What turmoil is Ignatieff talking about?

[Machjo]

Liberals in turmoil after defeating own motion on overseas abortion, contraception - Yahoo! Canada News

In this article, we read about how there is some issue with independent Liberal MPs who'd chosen to vote independently of the party.

Last I'd checked, MPs were supposed to represent their constituents, not their party membership. As such, I don't see what there is to be embarrassed about in the Liberals voting as individuals instead of like the Borg. If anything, you'd think it would win more votes for Liberal candidates in that it shows that they're independent-minded and not just clueless party hacks. Heck, if I had that kind of Liberal candidate in my riding, showing himself to have a mind of his own rather than one plugged into the Liberal Borg Collective, he'd be a candidate worth considering in my opinion.

The MP I have in my riding does in fact have his head plugged into the Conservative Borg Collective. He's a total party hack incapable of independent thought and likely just says 'how high' when Harper says 'jump'.

That's not the kind of candidate I want representing me in Parliament. The fact that Liberal MPs are capable of showing independent thought should be considered to be a plus, not a minus, should it not? Why would Ignatieff be so embarrassed by this? Is he planning to run the next election to become an MP, or Iggy the Great, the First King of Canada?

 

[VanIsle]

I don't think it showed independent thinking. More like independent cowardice at not showing up for the vote.
The Liberal leader took full responsibility during a closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday for a fiasco the previous evening, when about a dozen anti-abortion Liberal MPs ensured defeat of their own party's motion on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's G8 initiative to save the lives of the world's poorest women.
The motion asserted that the initiative must include "the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception" for women in developing countries.
It was defeated by a six-vote margin, with Tories and three Liberals voting against it. Another 14 Liberals, most of them staunch opponents of abortion, abstained or did not show up for the vote.

 

[Machjo]

I don't think it showed independent thinking. More like independent cowardice at not showing up for the vote.
The Liberal leader took full responsibility during a closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday for a fiasco the previous evening, when about a dozen anti-abortion Liberal MPs ensured defeat of their own party's motion on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's G8 initiative to save the lives of the world's poorest women.
The motion asserted that the initiative must include "the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception" for women in developing countries.
It was defeated by a six-vote margin, with Tories and three Liberals voting against it. Another 14 Liberals, most of them staunch opponents of abortion, abstained or did not show up for the vote.

That's the problem. If you think of it as a party's motion, then the party did lose. But if you think of it as an individual MP's motion, then nobody lost as such. He presented a bill, each MP present voted, and that's the end of it. I just don't see what why this has to be made into a party issue. It's not even a matter of whether I agree or disagree with the bill itself, but rather the principle that the defeat of a bill is somehow a defeat of the party.

As I see it, a bill was defeated, and no party should consider itself ot have 'failed' in any for this. The bill was presented, it was voted on, and now the case is closed.
If another MP wants to vote on it again, then he can always bring it up again as he wishes, and maybe it will pass the next times around.

But again, even if it passes the next time around, I still wouldn't consider it a victory for any party any more than I consider this defeat of the bill to be a loss for this or that party.

It sounds more to me like Iggy is just trying to make himself into another Harper, having suffocatingly tight reins on his party.

 

[pgs]

But isn't a prerquisite for liberal MP's to stand up for women's rights.
Our forums certified liberal crows on and on endlessly that this issue is solely on the liberal side.
Who is right?

 

[Machjo]

But isn't a prerquisite for liberal MP's to stand up for women's rights.
Our forums certified liberal crows on and on endlessly that this issue is solely on the liberal side.
Who is right?

Yes, but different Liberals may understand 'women's rights' differently. Again, it's not a question of whether I agree or disagree with the Bill, but rather with how free MPs are within the party to vote as representatives of their ridings and not the party.

 

[VanIsle]

SJP also talks about how the Liberals are all pro abortion rather than opposing it. Voting against it or simply not showing up is much the same thing.

 

[VanIsle]

Yes, but different Liberals may understand 'women's rights' differently. Again, it's not a question of whether I agree or disagree with the Bill, but rather with how free MPs are within the party to vote as representatives of their ridings and not the party.

I fully agree with you that they should be allowed independent thinking and voting privileges but they never have been. It isn't just Harpers camp that puts a stop to that. It's always been there.

 

[Francis2004]

SJP also talks about how the Liberals are all pro abortion rather than opposing it. Voting against it or simply not showing up is much the same thing.

Ha ha ha.. Careful on what SJP tells you..

Liberal in what part of the world ?

In Canada typically Federal "Liberals" are moderates or centre politics, whereas in the typical Liberals anywhere else might be more left of the political scale.

Just as the BC "Liberals" are very right wing and tend to support the Federal Harper Conservatives you really have to be careful what a name really describes.. :lol: