Author
|
Topic: Poll shows MASSIVE opposition to Emerson in BC
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 04:18 PM
quote: A new BC Ipsos Reid poll shows that a majority (62%) of British Columbians disapprove of the action taken by David Emerson to switch parties and join Stephen Harper’s Conservative cabinet. And while it has been argued that BC will benefit from having someone of Emerson’s stature in the federal cabinet, only about one-in-three British Columbians (36%) think the switch will turn out to be a good thing for the province. When it comes to the overall issue of politicians making a party switch, three-quarters (77%) of British Columbians think MPs should have to face a by-election. Six-in-ten (62%) British Columbians say they disapprove of the actions taken by David Emerson, including nearly five-in-ten (48%) who “strongly” disapprove and 14% who “somewhat” disapprove. Fewer than half as many BC residents (28%) say they approve of Emerson’s actions (11% “strongly”, 17% “somewhat”). Ten percent of residents have no opinion on this issue.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 14 February 2006 04:49 PM
Also that poll was BC wide; the Mustel Group poll which BCTV commissioned was Vancouver Kingsway only and in that poll only 24% said they'd vote for Emerson if he ran as a Conservative.Since 82% didn't vote for a conservative, that means Emerson the man only drags an additional 6 points (the margin of error of that poll) over the relatively unknown Kanman Wong (school board employee and the actual CPC candidate). 6 points is what Emerson the man is worth. Or, looked another way, Emerson's support drops from 43% as a Liberal to 24% for a loss of 19 points. Clearly he's not as important to voters of this riding as he thinks he is.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 14 February 2006 05:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by Suaros: People still do not seem to understand the fact that we vote for individual people in our country -- regardless if a person thinks they are voting for a party, the party leader, or whatever they happen to want. The person may have campaigned on certain party promises, but that is a different issue.
We vote for a person, true; but that's the extent to which I agree with you. We vote with expectations and among those expectations when voting for a *cabinet minister* of the government of the day we have an expectation that that minister will fully support the platform of their party. Therefore, when voters in Vancouver Kingsway cast their vote for David Emerson they were in fact expecting him to defend, in general, the Liberal platform and promises either in cabinet, or as a highly effective opposition member. Since the Liberal platform is in fact quite distinct from the Conservative platform, this expectation is not only valid but actually makes sense. Poll after poll and the ground-zero reaction here in the riding have continued to underscore the reality - people here voted for a LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER named David Emerson and expected him to defend that which they believe is important. Emerson ran his entire campaign using those expectations as partisan fuel. His party affiliation, as polls have since shown, was *the only reason he won*. You can argue all you want about the piddling *legal* basis for Emerson's election but the significant *ethical* basis of his election had everything to do with party, leader and last - person.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 05:07 PM
quote: This shows just how gullible people are to the idea of political parties being dominant in elections. It was only in 1974 when party names were shown on the ballot next to the individual's name. People still do not seem to understand the fact that we vote for individual people in our country -- regardless if a person thinks they are voting for a party, the party leader, or whatever they happen to want. When they put that ballot in the box, they are working to elect an individual person in their electoral district, not the party or the party leader. The person may have campaigned on certain party promises, but that is a different issue. Give up on the "we vote for parties" argument -- just say that Emerson lacks ethics.
I think you are the one who is being ridiculously gullible. That theory MIGHT hold water in the US where Congressmen are free to vote as they please and there is virtually no party discipline as we know it. but in Canada, MPs have to vote with their party about 99.999% of the time. If in fact we were just electing individuals without regard to party, we would not have parties at all, just 308 Independent MPs and they would elect a cabinet and PM from amongst themselves (like the way the NWT territorial leg. or Toronto City Council works). In any case, if that was what Emerson believed why didn't he campaign openly that he would join whichever party had the most seats after the election and let the voters either vote for or against him on that basis. I'd be VERY curious to know how Emerson would have responded if at an all-candidates debate during the campaign, he had been asked point-blank, "will you committ to sticking with the Liberal party, or will you switch to the Tories if they sweeten the pot enough for you?". I wonder what he would have said?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562
|
posted 14 February 2006 05:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think you are the one who is being ridiculously gullible. That theory MIGHT hold water in the US where Congressmen are free to vote as they please and there is virtually no party discipline as we know it. but in Canada, MPs have to vote with their party about 99.999% of the time. If in fact we were just electing individuals without regard to party, we would not have parties at all, just 308 Independent MPs and they would elect a cabinet and PM from amongst themselves (like the way the NWT territorial leg. or Toronto City Council works). In any case, if that was what Emerson believed why didn't he campaign openly that he would join whichever party had the most seats after the election and let the voters either vote for or against him on that basis. I'd be VERY curious to know how Emerson would have responded if at an all-candidates debate during the campaign, he had been asked point-blank, "will you committ to sticking with the Liberal party, or will you switch to the Tories if they sweeten the pot enough for you?". I wonder what he would have said?
Again, the argument is presented that parties hold power and not individuals -- wrong. An individual can vote against their party 100% of the time, but at the risk that they lose their membership in that party (a la Carolyn Parrish). As to what Michael said about people's expectations -- again, expectations differ from each person. One person may be voting in the expectation that they will recieve a daycare program, while another with the expectation that they recieve tax cuts. These expectations are passed to the individual who is elected to represent the area, and they do what they best can to represent that. When people elect an individual, they (generally) expect that that person will continue on with that they voted for... but they elect people based on their judgement. If people do not know about the person's judgment skills -- which anyone who does any research will be able to understand about Emerson -- then it is their own fault they misplaced their ballot. I am glad now that you have reverted to the ethical argument Michael, because although you claim to be a CPC member (which even I am not), you seem to be siding with the NDP on this (and everything else). The NDP has zero credibility on this issue, as was shown by the differences in reactions for Stronach and Emerson. Both crossed the floor for cabinet posts, yet the NDP is only riled up about Emerson in terms of petitions, sit-ins, etc. Why is that? Well, the NDP has a chance at winning his riding... whereas they had ZERO chance of winning Belinda's. They stink of hypocrisy. And before anyone accuses me of being a "Harper apologist", let me point out I don't like the man -- and I have previously said I don't want him to be the CPC leader. I also belong to no political party, and am a swing voter.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999
|
posted 14 February 2006 05:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee: What are the odds that Emerson will actually step down, you think?
Just checked with Janet Jones (Gretzky), the Phoenix line is 6:1. There are also a number of possible turns. Will Harper be forced to drop him from Cabinet? Will he then stay as a backbencher? Will the conflict proceed? Does Denmark need an ambassador? [ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Pogo ]
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 05:48 PM
quote: If people do not know about the person's judgment skills -- which anyone who does any research will be able to understand about Emerson -- then it is their own fault they misplaced their ballot.
Party names are very clearly on the ballot and people vote accordingly. Why would Emerson have run as a Liberal at all if he only regarded it as a flag of convenience and he fully intended to switch to which ever party had the most seats after the election. Canadian ridings have about 100,000 inhabitants, how many voter sget a chance to personally interview the candidates and ask them if they plan on being loyal to their party. I'm sure that if i had phoned Emerson HQ during the campaign and asked whether Emerson was committed to sticking with the Liberal Party, whoever answered the phone would have treated me like a nut for even asking!! Emerson should have run on an explicit platform of "I will switch to the Conservatives after the election if they win the most seats". he did not and therefor HE MUST RESIGN.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 14 February 2006 06:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Suaros: I am glad now that you have reverted to the ethical argument Michael, because although you claim to be a CPC member (which even I am not), you seem to be siding with the NDP on this (and everything else).
Ethics? It was always about ethics. Mr. Emerson has effectively lied to his constituents, the only difference is provability. If he switched parties on election day, he'd be in court by now. Switching parties after the government of the day was defeated - the very next day by all accounts - makes it somewhat difficult to prove that he intended to do this all along. Why would a Conservative member speak out about this? Because it is the right thing to do. Conservatives across the spectrum - from progressives like myself to the ultra right - decry what has transpired - Emerson and Fortier. You can't accuse people like myself of hypocrisy - we despise what has taken place. Privately, a number of my colleagues in the party. from across the country, are letting me know they agree with my stand. I am not going to criticize those that are unwilling to speak out publically for wanting to remain part of the mechanics of power for it is through those levers that change happens, as well as through protest. For many years I've been consistent with my criticism of Stephen Harper, recognizing him as a danger to Canada. Now we've seen that he's not even responsible to campaign and political promises that he has made over the course of many years. I have been a card carrying conservative for years and have at times held Progressive Conservative (until the end of the party), Canadian Alliance (done specifically to ensure I had a vote on merger issues) and now Conservative Party of Canada membership. I've been involved as a donor, and volunteer on campaigns and committees at the national, regional and local level. So I don't "claim" anything. I'm easily identifyable from my writings and actions over the years. Smart conservatives - partisans of any type - do not follow the party line on everything. I speak out against that which I do not support, because it makes sense to focus one's energy on fixing what's wrong or broken. Do I agree with the NDP on some issues? There is no doubt I do. I am very clearly a progressive activist within a very conservative party. The CPC has most certainly moved to the right of where the old PC Party was at, although I would not exactly call the PC Party all that progressive either. Many progressives elect to remain active within the CPC and PCPC before it in order to ensure that our politics do not drift dangerously, regressively, to the right. There is no contradiction for progressives to self-label themselves as a conservative or carry a Conservative membership. The CPC would do well to swing back and get closer to some of its historical roots. Back to Emerson: what he has done is clearly different than any elected MP has done in modern history. He campaigned hard, fighting against the Conservative platform and the very next day after the election is agreeing to support the entire Conservative platform, not just a set of economic policies which either party could adopt. As a Minister he us duty bound to support the government on almost every single initiative (except for perhaps SSM). That means core Liberal campaign planks which Emerson fought for, and supported as a Minister of Martin's government, David Emerson will have to vote against. That is not what voters signed up for. In essense Emerson is guilty of false advertising and fraud.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert MacBain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10579
|
posted 14 February 2006 06:17 PM
[Suaros]It is a fact of political life that the national campaign has several times more impact on the outcome at the local level than the personal standing of individual candidates in their own ridings. That’s why all but two Conservatives were wiped off the political map in the 1993 election. Some of them – in fact, a great many of them – had pluralities in excess of 20,000 in the 1988 election. But they were washed out with the tide anyway. Again, in 2004, for example, what happened in the national campaigns was immediately reflected at the doors. In the last 10 days of that campaign, traditional NDP voters were asking Liberal campaigners for the famous “Stop Harper” buttons. They couldn’t wait to put the button on and say that they would be voting Liberal this time out. Individual candidates represent, at best, maybe 5% to 10% of the reason why an individual votes one way or the other. The rest is based entirely on political party preference and how a particular national campaign is perceived to be going. David Emerson could not, and cannot, be elected as a Conservative in Vancouver Kingsway. With or without his big-business credentials. He was elected as a Liberal and, if he no longer wishes to be a Liberal MP, then he should resign so the people of Vancouver Kingsway can elect a Liberal to represent their interests in Ottawa.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 14 February 2006 06:25 PM
quote: It is a fact of political life that the national campaign has several times more impact on the outcome at the local level than the personal standing of individual candidates in their own ridings.
Evidence of that is the otherwise inexplicable win by the Liberal incumbent in Beaches-East York. Clearly, she just coasted in on the Liberal Party ticket - any support for her as an individual was very, very, very marginal! However, at least she is a nice person. The fact that 25,000 people in Trinity-Spadina could have voted for a brain-dead and personal unpleasant creep like Tony Ianno can only be explained by the Big L beside his name on the ballot. Could there even be a half dozen people who would have voted for Ianno as an individual as opposed to because he was the Liberal candidate??? The fact that a ridiculously poor quality candidate like Ianno could still have won 40% of the vote while losing shows you just how many people will vote Liberal no matter who is running! The ghost of Adolf Hitler could run as a Liberal anywhere in Toronto and still be guaranteed a floor of 30% of the vote.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480
|
posted 14 February 2006 06:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: If I had been a volunteer on Emerson's campaign and let's say I devoted 12 hours to the campaign, I'd send him an invoice for 12 hours of my time at $100/hour!!I wonder if any Kingsway Liberals are doing that??
....only if they want to waste 55 cents.
From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620
|
posted 14 February 2006 07:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jooge:
....only if they want to waste 55 cents.
Postage is not required for a letter to your member of Parliament.
From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mimas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12050
|
posted 14 February 2006 10:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee: What are the odds that Emerson will actually step down, you think?
I don't think he gives a hoot about those pesky voters. There is no way he is going to resign unless something better comes up for him.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717
|
posted 14 February 2006 10:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mimas:
I don't think he gives a hoot about those pesky voters. There is no way he is going to resign unless something better comes up for him.
Then let's start offering him alternatives. There's a job going in the mailroom in our office - I could put in a good word, and we're pretty unrepresented in the GVRD, so he'd be a great fit.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 15 February 2006 12:02 PM
17 Conservative MPs were elected in BC in the recent federal election. Over the past week, CBC News contacted all BC Conservative MP’s to pose a single question: “Should david emerson step down and run in a by-election?” Each was called twice. None answered.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562
|
posted 15 February 2006 12:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by kevout:
I would not be so quick to call the NDP on hypocrisy on this issue. Others, maybe, but not in this case. Remember, after Stronach crossed the floor it was Peter Stoffer of the NDP that put forward the private members bill to limit such things. It was supported by the entire NDP caucus and 40 CPC. It will be interesting to see what happens to those Conservative votes should Turner or Stoffer fire this up again.
Where were the NDP sit-ins? Where were the NDP petitions calling for a byelection? Where were the NDP MP's droning on about it in the news? They didn't, because it helped their budget and they had no chance of winning the riding in a byelection. This is only a partisan grab by the NDP.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 15 February 2006 12:58 PM
People who accuse their critics of hypocrisy often do so because they can't defend their actions on the merits.Of course, its NDP MLAs from the same electoral region as David Emerson's constituency who are leading the protest, not NDP MPs (there were no NDP MPPs representing the area of the province that Stronach came from). the federal NDP wants to introduce legislation to prohibit floor-crossing by MPs, just as they did when Stronach crossed the floor. But lets pretend that none of this happened. Even if we do, Suaros, please tell us why you think what Emerson did was right and why he shouldn't stand for a byelection. [ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 15 February 2006 01:08 PM
Oh please. If you can't see any difference between being a political opportunist who leaves the party less than 2 weeks after you were elected as a Liberal to take a cabinet post in the party you railed against, and who appears to be genuinely so out of touch with people that you don't get why this is unethical, and being a political opportunist who leaves their party for a cabinet post after a year of being kicked around by the leader, who makes clear you aren't going anywhere, and that the party is going in a different direction than you would have taken it, you and lead have a lot in common. Both are wrong. Both reek of the attitidues that make people cynical about politicians. The NDP bill would prevent both, and came about because of exasperation at the schenanigans of people like Stronach, and the willingness of the liberals to give her a Cabinet post at the drop of a hat. But Stronach at least had a veneer of plausibility that she made a difficult choice based on deepseated concerns about the direction of her party (though she didn't have to jump to Liberal cabinet to express these concerns, and its slimy that she did). It is evident that Emerson's concerns with the direction of the party was that they were in the Opposition benches, too far from the perks and prestige of Cabinet power. If you ran to be a Cabinet minister, regardless of party, then don't take money and volunteer hours and votes from those who expect you are a Liberal. Also, everyone acknowledges the Liberals have serious ethical issues. What were the Conservatives shouting from the rooftops all through the 38th Parliament? Most of us thought that Harper would take a little longer to revert to the ethics of the old Conservative party than 2 weeks. How ethical and accountable is this move? How can this not infuriate his base (esp. the populist Reform base)? Yeessh. Both Emerson and Harper have betrayed fundamental principles they campaigned on mere weeks ago in these moves. They can't argue the situation has changed enough to give reasonable doubt as to their motives. That's really not so complicated.
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562
|
posted 15 February 2006 01:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee: People who accuse their critics of hypocrisy often do so because they can't defend their actions on the merits.Of course, its NDP MLAs from the same electoral region as David Emerson's constituency who are leading the protest, not NDP MPs (there were no NDP MPPs representing the area of the province that Stronach came from). the federal NDP wants to introduce legislation to prohibit floor-crossing by MPs, just as they did when Stronach crossed the floor. But lets pretend that none of this happened. Even if we do, Suaros, please tell us why you think what Emerson did was right and why he shouldn't stand for a byelection. [ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]
It was right because it is an area of expertise where he can help to solve the problem. It also allows him to represent the city proper of Vancouver, as well as moving into a party which is more focused on getting things done. He shouldn't stand for a byelection because he was already elected legally. His constituents voted with the expectation of their MP representing them, and he is representing them... it is not his fault that there are partisan hacks who are calling for him to resign because they sniff the possibility that they may pickup a seat.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562
|
posted 15 February 2006 01:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
So the fact that Emerson won largely by campaigning on an anti-Conservative platform doesn't raise any ethical concerns at all? If he thought the Conservatives were that bad, why did he end up sitting with them in Cabinet?
No, it doesn't. We know his positions on trade, his positions on economic issues. They all fit with both the Liberals and Conservatives. With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that he would be able to fit in to both aprties... and he is still upholding his economic/trade issues which he campaigned for. He cannot take reponsibility for the Federal Liberal Campaign and what it said. Paul Martin asked Emerson to help him and run, and Emerson did. Paul Martin left, and Emerson left... no issues there.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 15 February 2006 01:55 PM
Vancouver CourierI responded to a letter to the editor in same newspaper, by one George Hofsink. Mr. Hofsink failed to identify himself to the paper as a long time Conservative supporter and party operatives dating all the way back to the Mulroney days where as a relative youngster he was an aide to a cabinet minister or two. George is one of the more visible insiders in the party in BC. Among other things, George Hofsink had this to say: quote: In the matter of David Emerson switching parties, people should just grow up. |snip|Whether the Conservatives are winning on this one remains to be seen. But, having received David Emerson in trade for Belinda Stronach, I'd say they traded up. George Hofsink, Vancouver
My letter to the editor, just sent: To the editor: In letters (Feb 15 2006, The Courier) George Hofsink instructs people to "just grow up". Presumably Mr. Hofsink, a long time and well known Conservative party insider dating all the way back to the days of Brian Mulroney, really means "just shut up". Not all Conservative members and activists agree with Hofsink, including me. While out of power, Conservatives hailing from both founding parties worked apart, and then together, ultimately to fashion a single party and a set of policies designed to bring back to Canadians an ethical and accountable government. We said we'd do things better. We'd clean up the mess. We'd treat Canadians with the respect they deserve. Yet within hours of being elected, by appointing to cabinet David Emerson and the unelected party insider Michael Fortier, Stephen Harper has substantially broken 4 established party policies, one specific campaign promise, over a decade of conservative policy development, and the trust of many Conservatives and most Canadians. Our party's principles state that we believe in the democratic process, so its of no surprise that "grown up" Conservatives are rightly questioning why Stephen Harper is violating a basic tenet of our party as one of the first official acts of his government. A "grown-up" government works with the cards it is dealt and strives to earn the trust of the people and a better result in the next election. A "grown-up" leader of the government does not conspire to violate voter's trust in the democratic process. Conservatives like Mr. Hofsink ought to "grow up", be true to their party and its principles, and speak out against Prime Minister Harper's actions, for if they do not the public will draw the inescapable conclusion: Conservatives talk about principle, ethics, and democratic renewal only when *out of office* and the public will put us back there soon enough. Michael Watkins Vancouver Kingsway
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Peter McCarthy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5328
|
posted 15 February 2006 01:58 PM
I recall a BC provincial party leader by the name of Gordon Wilson, who led the PDA, which had constituency associations in most BC provincial ridings.One day Gordon Wilson was offered a cabinet post in the BC NDP gov't in return for crossing the floor, which left the PDA dangling in the wind. Come on, all parties are guilty of floor-crossing and offering carrots.
From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 15 February 2006 02:11 PM
Floor crossing for personal political opportunism can't be justified - the David Emerson case is simply the most egregious malfeasance perpetrated to date. Why you'd use Gordon Wilson to some how justify what David Emerson has done is beyond me, but if there is a clear parallel to be drawn, that line will meet up with Emerson in the not too distant future: We all know what happened to Gordon Wilson's political career. Sidebar: I can understand and approve crossing the floor on strictly ethical grounds. The Emerson affair doesn't meet that test. [ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 15 February 2006 02:25 PM
I wasn't impressed by Gordon Wilson's move to the NDP cabinet either, but then I was never a fan of him or of Glen Clark. Swirrlygrrl, I agree with this: quote: Originally posted by swirrlygrrl: If you can't see any difference between being a political opportunist who leaves the party less than 2 weeks after you were elected..., and being a political opportunist who leaves their party ... after [almost] a year of being kicked around by the leader, who makes clear that ... the party is going in a different direction than you would have taken it.... Stronach at least had a veneer of plausibility that she made a difficult choice based on deepseated concerns about the direction of her party (though she didn't have to jump to Liberal cabinet to express these concerns, and its slimy that she did). It is evident that Emerson's concerns with the direction of the party was that they were in the Opposition benches....
I'd add that Stronach's move was much more of a gamble than Emerson's was. Both took a cabinet position, but for all Stronach knew, she was jumping onto a ship that was two days away from sinking (in the end, it was both her vote AND Chuck Cadman's that were needed to save the Liberals from defeat on the budget). I'm not saying this to defend Stronach and the Liberals, as like you, I think the Stronach deal was slimy too. Just that the whole "oh, everybody does it" argument doesn't wash with me. The newsworthy thing about Emerson's defection isn't that it's morally questionable, but that he's managed to outdo previous defectors in this regard, which is no mean feat.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike N
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11736
|
posted 15 February 2006 09:49 PM
here's some more activity in the riding: " Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson"Link:http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001252.html
From: Greenwood | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 15 February 2006 11:13 PM
quote: Originally posted by Suaros:
No, it doesn't. We know his positions on trade, his positions on economic issues.
Yeah? Name one. I'm a constituent, I've been to see Emerson expound on his philosophy at an all-candidates meeting, and I'm am highly politically-sophisticated and read two newspapers cover-to-cover, most days. And I couldn't tell you one of Emerson's 'positions' on trade or the economy. [ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232
|
posted 15 February 2006 11:44 PM
Jack Layton has called for another community meeting on the Harper/Emerson file:Tomorrow, Thursday, February 16, 2006 @ 7:30 PM Sir Alexander Mackenzie School 960 East 39th Avenue Vancouver (I presume Jack will be there.)
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Triz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10214
|
posted 16 February 2006 12:10 AM
From me you won't get talking points, but I think the whole thing was an act of genius. They did, by various counts, four or five horrendous appointments and / or appointments involving less than PC behaviour in one day. Everyone spun; people reacted, angrily, to everything, flailing out in all directions (because the bad behaviour WAS in all directions); the topic eventually centred from the media (weirdly) on the francophonie question and PM Harper met with Charest today, apparently fabulously, and Charest will no doubt (given the PM's commitment to encouraging provincial autonomy) attend the francophonie - along with Bernard Lord. I HOPE they couldn't have counted on the Gretzky fiasco, but they got off the front page for good with that non-story - at this point, I will give the new PCs "credit" for anything strategic.Evil, perhaps, but a worthy opponent.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 16 February 2006 12:11 AM
The CBC noon show had a Board of Trade functionary on who said that Emerson would be good for BC"s economy,etc. When asked about the ethical ramifications of Emerson's defection,he said that it was not his place to comment.IOW...If its good for business,ethics are not important.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Independent_Thinker
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9601
|
posted 16 February 2006 01:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by Suaros:
Where were the NDP sit-ins? Where were the NDP petitions calling for a byelection? Where were the NDP MP's droning on about it in the news? They didn't, because it helped their budget and they had no chance of winning the riding in a byelection. This is only a partisan grab by the NDP.
First off, Belinda didn't cross the floor only TWO WEEKS TO THE DAY after being elected in her riding. Second, there were many petitions and protests in the riding when it happened but they didn't have enough support to push for any action. The NDP took the most direct action by bringing forward the private members bill that would have stopped this from happening again. The reaction by the NDP in this case is far more agressive because much more is at stake in this one. The democratic rights of all Canadians is being yanked away by both our new Prime Minister and by the so called elected official in that riding. The NDP are standing up for what is important to ALL Canadians - our right to choose our representatives. The only people criticizing the NDP actions on this are the same Conservatives who think that Mr. Harper didn't have any underlying agenda during the election. I refuse to believe that this 'deal' between Harper and Emerson ONLY came about after the election. Where is the accountability? Where are the ethics? Let's stop blaming the NDP for doing what is right and start taking action to stop the Conservatives from continuing to steal our values and rights from under our noses.
From: Saskatoon, SK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 16 February 2006 10:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by S1m0n: I'm a constituent, I've been to see Emerson expound on his philosophy at an all-candidates meeting, and I'm am highly politically-sophisticated and read two newspapers cover-to-cover, most days. And I couldn't tell you one of Emerson's 'positions' on trade or the economy.
That's unfortunately an indictment of our media and the nature of campaigns. Of the two all-candidates meetings serving the riding, Emerson showed up only at one. At the CJC/SUCCESS organized multi-riding meeting (Lib, NDP, Con only), Emerson wasn't there but all the other Liberal candidates were. I suspect he was covering another Liberal function that evening - as senior Liberal in BC that would be his job. At the first all candidates meeting there were all candidates there, which meant equal time to the wholly unelectable. Fair, but not informative. Not to mention the Haiti activists peppered the question box ... so very little substantive debate or discussion took place. It was the same in 2004 except Haiti wasn't a big focus then I feel particularly burned by Emerson as I've been following him and some of his decisions since the 2004 campaign and election. I should have seen this coming. In hindsight his lifelong ties to the unelected side of BC power politics ought to have been more obvious. I did have some inkling that under a longer-term Harper govt he might cross but never in a million years did I expect an immediate cross for a post... Until this tempest broke out, I really believed Emerson was lining up his ducks for a run at the top job in BC. That's probably out the window now.
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480
|
posted 16 February 2006 02:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
To clarify, the NDP bill only called for a byelection if they wanted to cross the floor to a different party. Members would still be free to leave their party and sit as an independant, and vote however they chose on any issue - they could follow a party whip. They just couldn't sit with the party.
How is sitting as an independent any different than joining another party. You are still disenfranchising those who voted for you because that person was elected primarily in most cases because of party affiliation.
From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256
|
posted 16 February 2006 03:14 PM
I don't believe crossing the floor should be banned, partly for reasons outlined. Harper is right to some extent - if leaving (or being kicked out / forced to resign) a party were to automatically trigger a by-election, it would put more control in the hands of the Leader.He ought to know about the wrongful use of power - Harper has in the past wielded that power or threatened to wield it in order to get people to do what he wants, including threatening to use his team to run candidates opposite those he isn't in favour of (interfering with riding races), and withholding his signature on nomination papers (leader signature is required under the Election act). Peter MacKay has used the "I'll withhold my signature" trick as well. No doubt there have been examples in other parties too. I thought what Stronach and Brison had done was opportunistic or slightly so, although with Brison I didn't have much angst at all over his leaving. For the record I rather proudly wore a Brison t-shirt during the last PC leadership race, on the final day, in solidarity with Brison and his team as they joined forces with Prentice, both in opposition of MacKay. Too bad Orchard didn't link up with a different horse, who knows where we'd all be right now. In Brison's case, he had legitimate concerns, and the natural home for him was another party that follows market-driven economic policies. In Stronach's case, I can see her finding the fit with the conservatives rather uncomfortable over time, and like Brison, the Liberals were a natural next home for her. Had she just moved without accepting a cabinet post, it would have been an honourable move free of controversy. I applaud her move only 1/2 way then. But what Emerson AND Harper have done fails any sort of sniff test or comparison to Brison or Stronach. He was not uncomfortable at all with Liberal policy - he was merely unhappy with a Liberal defeat! Instead he's joined a party with similar economic ideas (albeit even less "progressive" than the not-very progressive Liberals) but with vastly more regressive social policies overall. That doesn't make sense at all; its not what the voters wanted and its not at all in keeping with the conventions of our representative democracy. [ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]
From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JustSayNo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11271
|
posted 16 February 2006 05:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
But what Emerson AND Harper have done fails any sort of sniff test or comparison to Brison or Stronach. He was not uncomfortable at all with Liberal policy - he was merely unhappy with a Liberal defeat! Instead he's joined a party with similar economic ideas (albeit even less "progressive" than the not-very progressive Liberals) but with vastly more regressive social policies overall. That doesn't make sense at all; its not what the voters wanted and its not at all in keeping with the conventions of our representative democracy. [ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]
Actually, I think it does make sense - If Emerson was actully aligned to the Liberals, then it wouldn't make sense. But Emerson's true alignment is not with any particular party and his loyalty is, and never was, to the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway nor to the Liberal Party for which he ran. His real constituency is elsewhere. "He represents a consortium of select interests more powerful than citizens, parties, or governments. His true constituents have nothing to fear; the culture of entitlement to which they are accustomed will thrive under Mr. Harper [and Mr. Emerson]— [while] our democracy and our nation are dying. This issue of Emerson and Fortier must not go unaddressed, or Canadians will have confirmed for Stephen Harper and his advisors that with a modicum of power, they can visit any hairbrained thing they choose upon the country. Their arrogance and contempt for democracy will be breathtaking.
From: Alberta | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767
|
posted 19 February 2006 03:15 PM
Here's what the greens have to say on David Emerson...Lower Mainland Green Party Candidates Insist Emerson Resign "...Arno Schortinghuis, Green Party candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, said: The day that Mr. Emerson "crossed the floor" to the Conservative party was a dark day for Canadian democracy. We believe that to do this so soon after the election is opportunistic, deceitful and possibly fraudulent. He has betrayed his supporters and the entire electorate in Vancouver Kingsway. He has put his personal goals ahead of those of the electorate. Mr. Schortinghuis noted that Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper made a promise to make government more accountable. However, his first act as prime minister shows that he has little regard for the wishes of people of Vancouver Kingsway. How can we ever trust this man again? Mr. Schortinghuis and his colleagues look forward to a ruling from the Ethics Commissioner as to whether Mr. Harper is in breach of ethics rules for offering a cabinet post for switching parties... ...Mr. Schortinghuis and his Green Party colleagues were not surprised to see Mr. Harper reach outside of his party for suitable cabinet members but were shocked that Mr. Emerson joined the Conservative Party, since it is possible for opposition MPs to join the ruling party cabinet while remaining members of an opposing party. This type of cabinet structure is common in Europe..." I was participating in a forum this last election and the Conservative candidate in my riding said he thought crossing the floor was not the right thing to do (not in those exact words, and in regards to BS - Belida Stronach). I wonder how many other Conservative MP's are upset and embarrassed by this, and I wonder if they've been ordered to refrain from speaking out on this subject. It seems to me that Stephen Harper and his party are keeping a very low profile right now.
[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cameron W ]
From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jooge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10480
|
posted 19 February 2006 03:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cameron W: Here's what the greens have to say on David Emerson...Lower Mainland Green Party Candidates Insist Emerson Resign "...Arno Schortinghuis, Green Party candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, said: The day that Mr. Emerson "crossed the floor" to the Conservative party was a dark day for Canadian democracy. We believe that to do this so soon after the election is opportunistic, deceitful and possibly fraudulent. He has betrayed his supporters and the entire electorate in Vancouver Kingsway. He has put his personal goals ahead of those of the electorate. Mr. Schortinghuis noted that Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper made a promise to make government more accountable. However, his first act as prime minister shows that he has little regard for the wishes of people of Vancouver Kingsway. How can we ever trust this man again? Mr. Schortinghuis and his colleagues look forward to a ruling from the Ethics Commissioner as to whether Mr. Harper is in breach of ethics rules for offering a cabinet post for switching parties... ...Mr. Schortinghuis and his Green Party colleagues were not surprised to see Mr. Harper reach outside of his party for suitable cabinet members but were shocked that Mr. Emerson joined the Conservative Party, since it is possible for opposition MPs to join the ruling party cabinet while remaining members of an opposing party. This type of cabinet structure is common in Europe..." I was participating in a forum this last election and the Conservative candidate in my riding said he thought crossing the floor was not the right thing to do (not in those exact words, and in regards to BS - Belida Stronach). I wonder how many other Conservative MP's are upset and embarrassed by this, and I wonder if they've been ordered to refrain from speaking out on this subject. It seems to me that Stephen Harper and his party are keeping a very low profile right now.
[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Cameron W ]
The Greens think Emerson should resign....? I can feel him quaking in his boots all the way over here in Alberta!
From: The Land of Opportunity | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767
|
posted 19 February 2006 03:28 PM
LOL Jooge.Seriously, this is a slap in the face to all Albertans who voted Conservative. I live in rural Alberta, and many of the people I've spoken with about this say they aren't surprised, and are getting fed up with their party, and politics in general. I don't know if this will really hurt the Cons over the long haul, but it has served to turn even more people off of politics.
From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|