Look, that’s all well and fine, but this is a provincial jurisdiction, is it not?
The problem isn’t any particular line, it’s that the Green Party let hard core misogynists run for office and slip things into the platform. It’s not going to affect anything because they’re not going to win; it’s that it speaks to the professionalism of the party’s leaders and their intelligence that the Green Party platform is a hack job of things nobody vetted very carefully, or (in other areas) silly extreme statements. I would be happy to hear of a government wanted to improve the Divorce Act but I don’t think that’s what happened here. In many areas the Green Party platform doesn’t really look like something that was thought about at all.
[QUOTE=Muffin]
Do you want your MP to represent you and be responsible to you and the other people in your riding, or do you want your MP to represent the party line and be responsible to the party’s leader. That is one of the two greatest differences between the Green Party of Canada and the three major parties.
[/QUOTE]
That’s really easy to say when the Green Party has one or two MPs. If the political landscape changed and they won 186 seats, do you seriously believe they’d stick to this position and let the government fall the first time they had to present a budget? It is to laugh.
I do not understand why the way the government has run pretty much since Confederation is not “responsible government.” I have never before heard anyone float the idea that toeing the party line negates responsible government, and indeed party discipline is in part a PRODUCT of responsible government. It’s a central feature of responsible government that the government must resign and/or an election be called if the confidence of the House cannot be retained; it is party discipline that ensures that doesn’t happen over and over.
To be honest, your question’s a logical fallacy anyway, the fallacy of the excluded middle. I want my MP to do BOTH. The idealistic notion that we’re just voting for our local person to represent our riding is just as absurd as the notion that you’re voting directly for Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau or May (unless of course you live in their ridings and you really are.) You are voting for both a person and a party, and an intelligent voter must balance those issues. If I am deciding between the A Party or the B Party I must accept that I am voting for both a person who will represent my riding AND voting to assign the power of my riding’s vote in Parliament to one or the other of those parties. It’s not one or the other, it’s both.
Nope. Federal divorce law trumps. The Divorce Act covers custody, access, child support, spousal support, and divorce. Provinces have laws that cover custody, access, child support, spousal support, property division and adoption, however, the where there is dual coverage, the court will apply the Divorce Act rather than the provincial legislation under the paramountcy doctrine.
Intelligence? That’s not an issue. The two MPs are both pretty bright bulbs. Lack of any significant party structure, however, is a huge problem, for obviously they are trying to run a nation wide party without the capacity to do so, which has resulted in the misogynist problem.
It’s a matter of finding a balance between whipped votes and free votes. The government will only fall if it loses a money vote or a vote of non-confidence (and if a party is not in power in the first place, then it cannot fall). The concern I have is when MPs are being whipped into voting their party lines on non-money and non-confidence matters. For example, the NDP whipped their vote on the gun registry, with their party position based on the the urban populations and against the rural populations. The NDP was not in power, so it could not fall. It was not a money or confidence vote, so the Conservative government could not fall. It was not a vote over a world shattering issue, and in fact the NDP has since changed its position on the issue. And yet it was a whipped vote. The two of their MPs that I know have complained that all of their votes were whipped votes. That’s trained seal territory, so while of course there need to be whipped votes on matters that could result in the fall of a government, aside from that I would strongly prefer that most votes be free votes so that my representative in Parliament can represent me any my fellow constituents as far as is reasonable without causing the party to collapse (or if the party is in power, to fall).
Alternately, a change in the electoral system to something more proportional would help address my concern, but of course proportional electoral systems bring with them their own problems of factionalization, which can block significant ground breaking legislation. There’s no black and white solution.
And is not a big deal for Wright, who is wealthy, came by his money through hard work and skill, and has been generous with his time and money throughout his career. As much as I don’t like what has been going on, I’m the first to accept that Wright was being honest when he testified that he thought he was doing a good deed and that he wanted the damaging story to go away so as to protect Harper.
In light of your preceding post, I take it this is supposed to be praise for the awesome freedom that Harper allegedly gives his MPs to vote their own conscience. And I think it’s worth pointing out that it’s anything but that.
The first clue is the fact that “looking only at private members’ business” is hardly a fair measure of party-line discipline, since backbencher bills are not government bills and are far more likely to represent fringe ideas, which is why they almost never pass. The reality is that all parties, including Conservatives, vote the party line almost all of the time, as your own article states.
The second important piece of information is also found within your own cite:
Much attention has been given to Conservative backbenchers who push socially conservative issues and are later overruled by cabinet. What is not well known is that Conservative MPs are far more likely to support motions from other parties – all of which are to the political left of the governing party.
Let’s remember that the current Conservative party is a merger that includes members of the old Reform Party, so it’s no surprise that it includes backbenchers who are more suited to being patients in a mental hospital than members of Parliament, and so it should be no surprise that the divide with the crazies creates more disagreement within the Conservative party than within others.
Think I’m exaggerating? How about former Conservative MP James Lunney who once tweeted “just stop calling evolution fact.” How about the bunch of crazies lobbying to re-open the abortion debate? There have actually been quite a number of Harper backbenchers over the years making embarrassingly asinine statements.
The fact that Harper is a control freak when it comes to the media and controlling the message is well known, and this extends to his control of party discipline. Also from the Globe is this:
Stephen Harper is working to defuse a challenge to his strict control over Conservative MPs, telling his sprawling and restive caucus he will not be moved from an agenda that got them elected to government. The Prime Minister faced a brewing revolt from backbenchers this week concerning the grip his office exerts on their conduct, a rebellion that was triggered by Mr. Harper’s refusal to allow a vote on a B.C. MP’s motion condemning sex-selective abortions and then escalated into a bigger fight over how much autonomy Tory members of Parliament should have in the Commons …
… Mr. Harper has to tread carefully to keep from alienating not only the sizable anti-abortion faction in his caucus but also those MPs who still hold onto the democratic-reform tenets of the Reform Party and its early fondness for free votes in the Commons.
Nah, it was the 100% compliance of the NDP, which supports what the two MPs told me about every vote being whipped.
Here’s an example. An NDP MP introduced a bill to permit any police officer at any time to require a person in control of a vehicle (e.g. in the drivers seat with a key nearby) to provide a breath sample.
That raises some serous issues that come down to whether search and seizure without probable cause is reasonable in light of the frequency that drunk drivers kill people. Although I can see how many NDP MPs would vote for this bill, I find it hard to believe that no NDP constituencies would have grave concerns about this proposed law to the point of their MPs not being able to support it.
Whipping each and every vote without exception isn’t responsible government; it’s whipped government ruled from the top. If whipping were kept to money votes and confidence motions, I expect that the party policy would be formed more by the MPs than just by the rulers of the party.
Fair enough, and I’m inclined to agree with you both on this particular measure and on the general principle of voting strict party line. As much as drunk driving is a very serious problem, I oppose any measure that is close to the line of constitutional violations. We see the same crap with “distracted driving” laws – a woman was recently charged under that law, intended to prevent texting while driving, because a police officer saw her pick up her phone that had fallen on the floor and throw it on the passenger seat – while stopped at a red light! I wonder whose life was imperiled by that particular “distraction”!
However, I still think it’s fair to point out that the NDP is hardly radical in this respect. It may have 100% party-line compliance but that compares with this statement from your own cite: “Even Conservative MP James Bezan, the MP who voted the most times – eight – against the majority of his fellow caucus members, votes with his party nearly 99 per cent of the time. Every other MP in the House of Commons has a voting record even more in sync with his or her party.”
Oh come on. Wright maybe all those things but stupid isn’t one of them. We’re talking about Mike Duffy, a friggen leech on the teet of the Canadian Government. Nobody in their right mind is not going to expect some sort of reimbursement for having to somehow save the Harper government the embarrassment of that waste of a Senator. For example; Galen Weston, probably one of the richest men in Canada and a very generous soul expects business re-payments just like anybody else, I know this first hand as my husband works in one of his corporations. This was a business decision, it had nothing to do with the goodness of his heart.
It’s election-sign planting time in Canada! Have not yet seen the NDP in my area, which is notoriously conservative, but the Liberals and Conservatives have come by. I didn’t answer the door for the Liberals, but I did for the Conservative. I was quite pleased to give him an earful about how no sane person could possibly vote for any candidate that would bring Harper into power again.
I think he left with the distinct impression that planting a lawn sign on my property to promote Harper was likely to lead to charges of trespassing and vandalism.
It defies belief Nigel Wright would give anyone $90,000 out of his own pocket and not expect something in return. I am sorry, Muffin, but that strains any reasonable degree of credulity. Mike Duffy isn’t a charity Wright can feel good about giving to, he’s a goddamn senator, and handing a senator a giant cheque for more money than most Canadians make in a year is not something a smart man - and Wright is a very smart man - would do unless there was some kind of plan in place and some kind of consideration involved.
I"m quite confident that there was a quid pro quo in place to pay Mr. Wright slowly over a few years out of CPC Party funds (which are taxpayer subsidized. Wright and Senator Gerstiein were in charge of these funds, after all, and Gerstein is well known to be ethically flexible with this money.
Nah. Rich people don’t donate for the tax right off. Yes he would expect the cash to be appreciated but he wouldn’t require some specific quid pro quo. Just like a party donation he probably just expected favours or info when he needed it. Getting specific promises for cash is just riskier. Better to just say you’re helping out the team and expect the team to help you out when you need it.
[
[QUOTE=The Ottawa Citizen]
Less than five per cent of Conservative candidates agree to interview requests
Only 14 Conservatives seeking election across the country responded favourably to requests for interviews made by the Citizen to determine whether the party has truly clamped down on candidates’ availability to the media.
[/QUOTE]
](Only a handful of Conservative candidates agree to interview requests | Ottawa Citizen)It seems that the Conservative team en mass is shunning the media. I cannot, for the life of me, fathom why this would be a good idea; politicians need to be campaigning during an election, no? If it continues like this, this election might turn out to be a trainwreck for the Tories.
When you have nothing good to say, when you have no policies to run on, when your only hope of getting elected is to rely on lame ads attacking your opponent’s hair… This is what you do.
"Harper’s economic plan: spin to win "
Harper’s plan on the economic front is to simply ignore the facts, and spin the complete BS story that we’re doing just fine, and that the 2nd recession does not exist, because he has a new definition of the word.
Of course, the article was published by the dreaded media, and as the Harper Base knows, the media is evil and socialist and is conspiring against him. Especially the well known lefty “Report on Business” magazine in the G&M.
No, (I guess I’m youngish but) this has got to be the queerest campaign I’ve ever seen. By far. The Star is reporting that the Cons have been advised to completely refuse to talking to the media or attending debates. Couple this with Harper’s limit of questions during the campaign (3-5), or his requirement that his events be pre-screened to only include Tory supporters and you have (what looks like) a non-campaigning campaign.
The Citizen received the weirdest reply from Joe Daniel, the Conservative MP who’s running in the new riding of Don Valley North[
Harper’s desire for complete and utter control of all of the local ridings. He is terrified of anyone saying anything bad, so he forbids them from speaking at all.
Harper’s limiting of questions is not new. He did it last campaign too. And I’m not kidding about the Harper Base parroting the Tea Party line of the “liberal media hates us all”
Not only does Harper limit the questions - but the only people allowed to ask questions are those press who *pay their campaign for the privilege of following Mr. Harper about. *To the tune of $78,000. That’s what it costs a news organization to ask one question of Mr. Harper per day.
The media should really just tell Harper to go pound sand.
I expect that what he was hoping to get was the saving of his beloved party from a deepening scandal. In his mind, a shining knight on a white horse through a good deed of cash personally saving the Conservatives from a scandalous fate worse than death, which in turn in his mind would be doing a very good thing for the country which in his mind is in such dire need of Conservative rule.
