Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

revolt ignited among 20+ Tories MP


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Has he said he would eject them or is that just speculation ?

I believe it is just speculation based on how he has dealt with those who have strayed from the PMO scripted talking points over the last 6 years. Those with perks like cabinet positions get demoted, those without are turfed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All Trudea's really been doing is repeating 'feel-good' mantra without any concrete policies so I can't see him ruling with an iron fist.

His handlers will be ruling with a iron fist. If he ever became PM, his handlers will be putting the muzzle on him. But I am wondering now if he will win the leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So after reading more about this all it is ,is the ones that want abortion illegal, something harper has siad many times he will not do anything to change it. So really is this all about the left trying to invent a hidden agenda, since there never was one in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's all about burying the more sublime issue of the ongoing erosion of Parliamentary representation under the ridiculous issue of abortion.

This, by the way is an issue that should be pitting the governed against the government not the governed against itself. I'm pretty sure the main left-wing parties in Parliament are just as loath as the Conservatives are to allow free votes or reform our democracy in any meaningful way.

Just who's side are you on anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too agree heartily with her statement. But sadly the reality is the reason she makes such a statement is because she really is there without a team. If she had a delegation of say 40+ MPs that she had the opportunity to whip into line to accomplish her objectives, she'd be singing a different tune. Politicians, including "Liz", lust after power first and foremost.

Of course she would change her tune with power. Harper routinely trashed our 'benign dictatorship' until it gave him a false majority; now he has no problem with it. Chretien did the same.

This story illustrates how our system actually works. We don't have a MPs looking out for the best interests of their constituents, politics is a team sport. MPs just execute the plays called by the PMO quarterback. It seems that many who acknowledge the ways of party politics in this thread try to pretend our electoral and parliamentary systems somehow represent Canadians when discussing electoral reform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So after reading more about this all it is ,is the ones that want abortion illegal, something harper has siad many times he will not do anything to change it. So really is this all about the left trying to invent a hidden agenda, since there never was one in the first place?

More or less... There never has been a 'hidden agenda' but that doesn't fit with the opposition narrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime some of us are trying to stay focused on the real underlying issue driving this revolt, the mockery of representation known as Parliament and the never-ending concentration of power into...the C-suite.

Concentration of power? We have a federal system, and provincial politicians with big egos - as big as any federal politician - who jealously (and rightly) guard their power. A federal system (politicians' egos at whatever level) is our best protection against the concentration of power. [Note to the anti-American Left: The US Constitution established modern federalism.]

But more, IMHO, it is far harder to keep a Conservative caucus happy than to keep a Liberal caucus happy. If Justin Trudeau heads a Liberal majority government, every federal Liberal MP will know that he or she owes their seat to Justin Trudeau.

Talk about concentrated power.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can only imagine how much worse the next incarnation of Liberals will be once they get the power Harper gave unto his office.

Probably on par with the way this incarnation of Conservatives is now after they got their hands on the increased power Chretien bequeathed them. Rinse and repeat as they say. I guess this is how decadent cultures like ours do-see-doe their way into the dusk of irrelevancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question to be asked is whether or not elected representatives speak for their constituents or not. The real answer is painful to accept. That is reality.

While the political and media issues spin and twist in the wind the public begins to demand the answer to the real question. The Conservatives are in trouble, and the latest spin is about Trudeau not being ready to govern, an attack ad planned for release before the Liberal Leadership vote. Distracting the public, yet fooling nobody. The real question is whether or not Parliament or the Prime Minister is supreme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, but it seems you do! Can you share what you think with me, because I really don't have a clue what they think! In the past the precedent seems to be ejection from caucus for the back bench folks, and at least demotion to the backbench if not ejection from a cabinet position. Following that reasoning there are 24 no longer Conservative MP's that are no longer counted support votes for the government. As to what a majority of MP's think all I can figure is that there was no recorded support of Warwa to be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there should be backbenchers or non portfolio critics. They obviously aren't there to represent their constituents, so get them doing something. Make them all under secretaries, or critic aides, for the same pay obviously. This way they can cut the senior bureaucrats filling those roles and save those wages. I want an undersecretary to the undersecretary of Finance where they're only job can be checking the ledger numbers if they want. That's still better than hearing they're once a year QP Member Statement about his constituent Arlene's 100th birthday or the 50th anniversary of some local business, blah blah.

When my MP comes back I want to hear the business they've furthered not how many whipped votes we paid for or how much living expense they've mooched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry J Fortin, Warawa said he want to stay in caucus and values being a member of the party, so unless he is booted I would be suprised if anyone abandons ship.

This seems more a "see I tried but alas they wouldn't let me". Not a "didn't do it".

A bunch of em have big support in the pro life movement so no criticism and non action on those fronts would not go overwell from their supporters. Even if futile in the big picture.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course she would change her tune with power. Harper routinely trashed our 'benign dictatorship' until it gave him a false majority; now he has no problem with it. Chretien did the same.

This story illustrates how our system actually works. We don't have a MPs looking out for the best interests of their constituents, politics is a team sport. MPs just execute the plays called by the PMO quarterback. It seems that many who acknowledge the ways of party politics in this thread try to pretend our electoral and parliamentary systems somehow represent Canadians when discussing electoral reform.

I think the system you dislike is not really the election system itself, but rather your fellow citizens who by and large are simply uninformed and uninterested. You can't blame the media or the politicians, you can't force people to engage. It doesn't really matter what kind of system you promote, if people are engaged it will be very democratic and if they are not, then it will be less so. If 80%+ of a riding was highly motivated to find out about their local MP's you might see more parties and more independent candidates and less party allegiance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with reopening of the abortion debate but I think it is scary that Harper can muzzle his own party, what if one of his backbenchers had a concern about poverty in their riding or the environment. If he muzzles them on this issue, what else will he muzzle them on. Anyone with concerns about Harper and his radical agenda can post on my forum www.antiharper.com. It's free to join and people are free to create their own topics.

http://www.antiharper.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Engaged or not winner take all systems leave, on average, 50% unrepresented. Party politics degrades that figure even further. The system is a problem along with an uninformed public.

Where does your 50% number come from? Unless there are 35 million seats in parliament then technically 100% of people will never be perfectly represented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On average half the votes cast are not for the winning candidate and therefor do not help to create any representation in parliament. The MP of a riding does not represent the views of the riding but rather just their supporters. Now, I don't really want to discuss electoral reform in this thread, but I brought up the point that this particular muzzling issue illustrates how representation has been degraded even further. MPs actually represent PMO orders and read talking points to their constituents instead of representing their views in Ottawa.

Even if we removed all political parties our electoral system would be lacking and in reality it is far worse. Anyway, if you want to discuss electoral reform outside of this particular muzzling issue we can do it in this thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22377-electoral-reform-a-must-for-real-democracy-in-canada/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Engaged or not winner take all systems leave, on average, 50% unrepresented. Party politics degrades that figure even further. The system is a problem along with an uninformed public.

I think the public is way more disillusioned than ignorant, notwithstanding a few hicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be giving people too much credit. Apathy is a major problem, though not for the Cons; however, I don't think the source is disillusionment. I'd wager that a majority of voters get the majority of their political input from paid ads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time imagining that many people take political ads so seriously enough that they actually shape their views. That would be really disillusioning.

I have to give people credit, it's the only thing that gives me hope.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...