Liberal Party Minister Defects to Tories

[Pencil Tech]

Well a Conservative principle, or rather a Reform Party principle, used to be accountability to the voters, and the right to recall MPs (which as you know you can do provincially).

Oh I'm sure he'll get a "deal" on softwood lumber, he'll have to take any deal, even the worst deal imaginable, since the Americans will be fully aware of the political pickle Emerson and Harper are in with all this.

 

[Pencil Tech]

PT....
If you voted for your MP, you must've thought him "the better man" the best qualified to represent you in Parliament.... compared to the others that were also running in your riding.

Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, so I didn't vote for my MP.

"On that basis, Mr Emerson obtained the best "deal" he could get for his constituents..."  ???

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Armymatters, I think we all get your point.
Belinda did what Belinda felt was best for BelindaYou don't say!!

So, I take it that you're slightly miffed about the whole situation? : Sorry for the jab, really, it was a fine opportunity, though.

Lemmesee...Armymatters, you have posted about 10 times in this thread and I have gathered two things from those ten posts:
1) There is a meeting tonight to discuss this fella's fate.
2) You're choked.

Did you really need to repeat yourself all those times? Like has been said, Deal with it.

You want him out? Then get your petition signed and start the process.

Want to change things? Hang out your shingle and hope to get the vote.

Do not repeat yourself over and over on the internet, ranting and raving like a child. Do not go around pretending that the Liberals or the NDP are pure white, that is not the case. Don't give me any double talk about Belinda or any of the others who've crossed no matter from what side. They're all just as guilty.

Rant off, back on topic.

Being a whiny big baby is the cornerstone and birthright of every lefty socialist.  They thrive on the concept of being a victim, and never offer actual solutions to problems, just criticisms of other peoples ideas. 
If there was a massive brain dump across the nation, and all of a sudden politicians started dumping their parties and joining the NDP, then the left coast would hail it as a "triumph of the human spirit over corporate greed".  They have "little party syndrome" and know they are a few years away from extinction.  What the real issue is here, is a conservative has been artificially planted in their midst, and GOD FORBID he do a good job and take away from the "ooooo...scary righties" mystique.  Watch the soft wood lumber issue disappear like mist in the morning sun, when a business man is dealing with the problem, not a tree hugger.

 

[RangerRay]

Well a Conservative principle, or rather a Reform Party principle, used to be accountability to the voters, and the right to recall MPs (which as you know you can do provincially).

As a former proponent of recall, I have to say that in practice, it's a complete joke.  Here in BC, the threshold for signatures is impossibly high, and recall campaigns end up being run by thinly veiled political partisans who are trying to re-fight the last election in close ridings, rather than legitimate grassroots movements to throw out self-serving politicians.

 

[Kirkhill]

Most of the sound and fury in Kingsway seems to be being generated by the NDP.  I heard on the news that the rally was actually organised by neighbouring NDP ridings.

They're probably looking to secure the riding in the next election, or in their dreams, force a highly unusual by-election, move Ian Waddel into the number one spot and thus strengthen their hand in the current minority parliament.  Meanwhile its all good as far as they are concerned.

I expect Emerson and Harper to stick to their guns. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

NDP voters in the riding by definition didn't vote Liberal, so their objections to losing the Liberal MP are empty.

However, since the LPC prize pig has left the sty and the CPC is not exactly competitive in that riding, the NDP would be stupid not to want a by-election.  Their motives are not exactly pure.

Aside from losing his minister, the Parliamentary head count means it should make no difference to Harper whether the seat is held for the CPC or NDP as long as it isn't held for the LPC.

The objectors are exactly as righteous as the voters of every other riding in Canadian history whose MP crossed the floor - no more, no less.  As with Stronach's crossing, "principle" is being cited as an excuse to pitch a fit.

 

[TCBF]

"Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, ... "

- So?

Tom

 

[Scott]

Being a whiny big baby is the cornerstone and birthright of every lefty socialist.  They thrive on the concept of being a victim, and never offer actual solutions to problems, just criticisms of other peoples ideas. 
If there was a massive brain dump across the nation, and all of a sudden politicians started dumping their parties and joining the NDP, then the left coast would hail it as a "triumph of the human spirit over corporate greed".  They have "little party syndrome" and know they are a few years away from extinction.  What the real issue is here, is a conservative has been artificially planted in their midst, and GOD FORBID he do a good job and take away from the "ooooo...scary righties" mystique.  Watch the soft wood lumber issue disappear like mist in the morning sun, when a business man is dealing with the problem, not a tree hugger.

Ahhhh, clarity. I have never seen it put so beautifully!!

 

[Pencil Tech]

"Well no, I couldn't vote for the Conservative who won in my riding because it was revealed during the campaign that his campaign manager was an Alberta Separatist, ... "

- So?

Tom

I don't like separatists. Separatists are goddam traitors.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and  Paul Martin all harped (excuse the pun) on the democratic deficit and so on for much of the last couple of years.

I see David Emerson’s move as, potentially, a valuable step in solving that problem.  In my opinion the stranglehold which political party machines have on the entire political process is one of our major problems.  We saw this, finally, cemented during the Chrétien era – when the imperial prime minister was there for all to see.

Were I the PM I would do the following:

• In the throne speech, I would have Mme. Jean say something like: ”My Government has set out five priorities: blah, blah, blah, blah and blah.  During this parliament they will bring down a budget and introduce several bills to give effect to these promises.  All bills related to these five issues will be maters of confidence.  Most others debates and bills will not be regarded as matters of confidence.  My government will bring forward its own proposals and it will give full attention to the proposals of others but the government will not, necessarily, fall on issues not related, directly, to the five priorities.  Most members of the ministry, like all government back benchers will be allowed to vote freely on all bills and in all debates which do not involve confidence.”

• I would begin, at once to make the Senate elected and effective by –

1. Advising each provincial premier that I will appoint to the Senate of Canada only individuals who –

a. Meet the mandatory minimum qualifications; and

b. Are elected by some mutually agreeable proportional representation system at the next provincial general election; and

c. Sign a letter of resignation, before being appointed which will be effective at the next provincial general election,

2. Sending a letter to each Senator asking for his or her resignation at the next applicable provincial general election so that the path towards an elected Senate can be opened*; and

3. Making a statement in parliament declaring this to be the government’s policy and intention – no future PM would ever dare backtrack; and

• Advising the House of Commons that parliamentary committees will have increased staff, budgets and powers with a view to helping the government and the bureaucracy to strengthen proposed legislation and to increase the legislative power of individual Members of all parties.

If the rigid party discipline can be broken – as it is in almost all other advanced Westminster type of parliamentary democracies then we will have gone far towards reducing the democratic deficit.

----------
* Clearly not all, maybe not even most senators would agree – but some, maybe even many will.  In any event they all have to retire by age 75 so there is a drop dead date after which an elected Senate becomes de facto a reality.  It took the Americans more than 20 years to pass the 17th Amendment to their Constitution (elected senators) even though Oregon elected its own senators in 1907.

 

[Kirkhill]

A whiff of revolution in the air, Edward.

 

[geo]

Hmmm....
Small sidebar in the paper today.... PM (not the PM) says he was dissapointed that Mr Emerson did not consult with him before crossing the floor....Awwww

(Wonder if he recommended to Belinda that she talk to Mr Harper before doing the dirty deed?)

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Now David Emerson is avoiding the national media by hiding in Vancouver:
http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428218912&rem=31408&red=80121823aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm
At least it's only cost 22K so far to bring bureaucrats to see him.

On a side note, I haven't had anyone take me up on my offer to bet that a Conservative will not be elected in Vancouver Kingsway next election. I know this thread has been flying under with only 96 replies and 1475 views but I'm still surprised  the lack of respose to my challenge.
Any interest in betting? Anybody........hello...(tumbleweed rolls by)......anyone...(coyote howls at moon)....?

That's what I thought.

All the best
Bart

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'll have to admit, this hasn't been a major concern for me, but I have some thoughts.

Yes, he may have been elected under false pretenses, and the voters deserve an explanation.

His ultimate goal, as far as I can tell, is to give his riding maximum representation. Nothing wrong there.

The people that elected him feel betrayed and want their pound of flesh. Understandable.

If he is going to work as hard as a Conservative, as he was a Liberal, but now has the ear and favour of the elected party, that's just good business.

If people oppose him, where they once supported him, simply because of his party, and not the job he can do, they're simply party zealots.

If they are party zealots, the issues and politics are foreign to them, because they can't get past their tiny and petty prejudices and grasp the real world.

These are the same type of people that voted for Trudeau. Not because he was politically able and cared about the common man and his issues, but because he had long hair, drove a sports car, smoked dope and used his office to make himself and his family millions. He did nothing for the country, except ruin it, but they voted for him anyway, cause he was a Lieberal.

David Emerson has positioned himself where he can maximize the concerns of his riding and gain the most for his constituents. But the zealots cannot, or will not realize that. They'd rather punish him and replace him with some ineffectual, back bench zombie. Someone who no one knows, and will be lucky to be heard in the first year of Parliament, except when introduced for the first time.

Of course then they'll blame the Conservatives for not funneling all that money, or jobs, or industry, or grants or whatever to their riding, when in fact it turns out to be their own petty politics and whining that ultimately sinks them and take them off the political map. Not the decision of David Emerson. But that's just my $00.02 CAD.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Recceuy,
Just a few points on my interpretation:

His ultimate goal, as far as I can tell, is to give his riding maximum representation

Fair enough, that's one interpretation, most of the spin I've read says it's to further Vancouver and BC business interests representation in the government. Now I'm somewhat politically naive but I couldn't find the riding of "Vancouver and BC business interests" on elections.ca but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

If people oppose him, where they once supported him, simply because of his party, and not the job he can do, they're simply party zealots.

While I agree to a point, supporting a party doesn't automatically make them zealots. If my Marijuana party candidate suddenly switched to the Bloc Québécois, if I stopped supporting her it wouldn't make me a zealot, just a party supporter.

David Emerson has positioned himself where he can maximize the concerns of his riding and gain the most for his constituent

Since he was a cabinet minister and had to support all Liberal party policies and was re-elected as such, and now is again a cabinet minister and has to support all Conservative policies, even the ones that are diametrically opposed to Liberal party policies, (granted that's only a few) it's hard to understand how he can maximize the concerns of his constituents.

Of course then they'll blame the Conservatives for not funneling all that money, or jobs, or industry, or grants or whatever to their riding,

Have you been to Vancouver-Kingsway lately? I drive through it to get to parade and it doesn't look like anyone has been funneling any money into it in a loooooong time. It still didn't stop them from re-electing liberals and NDP.

These are the same type of people that voted for Trudeau. Not because he was politically able and cared about the common man and his issues, but because he had long hair, drove a sports car, smoked dope and used his office to make himself and his family millions. He did nothing for the country, except ruin it, but they voted for him anyway, cause he was a Lieberal.

For the record, Vancouver-Kingsway voted NDP during Trudeau's era, except for the 74-79 period. As for all the other stuff about Trudeau I'll take your word it, it's a bit before my time (for a bit read a long time)
All the best
Bart

 

[a_majoor]

I have to agree with recceguy, all the complaints I have seen and heard concern his party affiliation (or lack thereof), and it would seem the complainers will only be satisfied if anyone at all representing the PARTY sits in the riding, regardless of effect. While the optics are terrible (Emerson should probably represent himself as an independent), no one complaining in the riding seems to consider they have a Cabinet Minister to represent them, not an opposition backbencher.

I hereby nominate a figure 11 target to represent the (insert party) for Mr Emerson's riding.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Can a sitting independant be a cabinet minister?  I mean, an unelected official can so why not?

I wonder how the riding would whine then?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm probably mistaken but can't you make a member of the oppostion a member of the cabinet if you want to?

 

[Bart Nikodem]

I hereby nominate a figure 11 target to represent the (insert party) for Mr Emerson's riding

I would second that nomination, if that was the wish of the constituents. The issue for me isn't the political acumen of the constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway, which may very well be lacking, my issue is if they want a figure 11 from a certain party, that represents certain policies, then that is what they deserve.
Also,
As stated in my earlier post, how do your reconcile the fact that as a cabinet minister Mr Emerson must go along party lines on all policies, whereas if he was a backbencher he could vote his constituents wishes?
All the best
Bart

 

[Kirkhill]

As stated in my earlier post, how do your reconcile the fact that as a cabinet minister Mr Emerson must go along party lines on all policies, whereas if he was a backbencher he could vote his constituents wishes?

That is a matter of government policy.  For example on the SSM debate Paul Martin was quite at liberty to release his Cabinet from the party line and allow a completely free vote.  Likewise Stephen Harper has great latitude in deciding what is a critical, or confidence issue, requiring solidarity and what is an issue that while important is not critical to the core program and ultimate success of his party.

Beyond budgets and estimates which are by definition matters of confidence, money being the primary interest of parliament, everything else is a matter of policy and political judgement.

Short form:  If Stephen Harper wishes to allow his Cabinet Ministers to vote their conscience he can.