Garth Turner Turfed

[Rovik]

Some of the biggest support for the Greens comes from Alberta.

It was the province the party did the strongest in during the January election.

Here's why. The Liberals and NDP hold Alberta in such contempt that some people looking for a protest vote wanted a fresh and different party to "lend" their vote to. The Green's success in Alberta was due as much to disgust with the Liberals and NDP as it was to their actual policies.

You left out "disgust with the Conservatives" as well, since they voted Green, not Conservative

[MightyAC]

Thats what I admire about the Green's, in all honesty I think a large proportion of Albertan's would choose the Green's over the Liberals and NDP. They seem more moderate towards issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and I think alot of people would love to see their democratic reforms implemented. But I think they may need a different leader down the road, one that can appeal to a broader base of Canadian's.

I agree. Elizabeth May is a great environmentalist but I'm not sure about her as a political leader. Maybe Garth is right person for that job a few years from now.

[Rovik]

How about Desjarlais? Kicked out because of her moral beliefs. That really did it with me, Layton is incompetent and completely void of respect for others.

Who speaks in the NDP other than Layton? Oh that's right, no one.

Desjarlais was told to leave the NDP caucus because she went against one of the basic philosophies of the NDP...equality for all...her stance on same sex marriage was contrary to basic human rights that the NDP believe in. I wonder what Harper would do if a Conservative MP came out publicly and lambasted their environmental poilcy or came out and criticized the Conservative's policy on the military in Afghanistan. I bet that MP wouldn't last very long in the Conservative caucus.

You have your opinion of Layton as I have mine of Harper, dictorial and heartless.

Let's see, who have I seen speak for the NDP in the last month in the news: Stoffer, Black, Nash, Wasylycia-Leis, McDonough........

[Canadian Blue]

Desjarlais was told to leave the NDP caucus because she went against one of the basic philosophies of the NDP...equality for all...her stance on same sex marriage was contrary to basic human rights that the NDP believe in. I wonder what Harper would do if a Conservative MP came out publicly and lambasted their environmental poilcy or came out and criticized the Conservative's policy on the military in Afghanistan. I bet that MP wouldn't last very long in the Conservative caucus.

How is simply changing the definition of marriage in the dictionary a human right. Last I remember the Conservative were supporting civil unions which give the same benefits. It's not basic human rights, its basic stupidity. Human rights are important, but they have to be balanced with the needs of a community as well as the moral compass of a nation. I think civil unions would have been a logical balance or for that matter getting the government out of the marriage business all together.

As well the right to life is also suppose to be the most basic human right, but Western society obviously doesn't respect that right.

It was also the former Reform party that got shredded to pieces when they allowed MP's to say whatever they please, if anything its the Liberal party and media's fault for the iron fist, as unfortunately the only way to lead in this country is through an iron fist. Chretien showed that strategy worked best.

[MightyAC]

Desjarlais was told to leave the NDP caucus because she went against one of the basic philosophies of the NDP...equality for all...her stance on same sex marriage was contrary to basic human rights that the NDP believe in. I wonder what Harper would do if a Conservative MP came out publicly and lambasted their environmental poilcy or came out and criticized the Conservative's policy on the military in Afghanistan. I bet that MP wouldn't last very long in the Conservative caucus.

How is simply changing the definition of marriage in the dictionary a human right. Last I remember the Conservative were supporting civil unions which give the same benefits. It's not basic human rights, its basic stupidity. Human rights are important, but they have to be balanced with the needs of a community as well as the moral compass of a nation. I think civil unions would have been a logical balance or for that matter getting the government out of the marriage business all together.

As well the right to life is also suppose to be the most basic human right, but Western society obviously doesn't respect that right.

It was also the former Reform party that got shredded to pieces when they allowed MP's to say whatever they please, if anything its the Liberal party and media's fault for the iron fist, as unfortunately the only way to lead in this country is through an iron fist. Chretien showed that strategy worked best.

Every thread turns into a SSM debate. OK CB... Let's say Manitoba is just joining Confederation. Some Canadians looked at the province to be and said wait a minute we don't want them to be called Canadians because they're weird and different. Over 90% percent of the people live in two cities and the rest is basically empty, that just won't do. They can have all the rights and privileges of Canadians but they will have to be called Naidanacs (Canadian backwards just in case you didn't get it).

A ridiculous example for sure but so is the idea of civil unions. If it’s the same thing as marriage then call it marriage.

Since this is a thread about Garth I'm glad he was against legislating morality. He supported leaving the law as is and moving on to reducing the size of government and cutting taxes. Garth Rules.

[Canadian Blue]

If its rediculous then why have several jurisdictions brought in civil unions. I think the SSM debate is a bit more complicated then you like to think. If were against legislating morality, then we could make pretty well anything legal. The basis of most of our laws are on morality and what the nation as a whole views wrong.

[jdobbin]

Desjarlais was told to leave the NDP caucus because she went against one of the basic philosophies of the NDP...equality for all...her stance on same sex marriage was contrary to basic human rights that the NDP believe in. I wonder what Harper would do if a Conservative MP came out publicly and lambasted their environmental poilcy or came out and criticized the Conservative's policy on the military in Afghanistan. I bet that MP wouldn't last very long in the Conservative caucus.

You have your opinion of Layton as I have mine of Harper, dictorial and heartless.

Desjarlais was not asked to leave caucus. She was relieved of her critic's position. She was a strong NDP member who represented her party and was dumped for the 20 something daughter of a provincial NDP cabinet minister. The discipline was all that Layton needed to do and be done with it. Instead, his policy of remong her alienated an entire NDP stronghold and Desjarlais refused to go quietly into the night. The Liberal now have that riding.

And Desjarlais continues to work as an advocate in Ottawa. Nice going, Jack Layton.

[Figleaf]

If its rediculous then why have several jurisdictions brought in civil unions.

Because their prejudices make them to prefer being ridiculous than treating gays fairly.

[MightyAC]

If its rediculous then why have several jurisdictions brought in civil unions.

Because their prejudices make them to prefer being ridiculous than treating gays fairly.

Exactly. Sepparate water fountains, restaurants and schools were once acceptible for black people as well. They were offered the same water, food and a similar education but just seggregated... The Civil Union is pretty much the same thing.

Anyway, this is a thread about Garth. I imagine the news will die down a little until sometime next week. He is having two town hall meetings in his riding this weekend, asking his constituents for their input on what he should do next. Garth held monthly town hall meetings while he was a Con too. Can you imagine having an MP that cares what his/her constituents think? My Con MP is just a lap dog that repeats Conservative party sound bites. He actually went on local radio and tried to explain that the Emerson crossing was nothing like Stronach's. Even though he had bashed the Liberals for the same thing he told us it was a good move for Canadians.. Garth was honest and said hey, it was a mistake. We shouldn't have done it now let's move on..

[Argus]

Oh my goodness. I'm a young person myself, yet I see their party as simply a group of idealist young kids thinking they can change the world.

I guess one term in opposition would change that in a hurry. It takes alot of money to run a party like the CPC or the Liberals... even the NDP. That money doesn't come from the environment lobby.

One of the problems with parties like the NDP and Greens, is they don't have to worry about the real world. They can make demands and advocate policies and positions which in the real life would be unworkable, knowing they'll never have to worry about implimenting them.

[BubberMiley]

One of the problems with parties like the NDP and Greens, is they don't have to worry about the real world.

I too once suspected the real world was bordered by Alberta and Ontario, and that Manitoba and Saskatchewan was a wide-open-sky dreamland. But the Arctic vortex woke me out of that.

[MightyAC]

Interesting comments from Garth's blog.

I have been asked if I am returning to Ottawa soon. Of course I am, silly, it’s my job. I have lots of initiatives on the go, and much work to do - in fact, a lot more now that I am an indie, and can actually table private member’s bills (as a member of the Tory caucus, all initiatives like that have to be approved and vetted by ministers and the PMO - so they hardly exist).

It seems a little hypocritical to me that a party supposedly born of bottom up grassroots support first of all turfs a guy elected by the grassroots. Secondly, this party severely limits private members bills...a tool MPs can use to push causes important to their constituents.

Is this ground up politics or top down ruling with an iron fist? The latter seems more accurate to me.

Then, as I stated yesterday, I head back to the Hill. This is a switch in plans since I was already booked to fly to Halifax this morning, for a full day of media interviews on my role on the Finance Committee. I’d asked taxpayers there last week for bright ideas for the coming budget, to include in my pre-budget report for Jim Flaherty.

But, they’ve kicked me off the committee. Yeah, that, too.

This is a tad more profound than it might appear, since House of Commons committees are intended to be all-party affairs, and one of the only places where MPs from all political backgrounds get together to try and do constructive things. The fact I have been removed – the only MP on one side of the table with a financial and economic background, government experience and cabinet experience (facing two hugely experienced former Liberal cabmins and a very able colleague, plus a Bloc economist and an impressive NDP expert) – hints at the Harper Administration agenda.

This government has actually had a PMO senior staffer in national caucus recently instructing MPs on how to politicize the committees and turn them into instruments of government policy. Tory MPs are instructed to meet before committee meetings to plan strategy to help ministers, and to be assigned questions to ask witnesses. Attendance at these meetings is mandatory, and recorded. Of course, I never went.

This quote is more evidence of the top down total control being exhibited by the PMO. In the Stephen Harper Tories, MPs do not represent us...the represent the party. Our BS first past the post system is bad enough already, but has some positive points if MPs represent the people and not simply act as party parrots. Harper has dramatically increased our democratic deficit. He was in favour of PR when in opposition...not sure what happened to that. Democracy and equality are the right thing to preach, until he had a chance to win a false majority I guess.

At times I think f@#K Harper and the idiot Cons I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them in my riding...and then I get angry and think this was my party once too. I like financial conservatism minus the social agenda and the dictatorial top down control. I want my party back. I want Harper to disappear.

The root of the problem is the unholy alliance of the Reformers and Progressive Cons. We're too different. It would be like combining the Libs and NDP...they share some common ideals but are fundamentally just too different.

I guess the actual root of the problem is our First Past the Post electoral system. Winner Take All type systems prevent a huge chunk of voters from being represented. If we had PR reformers and PCers could exist in their previous form. They could work together on reducing taxes and shrinking the government without having to pretend to agree on social issues.

Garth is essentially fighting top down rule. He has PC ideals with a Reformer bottom up approach. If more politicians had balls like Garth we could see real, positive change.

[Black Dog]

Didn't Jack Layton fire an MP the instant she dared to vote her conscience on a bill?

No. An ND MP quit the caucus after losing her riding association's nomination, which followed her decision to go against a signed promise she made when she was last nominated (to either support the SSM bill or abstain).

[Canadian Blue]

Black Dog, I believe he kicked an MP in Manitoba out of Caucus for saying her constituents wanted her to vote against same sex marriage. Pretty well every party in Canada has a top down approach, thats the only way to lead successfully in Canada. Look at what happened to Reform when they were run from the bottom up.

[MightyAC]

Black Dog, I believe he kicked an MP in Manitoba out of Caucus for saying her constituents wanted her to vote against same sex marriage. Pretty well every party in Canada has a top down approach, thats the only way to lead successfully in Canada. Look at what happened to Reform when they were run from the bottom up.

What do you mean "look what happened to the Reform party"? They grew from a grassroots group of malcontents into the official opposition in record time. Their leadership wasn't satisfied with NDP-like cult status caused by the vote splitting created by our BS electoral system...so they made an unholy alliance with the PC party.

If we had PR, bottom up parties could flourish. Some top down decision making is always necessary, but what Harper is doing is fanatical. CPC MPs provide no reginal representation...it's simply not allowed.

I really hope the party can be saved. Garth gave me hope. We need more people to encourage their MPs to speak out and represent them first. My guess is it won't work until Harper is no longer leader but hey stranger things have happened. Anyway, politicians are suckers for votes. If we make it known that we like our party to allow its MPs to think and speak for themselves and back it with our votes...they'll listen.

[Canadian Blue]

When MP's were given free will to speak out on issues, the media was constantly tearing them apart. If we had PR then alot of our problems would be solved, in 93 we would have had a Reform opposition instead of a BQ oppostion. However, until a popular politician implements it, I don't see it happening ten years down the road. With a Liberal government or a Conservative government.

[MightyAC]

When MP's were given free will to speak out on issues, the media was constantly tearing them apart. If we had PR then alot of our problems would be solved, in 93 we would have had a Reform opposition instead of a BQ oppostion. However, until a popular politician implements it, I don't see it happening ten years down the road. With a Liberal government or a Conservative government.

When Con MPs were speaking freely some of them were making controversial statements...hence the fact they were being torn apart. Again the reason a problem existed was because of the unholy alliance of the right. Under a PR system both halves of the CPC would be free to exist in their original forms. Some of those controversial Reformer statements that got the CPC in trouble were well received by the mainly socially conservative Reform audience. So a split up CPC could be themselves without fear of angering the other half of the party. For example, right now CPCers are slammed if they support SSM and they are also slammed if the don't. A party that has to gag its members and walk on egg shells isn’t really doing all it can for Canadians. Why bother having local representation if it is meaningless anyway?

PR is the only way I can think of that will allow all voters to be represented in the appropriate proportion no matter how far right or left they sit. I am fighting for it. We will have a vote on it in Ontario next year. The ball is rolling in BC, PEI and NB as well...but I think you're right about 10 years or more.

My lap dog Con MP is the chair of the committee in charge of. among other things, electoral reform. He was very accessible in opposition but now that they are in government he refuses to answer any of my questions...especially about electoral reform.

Both Chrétien and Harper said they would bring in PR when in opposition...both lost interest when they were in power. I guess it is less interesting when it is no longer to your benefit…they say power corrupts.

Anyway, if Dalton McGuinty can keep his word on PR in Ontario some federal politician can surely do it.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, I believe he kicked an MP in Manitoba out of Caucus for saying her constituents wanted her to vote against same sex marriage. Pretty well every party in Canada has a top down approach, thats the only way to lead successfully in Canada. Look at what happened to Reform when they were run from the bottom up.

No. As I said: Daejarlais left caucus after her constituency association nominated someone else. People tie it to the SSM issue, but there's no evidence Layton was involved in the process. Here's a question: as a leader, would you want someone in your party who disregards the agreed upon terms of their employment?

[jbg]

There was zero chance Harper would have signed his nomination papers for another run anyway.

And yet Harper said he would let him MPs be themselves.

Turner remains popular in his riding.

Letting MP's be themselves does not mean allowing them to attack Government policies or the party's policy as expressed in policy statements, voted on, by the party.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Didn't Jack Layton fire an MP the instant she dared to vote her conscience on a bill?

No. An ND MP quit the caucus after losing her riding association's nomination, which followed her decision to go against a signed promise she made when she was last nominated (to either support the SSM bill or abstain).

Bev Dejarlais, the NDP MP in question was 'relieved of all parliamentary duties' when she voted against SSM.

She quit the caucus and sat as an independent right after losing the nomination for the January election.

[MightyAC]

There was zero chance Harper would have signed his nomination papers for another run anyway.

And yet Harper said he would let him MPs be themselves.

Turner remains popular in his riding.

Letting MP's be themselves does not mean allowing them to attack Government policies or the party's policy as expressed in policy statements, voted on, by the party.

What "voted on" policy or policies are you referring to? The fact that any sitting MP can loose the Con nomination even right after an election?

[margrace]

Well I know one strong voter in Garth's Constituancy who will vote for him again, I suspect he has a lot of support there.

[jbg]

There was zero chance Harper would have signed his nomination papers for another run anyway.

And yet Harper said he would let him MPs be themselves.

Turner remains popular in his riding.

Letting MP's be themselves does not mean allowing them to attack Government policies or the party's policy as expressed in policy statements, voted on, by the party.

What "voted on" policy or policies are you referring to? The fact that any sitting MP can loose the Con nomination even right after an election?

At the Policy Convention held March 2005 among other places.

[MightyAC]

At the Policy Convention held March 2005 among other places.

I was asking what specific "voted on policy" that Garth based, not where the vote took place.

[scribblet]

I would guess that the reason Garth got turfed was to contain leakage about the income trust changes. Any leak of this would have given the large org. an advantage, they (CPC) had to maintain a level playing field. Garth couldn't be trusted.