58 replies to this topic

[Evening Star]

I find it contradictory that people often criticize our MPs for being trained seals under the control of the leader and party whip. But then, they also criticize MPs when they decide to exercise autonomy and cross the floor.

If it were illegal to cross the floor, or if MPs were forced to face a by-election when they did so, how much more authority would this give the party whip?

I disagree that this is a contradiction, at least as I understand it. My criticism of the system is not directed at the individual MPs but at a system that requires them to toe the party line on most votes, rather than exercising greater independence or more directly representing their constituents. However, given that this is our system, voters do choose to vote for an NDP candidate with the expectation that this candidate will vote with the NDP line, not with the Liberal party line. An MP who crosses the floor is not representing his or her constituents or even becoming more of an independent thinker when he or she simply toes a different party's line. If we had a system where individual MPs had greater freedom in the first place, floor-crossing would be less objectionable.

[Evening Star]

She kind of reminds of that guy, what was his name again?

Oh yeah, Bob Rae.

Rae never crossed the floor while he was a sitting MP, at least. He was out of politics and rejoined with a different party after rethinking some of his views and how they related to the NDP's. Then he stood for election as a member of the new party.

Edited by Evening Star, 11 January 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[August1991]

Floor crossings only become legitimate in my mind if a by-election is called.

That would undermine even further the little power that individual MPs have now. Your suggestion would concentrate more power in the hands of the party apparatus.

I think democracy is better served when MPs have more freedom, and in particular when they are free to change allegiance.

I disagree that this is a contradiction, at least as I understand it. My criticism of the system is not directed at the individual MPs but at a system that requires them to toe the party line on most votes, rather than exercising greater independence or more directly representing their constituents.

Sorry, ES. Your viewpoint is completely contradictory.

On one hand, you criticize a system that requires individual MPs to toe the party line. OTOH, when an individual MP does not toe the party line (and indeed leaves the caucus), you criticize that MP too.

Here's the nature of freedom: You no longer control what an individual does. It seems to me that you want MPs to be free to do what you want them to do. That's not freedom.

Edited by August1991, 11 January 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[AreBe]

(First post here. I only have so many opportunities to make a bad first impression so I hope this goes rather badly.)


Phony Fiberal Dock
The NDP er went up the clock
The defection clock stuck one
The NDP er sank down to join the Liberals
Hickory Fiberal Dock

Phony Fiberal Dock
The NDPers looked at the clock
The clock stuck 2
And you see, that the Quebec NDP
is nothing more than the Bloc!


Intresting article from the Toronto Star - Tim Harper, Jan 11, 2012

(quote]
Tim Harper: NDP defection, looming byelection good news for Stephen Harper
So, barely eight months in, how is that great Canadian experiment with an NDP opposition going?
We thought we would have to wait until a new leader is chosen in March for an answer, but two events barely 12 hours apart — one in a crowded Toronto church, the other in an Ottawa press studio — are providing signals.
Two names heretofore steeped in anonymity, Lise St-Denis and Craig Scott, are the newest players in an opposition pas de deux in which you can’t tell the players without a program.
First, St-Denis.
It was hard to tell who was more confused about Tuesday’s defection to the Liberals by the former NDP member from Saint-Maurice—Champlain — the woman of the hour, her constituents, or the Ottawa press gallery that had to frantically Google her name to find out who she was.
If St-Denis has come to the realization that she can’t sit with a gang that favours abolition of the Senate, a long-established plank in the party for which she had worked for a decade, imagine how confused she must have been the night of May 2 when she learned she was, in fact, an NDP MP.
She admitted she didn’t expect to get swept into office on Jack Layton’s coattails and at any rate, she said — in the most tasteless political analysis of the young year — her constituents voted for Layton, but now Layton is dead.
Her almost immediate post-election thoughts of defecting play into one of the NDP’s biggest problems, the perception that its backbench is populated by “accidental MPs” from Quebec who staggered, wide-eyed and disoriented, into the House of Commons last spring.
It buttresses a trend that shows the party fading in Quebec under the interim leadership of Nycole Turmel, and it throws a wrench into the leadership bid of Thomas Mulcair, the party’s Quebec lieutenant.
...
On either side of the party’s March 24 leadership convention, Liberals could either deal the New Democrats a crippling blow in Toronto—Danforth or a big-name Liberal could go down in flames, blunting talk of their comeback.
It is one thing to have an unknown backbencher wander aimlessly across the opposition aisle, quite another to have the former leader’s riding snatched by the third party.
Either way, the opposition will dance and Harper will do a private jig.
(quote)

http://www.thestar.c...-stephen-harper

Edited by AreBe, 11 January 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[cybercoma]

On one hand, you criticize a system that requires individual MPs to toe the party line. OTOH, when an individual MP does not toe the party line (and indeed leaves the caucus), you criticize that MP too.

Here's the nature of freedom: You no longer control what an individual does. It seems to me that you want MPs to be free to do what you want them to do. That's not freedom.

What you don't seem to be grasping is that this MP is not exercising her freedom. She's going from toeing the NDP line to toeing the Liberal line. What Evening Star said was not a contradiction. If one believes MPs should be autonomous then going from voting en masse with one party to another is not exercising freedom, it's just switching puppet masters.

[AreBe]

What you don't seem to be grasping is that this MP is not exercising her freedom. She's going from toeing the NDP line to toeing the Liberal line. What Evening Star said was not a contradiction. If one believes MPs should be autonomous then going from voting en masse with one party to another is not exercising freedom, it's just switching puppet masters.

Remember: if an MP does not play ball, then the leader can choose to not approve that MP from running under the party banner in the next election. There are many other disciplinary actions available to the party to use against freelancing MP's - such as kicking them out of caucus. Good behaviour is rewarded. Bad behaviour is politically fatal. All MP's are- to a certain extent - trained seals.

What may be an interesting discussion is if everything in Canada needs to be a three -line whip. In the UK, it is totally normal for government backbenchers to ask zingers of the cabinet- and not, "I ask my colleague to please explain their awesomeness again." - i note that that discussion belongs elsewhere.

I think it is significant that in this case, the NDP MP was an accidental victor (visitor?) who fluked in. When an electoral sweep happens (such as the Orange Crush in Quebec for the NDP) then good people loose their seats and bad ones win. Numerous NDP 'warm body' candidates fluked into parliament. ( Can someone tell me again about people voting for the member and not the party.).

The real fun bit will be to see how many NDP MP's charge over to the Bloc. How many of them are strongly committed to Canada, and even more strongly committed to Quebec? The NDP will loose more. What if Peggy Nash wins leadership? What if they do not have their Quebec guy to vote for when voting NDP (Jack, more than likely, passed himself off as a Quebecer when in Quebec- note the Canadiens hockey sweater etc.)

Edited by AreBe, 12 January 2012 - 08:19 AM.

[fellowtraveller]

Rae never crossed the floor while he was a sitting MP, at least. He was out of politics and rejoined with a different party after rethinking some of his views and how they related to the NDP's. Then he stood for election as a member of the new party.

Well, that is one way to spin it. Perhaps that is the only way to spin it since anything else does not play well in the Bobby Rae Biography which unfortunately for him is deeply implanted ion a lot of voters skulls..
Another is to acknowledge that Rae is an ambitious guy and recognized that the NDP nationally was Nowheresville, he'd burned his briedges in Queens Park and if he ever wanted to be King he'd have to find another party. He also knew that the federal NDP could not possibly look to him as Leader after the fiasco of his Premiership of Ontario. Nope, he had to be bathed in the gentle Stream of Banality that could wash off the stench of radicalism, and the deep reek of his stewardship of Ontario.
But no, let's stick with 'he experienced an epiphany that 'Liberal values' were what Canada really needed and he was just the man to deliver them'.
The funniest part of what you wrote is that 'He was out of politics'.

[August1991]

What you don't seem to be grasping is that this MP is not exercising her freedom. She's going from toeing the NDP line to toeing the Liberal line. What Evening Star said was not a contradiction. If one believes MPs should be autonomous then going from voting en masse with one party to another is not exercising freedom, it's just switching puppet masters.

But that freedom to choose "puppet masters" (as you put it) is critical in giving an MP a degree of leverage that they otherwise wouldn't have.

Colgate and Crest may be exactly the same but the simple fact that you have a choice changes the entire dynamic.

Edited by August1991, 12 January 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[cybercoma]

If you define that as choice.

[Evening Star]

Either way, what's important is that Rae was not sitting as an elected official when he changed parties. He only sat as a Liberal after running in an election as a Liberal.

Well, that is one way to spin it. Perhaps that is the only way to spin it since anything else does not play well in the Bobby Rae Biography which unfortunately for him is deeply implanted ion a lot of voters skulls..
Another is to acknowledge that Rae is an ambitious guy and recognized that the NDP nationally was Nowheresville, he'd burned his briedges in Queens Park and if he ever wanted to be King he'd have to find another party. He also knew that the federal NDP could not possibly look to him as Leader after the fiasco of his Premiership of Ontario. Nope, he had to be bathed in the gentle Stream of Banality that could wash off the stench of radicalism, and the deep reek of his stewardship of Ontario.
But no, let's stick with 'he experienced an epiphany that 'Liberal values' were what Canada really needed and he was just the man to deliver them'.
The funniest part of what you wrote is that 'He was out of politics'.

Edited by Evening Star, 12 January 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[August1991]

If you define that as choice.

That is absolutely how I define choice. Colgate and Crest can be identical in every respect but as long as their is no collusion between them, the existence of choice is critical. To understand this, imagine what would happen if we had only one brand of toothpaste. ("Why not? Colgate/Crest, same difference!")

To return to my point, IMHO, it is critical that an MP be free to choose between different political caucuses: Call them Team A and Team B (or Visa/Mastercard) if you want.

[Evening Star]

I suppose that's a fair point. I guess I have more of a beef with the level of party discipline in our system than I do with floor-crossing within the system.

[WWWTT]

It seems that alot of people commenting here are looking too much into this.(my opinion)

I personaly believe that this person may not have actually had expected to be elected 8 months ago and now wants to shrug of the responsibility associated with the official opposition,but still wants to be an MP?

But maybe thats not juicy and controversial enough for MLW?

WWWTT

[Tilter]

It seems that alot of people commenting here are looking too much into this.(my opinion)

I personaly believe that this person may not have actually had expected to be elected 8 months ago and now wants to shrug of the responsibility associated with the official opposition,but still wants to be an MP?

But maybe thats not juicy and controversial enough for MLW?

WWWTT

The

responsibility associated with the official opposition,

will be soon enough removed from the NDPeople--- like at next election when the Quebecers see what a bunch of amateur dunces they elected.

Edited by Tilter, 13 January 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[cybercoma]

We'll see how Quebec feels when Mulcair is the party leader.