NDP has better ethics than conservatives?

[Freshinit]

It certainly generates attention in the media. High profile politicians like Belinda Stronach exploit inadvertently exploits parliamentary issues to mainstream society. I believe floor crossing can be beneficial to civil activism and awareness. How many stoned earthy people actually follow politics past the climax that is election time? Most people only prioritize their input into current affairs if some controversy is involved. Otherwise it becomes boring bureaucratic mumbo jumbo that would put a class of ADHD kids asleep.

[Freshinit]

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.

I wouldn't go that far as to label er entire success on her physical attractiveness. Nonetheless is it undeniable that she certainly has gleaned the attention she receives from the media in order to progress her political career. Ideologically she is nothing special. As great as she has been for the Canadian automotive market, it's not as if she has made any significant reforms to te industry. We're literally entering an age where serious consideration must be made to the inneficiency of our machinery. The only efficiency Stronach actively contributes to is mass production and job creation.

Her moderate reputation is only in light of the fact that she has helped aligne right wing thinkers who love tradition. Bandwagon social positions is where she shines through a crowd of outdated evangelical mps. She is skilled in nit picking the inevitable civil rights reforms that will be cemented in our constitutions over the next couple of decades. Needless to say we can expect that she has already formulated future opinions on coming-of-age concepts. Bet your last dollar that she will support the deductibly logical solution to the progression of stem cell research and its limitations. Expect confrontations with prominent religious figures over petri dish embryo manipulation.

[Nocrap]

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

You mean like Rona Ambrose? There were far better seletions for her cabinet post. Harper dragged her across the country during the election to boost CPC candidates who needed some propping up.

However, we were talking about floor crossing and comparisons were made about other historical crossings; when an MP protested party postition or change in ideology.

This was not about party policy, since days before Emerson was promoting Liberal policy to get elected.

It was not in protest of his party's stand on any issue during a debate or vote, because Parliament had not yet sat.

His being given a cabinet post did not help his constituents. The majority voted Liberal and therefore did not expect him to prop up the CPC platform, but oppose it.

David Emerson's acceptance of a cabinet position was to benefit David Emerson.

He could have done far better for Vancouver-Kingsway supporting the Liberal party that they democratically voted in. Had he run as a CPC candidate - he would never have made it to Parliament Hill, since the CPC got less than 20% of the vote.

The NDP are right. This was completely unethical, undemocratic and since he refused to even be 'accountable' to the people of Vancouver-Kingsway for his self serving switcheroo - unforgivable.

[shoop]

Don't really know who the better choices for that post would be.

Edmonton is a major Canadian city. It deserves a seat at the Cabinet table. Ambrose also improves the gender balance of the cabinet. She is experience in Government and very good at her job.

Who is the better choice? Balancing experience and regional representation among other considerations...

You mean like Rona Ambrose? There were far better seletions for her cabinet post. Harper dragged her across the country during the election to boost CPC candidates who needed some propping up.

[speaker]

The NDP philosophically may be more ethical than the conservatives but it succombs to the same sort of egocentric, and corrupt individuals as the conservative liberals when they get close to power for too long. The party might survive as an ideal a little longer but people are people and to expect anyone to have that kind of power and not abuse it is naive. The conservative liberals have just been there too long.

[geoffrey]

Speaker,

Funny how you think the LPC are conservative liberals. I view the CPC as liberal conservatives.

Ethics in government isn't about following certain rules, or being responsive to populist demands. It's about acting in best interest of your constitutants. Having ethnic guidelines is ridiculous as there are so many special cases when you representing your riding better would violate them.

Let people be ethical or unethical on their own merits. They will have to answer to their constituants on how well they were represented come election time.

Saying any party has better ethics than another is ridiculous.

A party cannot have ethics, only the induviduals that make up a party can make ethical decisions. To say all Liberals are unethical is wrong, as would it be to say the NDP is more ethical than the CPC.

Judge the induviduals at the ballot box, blanket statements about parties are ridiculous.

[Nocrap]

Speaker,

Funny how you think the LPC are conservative liberals. I view the CPC as liberal conservatives.

Ethics in government isn't about following certain rules, or being responsive to populist demands. It's about acting in best interest of your constitutants. Having ethnic guidelines is ridiculous as there are so many special cases when you representing your riding better would violate them.

Let people be ethical or unethical on their own merits. They will have to answer to their constituants on how well they were represented come election time.

Saying any party has better ethics than another is ridiculous.

A party cannot have ethics, only the induviduals that make up a party can make ethical decisions. To say all Liberals are unethical is wrong, as would it be to say the NDP is more ethical than the CPC.

Judge the induviduals at the ballot box, blanket statements about parties are ridiculous.

Geoffrey

I agree with your statement that a 'party cannot have ethics', except that Mr. Harper throughout the last campaign, told us that his party would be one that would bring ethics and accountability back to the Canadian government. It is one of his infamous 'five priorities'. Since the election he has flip-flopped on all initiatives that were going to make the CPC a model for future governments.

The Liberals have already proven that they can be unethical - we were reminded of that throughout the last election.

The CPC have simply followed in their footsteps, but rather than try to justify his actions, and be 'accountable' to Canadians for his unethical decisions, Mr. Harper chooses to hide in his office; put bark collars on all his MP's and hope that it will all go away.

So far, the NDP have had no such scandals. Mind you, they have not yet led the country, but they are in a perfect position to come out smelling like a rose. They can hammer away at the Liberals for past scandals, and Harper for his growing list of 'flip-flops'; known as "that was then, this is now'.

When he was in opposition, Harper would never have allowed the Liberals to get away with the things he's doing, but has proven that it is much easier to 'complain for a living' than have to justify your actions now that he's at the healm.

The NDP are certainly LOOKING like the only party with ethics.

[Renegade]

The NDP are certainly LOOKING like the only party with ethics.

Actually it's not that the NDP looks like the party with ethics, it looks like the party whose ethics have never been tested. Until the NDP are in power they won't truly be able to demonstrate that they have just as few ethics as all the other parties.

BTW, why is this thread in the provincial politics section?

[geoffrey]

I love how the left is rallying around the term "flip-flop" when they supported Kerry so strongly when the right accused him of the same thing. "Flip-flopping is good! It shows a willingness to change!!"

Hyypppooocracy.

[Freshinit]

Geoffrey,

Then what are we supposed to make of party solidarity? Certainly ethics play a part in bill proposal, so where goes the individuality when it comes to vote for bills?

[geoffrey]

What do you mean? Cross the floor if you don't think the party best allows for representation of your constitutants. If you don't cross the floor, and your constituants would rather have the other side's position on the issue, then obviously you won't be re-elected.

I really don't see how party solidarity, something I'm obviously against since I'm in support of floor crossing, has anything to do with what I was talking about.

[Freshinit]

If individuals are the sole carriers of ethics than why is floor crossing so rare? Surely there have been many instances where an individual has disagreed with even the smallest of bills being proposed. Why then, do we not see these people crossing the floor on a weekly basis?

[geoffrey]

If individuals are the sole carriers of ethics than why is floor crossing so rare? Surely there have been many instances where an individual has disagreed with even the smallest of bills being proposed. Why then, do we not see these people crossing the floor on a weekly basis?

Well, descent is allowed on most small bills. When Belinda crossed the floor, she did so because she wanted the budget to pass (or so she says, I haven't seen damning evidence to the contrary, so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt). Emerson crossed so he could complete a very successful softwood agreement with the US. All of these are ethical decisions.

[Nocrap]

If individuals are the sole carriers of ethics than why is floor crossing so rare? Surely there have been many instances where an individual has disagreed with even the smallest of bills being proposed. Why then, do we not see these people crossing the floor on a weekly basis?

Well, descent is allowed on most small bills. When Belinda crossed the floor, she did so because she wanted the budget to pass (or so she says, I haven't seen damning evidence to the contrary, so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt). Emerson crossed so he could complete a very successful softwood agreement with the US. All of these are ethical decisions.

The Softwood agreement had nothing to do with it. He couldn't even get involved in the discussions due to conflict of interest. Ironically, he will now get the credit, after the ground work has already been laid by others. As far as helping his constituents. They voted Liberal. How can he serve their needs when he will now be voting from a CPC perspective?

Spin it anyway you like, but this was a very undemocratic move and more about Harper settling a score, than looking out for the needs of Vancouver voters.

[scribblet]

Well, descent is allowed on most small bills. When Belinda crossed the floor, she did so because she wanted the budget to pass (or so she says, I haven't seen damning evidence to the contrary, so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt). Emerson crossed so he could complete a very successful softwood agreement with the US. All of these are ethical decisions.

Which paid off, thank goodness. All in all it looks like Emerson/Harper did the right thing, so we have around around 10 years anyway before it heats up again I suppose.