired of not being able to do the job they were elected to do, would stand up and cross to the NDP. It would have been a defining moment for sure.

I've got to tell you...the NDP are looking better all the time.

[geoffrey]

Since this is obviously focused on the Emerson affair, let me explain.

1) An MP is elected induvidually (not by party) to best represent his constituants.

2) Obviously, he has way more power to change government policy in cabinet than in row 4 on the left of the house.

It would have been irresponsible and abuse of his responsibile not to accept a position that better allows his constitutants a voice in parliment

Unless you want to move to a republican system without party discipline, with fix term dates and an independant executive, you have to allow politicans to cross into cabinet.

Personally... I'd rather move to a French/US system.

[Nocrap]

Since this is obviously focused on the Emerson affair, let me explain.

1) An MP is elected induvidually (not by party) to best represent his constituants.

2) Obviously, he has way more power to change government policy in cabinet than in row 4 on the left of the house.

It would have been irresponsible and abuse of his responsibile not to accept a position that better allows his constitutants a voice in parliment

Unless you want to move to a republican system without party discipline, with fix term dates and an independant executive, you have to allow politicans to cross into cabinet.

Personally... I'd rather move to a French/US system.

An MP is elected induvidually (not by party) to best represent his constituants

Not true. An MP is almost always voted by party. People in Vancouver couldn't care less about Emerson - they voted Liberal. The CPC had a very poor showing in the city and this was just a way for Harper to rub their noses in it.

[Argus]

The NDP is banning floor crossing with proposed legislation. They already limited corporate and union donations.

Why cant the federal cons do the same? All the floor crossing by all the parties is ticking off everyone. Whats so hard about creating a ban? hypocrites all of them. :angry:

The NDP is not a party which has ever believed much in individual responsibility or individual rights. It is a collectivist mentality which appeals to the many Socialist and Communist minded among its members. They are elected to sit down, shut up, and vote and how and what they are told to. In that respect they're even worse than the Liberals are. I don't know why they even bother to stand up one at a time to vote, since none of them actually GET a vote. Why not just have Layton stand up and say "I cast 29 votes no", or something similar.

In any event, this "ban" is without legal foundation. MPs can do whatever they want, be it cross the floor, resign, or shoot spitballs at Layton's head. Even if the House passed it would require a constitutional amendment to make it legal. And the House won't pass it. Harper has long been on record as saying such a thing would be repugnant and rob MPs of what little freedom they have.

[sideshow]

remember Bev?

seems harper wont even allow his mps the charter right of freedom of speach-or the press rights its right either.

[Nocrap]

Rob MP's of what little freedom they have? He won't even give them the constitutional right of freedom of speech. Of course it was a different matter after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberals.

CBC "After Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberals, Harper said his party would not go out of its way to encourage MPs to cross the floor.

We are trying to create a principled party where people act in a principled way, and obviously we're fairly cautious about encouraging party jumping, because that's the kind of thing that generates cynicism."

CTV "Fairly or unfairly, this particular instance has given many citizens a sense that their vote -- the cornerstone of our democratic system -- was somehow devalued, if not betrayed."

Shapiro said he can only follow existing rules, but added, "in the final analysis, the most appropriate place to settle issues of this kind is not in the office of the ethics commissioner but in Parliament itself."

Tories have questioned Shapiro's refusal to investigate whether former prime minister Paul Martin broke the rules when Stronach crossed the floor and was offered a plum cabinet position.

Harper said Shapiro -- a target of Tory criticism in the past -- had no authority to dictate his cabinet choices

And "The NDP also plans to put 38 current Tory MPs who voted in favour of a privatemember's motion against floor crossing on the spot by using an opposition day whenParliament opens to put forward a similar vote.

[geoffrey]

Not true. An MP is almost always voted by party. People in Vancouver couldn't care less about Emerson - they voted Liberal. The CPC had a very poor showing in the city and this was just a way for Harper to rub their noses in it.

Not true. The MP is voted induvidually. If people are so ignorant of the system that they actual vote for a party, then really I have no sympathy for them. They shouldn't vote if they are so thick skulled not to realise the realities of our system.

Please, if you believe that its a party vote system, don't vote.

[Nocrap]

Not true. An MP is almost always voted by party. People in Vancouver couldn't care less about Emerson - they voted Liberal. The CPC had a very poor showing in the city and this was just a way for Harper to rub their noses in it.

Not true. The MP is voted induvidually. If people are so ignorant of the system that they actual vote for a party, then really I have no sympathy for them. They shouldn't vote if they are so thick skulled not to realise the realities of our system.

Please, if you believe that its a party vote system, don't vote.

Party leaders promote party policy. Most of us did not get to vote for Harper, Martin or Layton, so if you liked what they had to say, you supported their representitive in your riding. If we only voted because of the individual candidate, the election results would be much different. The reason that Mr. Harper and the CPC ran such a tight campaign was because they did not allow their candidates to sway from party line.

Good or bad, that's just the way our electoral system works. Maybe the ballot should allow us to vote regional and national, and the national candidate with the most votes is PM, regardless of what party has the most elected MP's.

Like or not, party politics are what wins elections. Vancouver voted Liberal and Vancouver should get Liberal. This was a real smear on a democratic election.

[geoffrey]

I still disagree. People's ignorance of the system is really far from Emerson's responsibility. Learn about the single member system of government, and vote for the person that best represents you. If you don't know how the system works, don't vote.

The party is just an outline of the beliefs of the candidate. In reality, their beliefs and the work they do for you in Ottawa are two different things. People need to vote for a voice for their riding.

I really think its rather ridiculous your arguing that our system doesn't work so Emerson is wrong.

Emerson did the right thing in our system and cross the floor when offered a spot to better represent those that elected him.

Vancouver Kingsway is better represented now than before. At least be pragmatic about it, sticking to idealistic principals isn't the way of the left.

[shoop]

Are you referring to Bev Desjarlais, Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the Minister of Veterans Affairs Greg Thompson? What was her old job? NDP MP?

I wasn't aware that Freedom of Speech gave you the right to disobey your bosses orders. Could you call my boss with that information please?

Harper is simply dealing with local media more than the National Press Gallery would like. No restriction on freedom of the press there. Why isn't anyone up in arms about the National Press Gallery trying to curtail the rights of local media?

remember Bev?

seems harper wont even allow his mps the charter right of freedom of speach-or the press rights its right either.

[Nocrap]

Are you referring to Bev Desjarlais, Director of Parliamentary Affairs to the Minister of Veterans Affairs Greg Thompson? What was her old job? NDP MP?

I wasn't aware that Freedom of Speech gave you the right to disobey your bosses orders. Could you call my boss with that information please?

Harper is simply dealing with local media more than the National Press Gallery would like. No restriction on freedom of the press there. Why isn't anyone up in arms about the National Press Gallery trying to curtail the rights of local media?

remember Bev?

seems harper wont even allow his mps the charter right of freedom of speach-or the press rights its right either.

Emerson did the right thing in our system and cross the floor when offered a spot to better represent those that elected him.

If the CPC in the area was even a distant second, I might agree with you, but they were on the bottom; barely given an honourable mention. Emerson campaigned AGAINST the CPC. Emerson's campaign contributors donated to the Liberal Party and expected to be backing a Liberal candidate. People in Vancouver who voted for Emerson thought that they were voting for a liberal candidate.

Vancouver has always been a progressive city and would never accept the constraints of a Reform/Alliance/CPC platform. It would be like taking a step back in time.

And rather than try to win the support of Vancouver voters, Emerson has taken an arrogant stand, refusing to even address the issue. It is a black mark on our Democratic system.

He promised to be Harper's worst nightmare and in some respects that may be true, because this has certainly created a nightmare; as well it should; and opened up the eyes of Canadians who thought 'Change' meant ethical politics.

[geoffrey]

What's your point.

Address my statement, the people in Vancouver-Kingsway are now better represented or not?

Obviously they are. And thats the job of the MP. So what gives?

[Teddy Ballgame]

I've got to tell you...the NDP are looking better all the time.

ALLCRAP ... Coming from a poster with your reputation for objective and non-partisan observations, I am not surprised that you are now extolling the NDP over the CPC. Indeed, I would not be surprised if you were to extoll the Communists or the Marxist Leninists or the Groucho Marxists or The Lennon Sisters over the CPC.

- Not to rain on your anti-CPC parade but under the British system of parliamentary democracy we elect individual MPs to exercise their best judgement to represent us in parliament and many times in British and Canadian and even US parliamentary/congressional history an individual MP decides that in his best judgement he can best represent his constituents and somtimes the country as a whole by crossing the floor to ally with a different group of parliamentarians and/or a different leader. For example, a chap you may have heard of named Winston Churchill crossed the floor on at least two occasions, at least six CA MPs crossed the floor after Stockwell Day became CA leader to sit with the Progressive Conservatives albeit as independents, and David Kilgour who served his Alberta constituents for many years also crossed the floor at least twice between the Liberals, Conservatives and independents. This is how our system works. Whether you happen to like it or not is neither here nor there.

- No doubt the NDP is looking better all the time TO YOU but obviously your judgement about the rest of the electorate and your ability to relate to them leaves a lot to be desired ... according to the polls of the past three weeks, they are looking like a 14-21% party which at the top end (21%) puts them in a virtual tie with the imploding Liberals who got 22% in the same poll. But I doubt that PM Harper is losing a nanosecond of sleep about either the NDP or the Liberals.

[lost&outofcontrol]

- No doubt the NDP is looking better all the time TO YOU but obviously your judgement about the rest of the electorate and your ability to relate to them leaves a lot to be desired ...

Nice personal attack buddy, I guess the same could be said about you then?

[geoffrey]

- No doubt the NDP is looking better all the time TO YOU but obviously your judgement about the rest of the electorate and your ability to relate to them leaves a lot to be desired ...

Nice personal attack buddy, I guess the same could be said about you then?

Ok children, simmer.

Just ignore statements like that, no need to reply to anything that doesn't add to the debate.

[Nocrap]

I rarely pay much attention to accusations of partisanship, after reading anti-Liberal rants that make my postings pretty mild in comparison.

However, Teddyballgame has mentioned other floor-crossings in history to defend Harper's wooing of Emerson with a cabinet post.

In a parliamentary system; most MP's vote on issues as instructed by the party 'whip'. If they don't agree with the party line they can cross the floor to another party or sit as an independant. Winston Churchill crossed the floor in protest of his party's stand on specific issues. Belinda Stronach crossed the floor because she felt that Stephen Harper was taking the CPC too far right, and knew that her constituents would not accept this. She was right and after running for the Liberals next time, was voted back in.

However, Emerson had no such falling out with the Liberals. In fact, just days before he was flogging the Liberal platform to get himself elected in his riding; and 'crossed' BEFORE PARLIAMENT EVEN SAT! Like or not, most Canadians vote party first, candidate second. If it were the other way around why bother promoting any party policies during elections? Just let the candidates run on their own platforms.

If he crossed the floor after even one debate that he could oppose, it would not have looked so unethical. But, in a Democratic system, this was WRONG on every level.

[Argus]

Belinda Stronach crossed the floor because she felt that Stephen Harper was taking the CPC too far right, and knew that her constituents would not accept this. She was right and after running for the Liberals next time, was voted back in.

Your interpretation as to why BS crossed the floor is shared by very few Canadians.

She was voted in because she's pretty. Her entire political succes to date is based on being pretty.

When you get beneath that there's nothing THERE there.

[BubberMiley]

Emerson did the right thing in our system and cross the floor when offered a spot to better represent those that elected him.

By that logic, Brison and Stronach would have been wrong to stay with the CPC when the Libs were in power.

[geoffrey]

Emerson did the right thing in our system and cross the floor when offered a spot to better represent those that elected him.

By that logic, Brison and Stronach would have been wrong to stay with the CPC when the Libs were in power.

Exactly. If the cabinet wants you, and asks for your to join them, its irresponsible to say no. The cabinet spot is always better for your constituants.

[BubberMiley]

So Conservatives who didn't cross the floor to prop up Martin's minority government were not looking out for their constituents? I'm afraid I disagree.

But on paper, it's true, MPs are elected as individuals. But part of how they sell themselves is as a member of a party. Party names work like a brand name and they allow people to get a sense of what that candidate stands for. When a member switches parties, especially when he switches two weeks after an election, it's a fraudulent form of false advertising. Whether or not the constituents are better served by having a minister representing them, he was still elected under false pretenses.

[geoffrey]

True, BM, your right. The party is part of the person.

If a person changes their views on a bill to regulation the size of english cucumbers, does it warrant a by-election, what about a view on SSM or a tax-cut? Where do we draw the line?

The deal is that if your MP changes their views so much that you disagree with them, you don't re-elect them. That's how the parlimentary system works.