Okay folks, I too was honestly disappointed by the Emmerson crossing for a cabinet seat scenario. However, for those of you who are comparing it to Belinda OR saying the CPC are the same as the fiberals, lets get real. It definitely was a blow to us idealists out there however lets consider the differences.
First of all, crossing the floor is not illegal. Should it be? As Stephen Harper said, he doesn't agree it should be as it gives party leaders too much power. Myself, I would prefer alternatives like a bi-election but this is a difference of opinion, not a difference of legalities.
Secondly, as my father said, Belinda switched parties as a newbie with no portfolio or experience. She was enticed to switch to a party that was under criminal investigations and ethical investigations for a cabinet post prior to a non-confidence vote against the government. Do you think she did this for her constituents or herself? Do you think the party did it for the "good of Canada"? If she had switched to a party that was not seriously corrupted, I would not have been as upset. I wasn't upset over Brison leaving at all.
Should there be a bi-election? I tend to think so or at the very least, they should sit as an independent. Can that independent then be named to a cabinet post? I suppose he or she could be. Does this mean the Conservatives are as bad as the liberals? Not by a long shot. Politics as usual but not corruption as usual.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Crossing the Floor does NOT = Corruption
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Belinda Stronach is a bit different. It wasn't days after an election. Weeks before switching, Emerson was telling his voters that Harper and his party were unfit to government the country. And then he switched.
Also, there were things that the Conservatives were doing when Stronach left -- namely trying to defeat the budget -- that had come up since running as a Conservative and she could say she was taking a stand against. With Emerson, nothing new had emerged in the Liberal party other than an election loss. It was pure opportunism at its worst.
Stronach won her riding by a narrow margin in an area which had previously sent Liberals into office. With her existing profile in Aurora, it's very possible that she would have been elected had she ran as a Liberal. Indeed, she was re-elected just two weeks ago as a Liberal.
Emerson on the other hand would have no chance winning as a Conservative in his Vancouver riding. The Conservative candidate was third-place, and more than 10,000 votes behind Emerson. Had Emerson run as a Conservative, a Liberal or NDP would have won.
Stronach also switched just days before an election may have been called anyway. Either way, she knew she would have to face voters far sooner than Emerson will have to.
Emerson did this after taking thousands of dollars in donations and accepting hundreds of hours of volunteer time from Liberal supporters. He owes it to voters in his riding to resign.
And then look at Stephen Harper, who ran under the guise of cleaning up government, boosting ethics and making government accountable. Yet this switch seems to ignore all of that, and be a clear sign that Harper is just like the rest of them.
The Conservatives have lost their moral authority to say they are somehow more honourable than the Liberals. It was all a lie.
Awwww, c'mon now. I like how you call the movement to remove the government with non-confidence "defeating the budget". Belinda's principled stand of moving from one party over the "budget" to a corrupt party is something to admire. LOL... you made me laugh at that one.
If the conservative party starts finding millions of dollars missing from certain "projects" they are heading up and envelopes start being passed over the dinner table, I'll be with you. Until then, there is absolutely no comparison.
I thought Canadians wanted less "politics" and more rationality in running the government. Did Emmerson really get a "pay jump" by going into politics? I don't know, but I suspect a man in his position and experience thought he might be able to do something for Canada as an "industry" cabinet minister. When the liberals lost, that ambition went out the window. Ambition isn't always about money. I've been told by cabinet ministers that knowing that you are influencing millions of people is the ultimate "high".
So maybe a government in power SHOULD appoint elected members from other parties to the cabinet. Maybe they should even retain there party membership eg the present cabinet could have four Liberal and two NDP cabinet ministers and the rest Conservative. Maybe that could replace the idea of proportional representation. The best criteria for a cabinet minister should be: who is best suited to do the job?
Its called thinking outside of the box!
I am more inclined to agree with a by-election as if people voted liberal its likely they wanted liberal, regardless of who was running for liberal (bale of hay analogy). If someone wants to cross the floor (Emmerson, Stronach, whoever) then it should be the people who decide who represents them. I would be mad too, if my MP defected to a party the constituency didn't vote in, however, I agree, Emmerson should sit as an independent if he was no longer interested in being a Liberal. I guess the motive for switching was power and influence, and also publicity. In both cases maybe Emmerson and Stronach realised they would get further and switching had nothing to do with the party they were in and more to do with personal lust for power. I wouldn't say Stronach's defection was any different than Emmerson's. EXCEPT:
Certain elected members of CPC and Canadian public reacted by calling Belinda a "bimbo" and sexually demoralizing her. It makes me angry that it should even remotely be considered an issue, and no wonder why more women aren't in politics. My guess then is that Emmerson has a small penis and needed to compensate somehow (just to make it fair;).
Post a Comment