Conservatives are corrupt - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are crooks - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are utterly without principle - just like Liberals.

Conservatives are incompetent - just like Liberals.

Conservatives screw over their supporters - just like Liberals.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

The NDP has been pushing legislation which would require an MP to resign and run in a byelection before switching parties. It is a minority parliament, so if this legislation actually made it to the floor, it is possible that it would pass.

---

quote:

---

It has been an honour to serve as your Member of Parliament and as Canada's Minister of Industry. I have worked hard to ensure that vital funding for crime prevention, employment programs, students, seniors and new Canadians has been delivered to Vancouver Kingsway - to continue building a stronger community.

On January 23rd, I asked for your continued support. As a Liberal, I received that support. I won. But the Liberal Party lost.

I want to keep working on your behalf, to build on the excellent results we have achieved so far. So now, I ask that you continue supporting my desire to be in a place of power, rather than wasting my talents in opposition.

What's New

I am in cabinet again - this time as the Conservative Minister for International Trade!

---

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

I suppose it's not suprising, considering his previous association with the Social Credit, and anyone associated with them could go either way.

I would not count him out of Vancouver Kingsway totally though - its a riding which will see some amount of Olympic spending and frankly Emerson has been the highest profile MP in the riding for quite some time.

quote:

---

Well, I guess the Liberal leadership race is on again. I don't want to overstate things, but this business of Emerson and Fortier has all the makings of a public relations fiasco for the Tories -- on their first day, and on their issue: ethics and accountability.

andrewcoyne.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
I'm not all that concerned at this point about the next election; for all we know, Emerson will run in another riding.

---

Predecent: Look at Ujjal. Flips from NDP to Liberal; his new riding used to be a solid (P)Conservative riding.

Anyway, the deed is done.

Just a reminder that we vote for the candidate not the party.

The government had not even been formed yet and he crossed.

Gotta be a new record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
What is more important to me is that Emerson and Fortier's appointment to cabinet goes totally against any sense of democratic principles.

---

Nonsense. You are under a misunderstand of how parliamentary democracy works. Any disappointment is self-inflicted.

We voted for representatives, not parties, platforms, or leaders. Once elected, the representative is bound solely by his conscience in how he wields that mandate, within the limits of the law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
Nonsense. You are under a misunderstand of how parliamentary democracy works. Any disappointment is self-inflicted.

We voted for representatives, not parties, platforms, or leaders.

---

Nonsense right back at you.

(and I won't even discuss, in this post, that Michael Fortier didn't even run for any seat)

We do vote for representatives, but we vote for those who we feel will best represent our views. In many cases the sense of what a candidate's views are come from the identity defined by a party and its policy platform.

David Emerson, as well as many Liberals AND Conservatives, ran their election campaign on a PARTY platform. In fact, many Conservative candidates *only* published key talking points from the platform and actively avoided the media throughout their campaigns.

Emerson ran on so-called Liberal values. Twice. Voters chose him because they believed he was the one to best represent their interests, based upon what he did before the election and what he said during the election.

Example: Had Emerson ran on a platform of forced euthanasia of anyone with an IQ less than 150, he would not have won the election.

As the senior Liberal minister for BC, Emerson was inextricably linked to the national Liberal campaign.

People, quite rightly, voted for him either because they liked that campaign platform and the Liberal party, or they voted for him to keep out another candidate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
Once elected, the representative is bound solely by his conscience in how he wields that mandate, within the limits of the law.

---

We did not elect David Emerson to sit as a Conservative nor as a Conservative cabinet minister. We elected him, knowing that quite likely he would sit in opposition, because we wanted to see as part of an effective opposition.

Mr. Emerson did have the choice to serve the country, with honour, in opposition, and so honour the choice of his constituents.

That was the expectation of those who voted for him even though they may not have expected a Liberal win.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
We need to lose the false notion that we're electing US-style presidents

---

Lets take this thought of yours to the logical conclusion - you would be perfectly ok then if, in the next election, that dozens of members that get elected cross the floor to the party that wins, before the government is sworn in and before parliament even sits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
, and we need to refuse to allow candidates to hide their views during elections, as the entire conservative caucus did most recently.

---

Finally, something in this discussion we agree upon totally, and this goes to my point.

If David Emerson ran on a campaign promise that he would accept a cabinet position, if offered, in a Conservative government, he would have lost.

In oh-so-many ridings across the country, candidates were no better than a piece of meat. We saw Liberal meat and Conservative meat up for sale and people bought the meat which they prefered. Vegans bought NDP, Green or something else. Aside from a few bullet points, many candidates were nothing more than a "franchise" option for the party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
I think you'll find that a fair chunk of his support (not all, just a big chunk) follows him, if he runs again in Vancouver Kingsway, particularly if he continues to be seen by the popular press as having done a good job.

Predecent: Look at Ujjal. Flips from NDP to Liberal; his new riding used to be a solid (P)Conservative riding.

Anyway, the deed is done.

Have to hand it to Harper - today he managed to piss off supporters of every single party including his own.

---

quote:

---

David Emerson – Emerson suggested that immigrants needed better language training so they could shed their accents (CP Wire, June 10, 2004). He had previously suggested a link between ethnic communities and the illegal drug trade (CPAC, June 3, 2004). Emerson has contradicted the government on issues such as the Chinese head tax and the sale of Ridley.

---

Link.

quote:

---

David Emerson: “David Emerson suggested that immigrants needed better language training so they could shed their accents” (CP Wire, June 10, 2004).

---

Link.

While you and I know that the PC's and the CPC are two different animals overall, most of the public is blissfully unaware of this.

It'll be interesting to see if Emerson runs again in Vancouver Kingsway and also who runs up against him or the CPC candidate. It'd be nice if someone who has a chance at winning would actually live in the riding and be from the riding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
We did not elect David Emerson to sit as a Conservative nor as a Conservative cabinet minister. We elected him, knowing that quite likely he would sit in opposition, because we wanted to see as part of an effective opposition.

---

WE--or rather I, since I'm in his riding--din't elect David Emerson to sit as anything at all. We don't have that option. We elected David Emerson.

quote:

---

Lets take this thought of yours to the logical conclusion - you would be perfectly ok then if, in the next election, that dozens of members that get elected cross the floor to the party that wins, before the government is sworn in and before parliament even sits.

---

Frankly? I'd be thrilled. NOTHING would do so much to break the electorate out of its lethargy, and to force them to actually pay attention to the qualities of the candidates, rather than merely the colour of their jersy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
WE--or rather I, since I'm in his riding--din't elect David Emerson to sit as anything at all. We don't have that option. We elected David Emerson.

---

Now that's pedantic.

The riding elected David Emerson, senior Liberal minister for BC and minister of Industry.

Those that voted for him did so either because they believed in him or his party; or did not believe in the candidates or party of his opponents.

Most voted for him with an expectation that he would sit in opposition. Certainly the clueless that thought the Liberals had a chance of holding on to power did not vote for Emerson because they wanted him to flip sides before a government was even formed.

I'm in agreement that its a members duty to represent their constituents, but all members do that whether they sit with the governing party or not.

There are other CPC MP's which Harper could have called upon to serve - he did not have to select Fortier or Emerson; this choice was done for partisan political reasons and very clearly shows a lack of respect for the Canadian democratic process.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]

quote:

---

I think you'll find that a fair chunk of his support (not all, just a big chunk) follows him, if he runs again in Vancouver Kingsway, particularly if he continues to be seen by the popular press as having done a good job.
Predecent: Look at Ujjal. Flips from NDP to Liberal; his new riding used to be a solid (P)Conservative riding.

---

I think that Emerson will get about as many of his Liberal voters following him to the Tories as Jack Horner got when he became a Liberal! The Tory candidate only got 18% of the vote in Kingsway and I will wager that about 80% of the people who voted for Emerson voted for him because he was a Liberal and not because of any personal following. I have seen research that shows that 65% of people vote for the party, 25% vote for the leader of the party and about 10% vote mainly for the individual.

quote:

---

Some voters in Vancouver-Kingsway interviewed by CBC News appear to have already made up their minds about Emerson's move.

"I wouldn't have voted for him. It was a toss-up between [him and] the NDP candidate, who I thought I was incredible. And I just went with Emerson because of his experience. I'm shocked. I'm disgusted.That is not right. That's very deceiving."

"I think there's going to be a lot of people who are really disappointed because I think a lot of people voted strategically, so that they could not get the Conservatives in."

"I think once you find a party that you believe in, you should stick with it. It sort of tells me that he doesn't really believe in his party. He's looking for personal gain."

"I personally did vote for the Conservatives. So I'm very disappointed that he did that."

"I think it's really disrespectful of people who voted for him. And I also think that politicians, if they're really sincere, would probably stay stay with their own party."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheStudent:
MW, I agree with you on this one. While we may technically elect individual representatives....

---

That's just it: there's no such thing as 'technicalities' in the law, or the constitution. The law means what it says. We THINK we're voting for parties, but the failure is in our expectations, not in the law. We vote for individual representatives.

This is a situation in which our expectations don't match the law. It's far easier--and better for democracy, in fact--to amend our false expectation rather than the law. As you know, changing the constitution isn't a simple matter in Canada, and making a fundamental change to the autonomy of an MP isn't a trivial change--it strikes at teh ehart of our system.

Yes, Emerson's move is a blatant slap in face to voters, but it's not--and shouldn't be--illegal.

Having MPs who are free to break with their party or the government is a crucial safeguard in canadian politics--it's one which keeps governments honest.

Having the power to switch sides is something which forces governments to pay some attention to their backbenchers, and hence to the electorate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Independent_Thinker:
The funniest part of all this is Emerson's reply to reporters on the subject of changing parties. He stated that he runs his office as a "non partisan" office and that he will serve as a "non partisan" in cabinet. He has no political affiliation.

LOL!! So glad the Lib's wasted all that campaign money to have him run under their banner! LOL!

---

"I'm just a gigolo every where I go." He is Howe Street's cabinet minister just as Campbell is the Howe Street "Liberal" Premier. [for you Easterners that don't know that is the Vancouver equivalent of Bay Street]

He has no political affliation because his loyalty is to the business community. I don't doubt that he sincerely believes that what is good for Howe Street is good for everyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:
Yes, Emerson's move is a blatant slap in face to voters, but it's not--and shouldn't be--illegal.

---

I'm not suggesting it should be; I'm simply stating that its a perversion of democracy, an institution that is built on expectations.

One of the expectations many Conservative supporters had was that Harper would not play such games. Harper and Reform believed in accountability and were willing to take it to such extremes such as an elected and accountable senate; member recall; public referenda.

Its impossible to paint Emerson's post-election immediate defection as being accountable to his electorate. As for Fortier, he didn't even run for office.

No change to the constitution was required for Harper to do the right thing: you want Emerson so bad? Have Emerson step down and run a by-election. See if Emerson gets the mandate from the public then.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the right of a member to switch allegiances; this simply is not a good example of where the public has been well served by democracy.

Will we see protests about this in Vancouver Kingsway?

quote:

---

Having MPs who are free to break with their party or the government is a crucial safeguard in canadian politics--it's one which keeps governments honest.

Having the power to switch sides is something which forces governments to pay some attention to their backbenchers, and hence to the electorate.

---

Can someone give a credible explanation of how Emerson's switch was as a result of the Liberal Party not paying enough attention to its backbenchers???

Wat is wrong with forcing people to run in a byelection if they switch parties? If I were someone who voted Liberal in Kingsway, i would be nauseated at the thought that my vote was being stolen and used to prop up a Conservative government!

One more good thing for the NDP. Emerson announced that there is no real difference between the liberals and Conservatives so why not switch parties. The NDP culd not agree more!!

quote:

---

"The overlap between the Liberals and Conservatives leaves a little ground where people can be comfortable in either one."

cbc.ca | British Columbia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
This thread (and others dealing with Conservative government, party leadership issues, or anything else other than the election itself) should be moved to the politics forum.

---