NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals


Machjo
#1
NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals - Politics - CBC News

As far as I'm concenred, it is entirely her right to change parties as she sees fit. Those of her constituents who understand how our parliamentary system works and voted for her as their candidate won't mind one bit as long as she keeps her promises to her constituens; only those who don't know how the parliamentary system works and who'd voted for her blindly owing to her party affiliation will regret it. And for them, lesson learnt.

That's wy you always vote candidate and not party.
 
JLM
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

NDP MP Lise St-Denis jumps to Liberals - Politics - CBC News

As far as I'm concenred, it is entirely her right to change parties as she sees fit. Those of her constituents who understand how our parliamentary system works and voted for her as their candidate won't mind one bit as long as she keeps her promises to her constituens; only those who don't know how the parliamentary system works and who'd voted for her blindly owing to her party affiliation will regret it. And for them, lesson learnt.

That's wy you always vote candidate and not party.

On this we have to agree to disagree. People who switch parties mid term shouldn't be in politics. These people are generally overwhelmed with their own self importance. When they pull this sh*t they are assuming all their votes were for "them", never considering the votes were actually for the candidate that subscribes to the party platform (yeah, I know that is getting to be pretty nebulous too) I would guess that 99% of members who pull this sh*t do it solely for their OWN benefit. But then again what do I know, I have very little regard for politicians. Most of them are as transparent as glass!
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#3
How many actually believe that the MP himself actaully does anything? All MPs, unless they are truly independant, follow the party line. Their brochures are almost 100% identical to the ones of the same party in the next riding with the personal pre-ample and pictures changed -- out with canidate A standing with a smiling leader and in with canidate B.

While it is her right to change her party, it is one of the things she promised as a canidate. I represent the NDP!.

I personally think if one changes anything that significantly alters the basis of election, a by election should be called. She should be able to run again as a Liberal and get endorsed by her constituants (if she is truly popular).
 
Machjo
#4
It was up to her constituants to vote for her and not her party to begin with if they knew the parliamentary system.

And if the candidate does not matter as you say, then a candidate's switching party should be a non-issue anyway because she doesn't matter, right

Also, if we consider that many Quebecers probably did vote blindly for the party without knowing their candidate, this will serve as a healthy wake-up call for them to pay more attention to their candidate next time around.

Another point to make is that with MPs being free to cross the floor, it keeps the pressure on parties to deliver what they promised their constituents, because if another party can better deliver what the candidate promised his constituents, then he will shift. Keeps the parties on their toes.

This, by the way, is one reason I'm not concerned about a conservative majority. Now, if we had mandatory allegiance to the party, then I'd be concerned about a Partei... er, sorry, I meant party, ajority and the sheer power it would have over its members.

[QUOTE=IdRatherBeSkiing;1531941]How many actually believe that the MP himself actaully does anything? QUOTE]

for the salary he gets, you'd hope he does something.
 
JLM
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

It was up to her constituants to vote for her and not her party to begin with if they knew the parliamentary system.

And if the candidate does not matter as you say, then a candidate's switching party should be a non-issue anyway because she doesn't matter, right

I'm guessing that over time, you will see the N.D.P.'s numbers slowly creep back toward their historic levels!
 
Machjo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'm guessing that over time, you will see the N.D.P.'s numbers slowly creep back toward their historic levels!

Unless they can field quality candidates of course.
 
Cliffy
+2
#7
I think you are confusing how the system should work to how it actually does. People vote party first, candidate second. Sheeple are conditioned by advertising to consume that which produce the ads that appeal to their sense of .... hmmm... selfishness: what's in it for me. Her switching parties fits right into that mentality.
 
JLM
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I think you are confusing how the system should work to how it actually does. People vote party first, candidate second. Sheeple are conditioned by advertising to consume that which produce the ads that appeal to their sense of .... hmmm... selfishness: what's in it for me. Her switching parties fits right into that mentality.

Yep, voting party first is a good indication of how fickle "sheeple" are. Their platforms for the most part are very similar, primarily what they think the sheeple want to hear! It's a barrel of laughs, Cliff.
 
Cliffy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, voting party first is a good indication of how fickle "sheeple" are. Their platforms for the most part are very similar, primarily what they think the sheeple want to hear! It's a barrel of laughs, Cliff.

The funniest part is, people take it seriously. There is a reason party platforms are indistinguishable. The puppet master for each party are the same people. They really don't care who you vote for, they still control the agenda.
 
Machjo
#10
And people make it so by blindly voting party.
 
JLM
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And people make it so by blindly voting party.

And that is why they come across as such shallow thinkers. I was a card carrying N.D.P. years ago, because I thought they were for the "working man", while as it turned out nothing could be further from the truth. They may have been for the "employed" man, but one Union they supported was for the drone, the parasite and the sh&t disturber of course even those were secondary after the Union executive. When I hear a person now saying I'm a Con or a Liberal or a Socialist I think YES and above all puppet and yes man. The likes of John Diefenbaker and Tommy Douglas are long gone.
 
WLDB
#12
I'm fine with a person switching parties. They generally lose the next election when they do it anyway. As for the constitutents, well, they should have voted for a person and not a brand. Given its currently a majority government and she switched from one opposition party to another I doubt the constituents will actually be affected by this switch.
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

And that is why they come across as such shallow thinkers. I was a card carrying N.D.P. years ago, because I thought they were for the "working man", while as it turned out nothing could be further from the truth. They may have been for the "employed" man, but one Union they supported was for the drone, the parasite and the sh&t disturber of course even those were secondary after the Union executive. When I hear a person now saying I'm a Con or a Liberal or a Socialist I think YES and above all puppet and yes man. The likes of John Diefenbaker and Tommy Douglas are long gone.

I was a card-carrying member for a year, though I'd stopped participating after one federal election campaign and just let my yearly subscription expire. I was quite disappointed at what I'd seen from the inside.
 
talloola
+2
#14
I don't think any elected person should be allowed to switch parties till they
finish theyterm which they were elected.

The vote was for the NDP, not the liberals, so now all of those people who voted
for her, have been cheated, and their candidate is now a liberal, how dirty is that,
they have no control over their vote, which is suppose to be a persons personal power,
in a democracy, what a joke.

A candidate could, if they chose, become elected for one party, then jump to another
party, on purpose, with that plan in mind to begin with.
 
WLDB
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I don't think any elected person should be allowed to switch parties till they
finish theyterm which they were elected.

The vote was for the NDP, not the liberals, so now all of those people who voted
for her, have been cheated, and their candidate is now a liberal, how dirty is that,
they have no control over their vote, which is suppose to be a persons personal power,
in a democracy, what a joke.

A candidate could, if they chose, become elected for one party, then jump to another
party, on purpose, with that plan in mind to begin with.

It is allowed under the current rules and has always been a part of the way our system works. Even if they were to pass a law to prevent it, an MP in that case could simply start voting with another party instead of actually joining it. So even if you can stop it, you cant stop an MP from switching their votes in Parliament. The parties have too much power over Parliament as is. People should be electing an MP, not a party.
 
JLM
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I don't think any elected person should be allowed to switch parties till they
finish theyterm which they were elected.

The vote was for the NDP, not the liberals, so now all of those people who voted
for her, have been cheated, and their candidate is now a liberal, how dirty is that,
they have no control over their vote, which is suppose to be a persons personal power,
in a democracy, what a joke.

A candidate could, if they chose, become elected for one party, then jump to another
party, on purpose, with that plan in mind to begin with.

You got that right Talloola, but over the long haul I wouldn't be surprised if it's a moot point. I think a few N.D.P. are going to be turning Liberal, not that I have much use for them either, but they might be better than the N.D.P. if they can find someone besides Bob Rae. Anyway NONE of them are to be taken seriously. Some times I wonder if the Communist party isn't better than anything we have.
 
wulfie68
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

It is allowed under the current rules and has always been a part of the way our system works. Even if they were to pass a law to prevent it, an MP in that case could simply start voting with another party instead of actually joining it. So even if you can stop it, you cant stop an MP from switching their votes in Parliament. The parties have too much power over Parliament as is. People should be electing an MP, not a party.

I agree a lot with what you are saying. I think parties are too strong and that the constantly whipped/partisan votes take the discretion out of the hands of the individual MP.

I also think that Machjo's stance comes across as an absolute that shouldn't be challenged and which I disagree with. Machjo seems to ignore some fundamentally imperfect realities of our political system: an MP's first loyalty in the HoC isn't to their constituency, but their party, thus the constituents are left with the decision of reconciling the issue of individual MP vs party agenda in the voting booth. Thus I don't agree with voluntarily crossing partisan aisles. If an MP's conscience dictates that they cannot sit with the party whose banner they ran under, they should sit as an independent and vote the rest of their term as their conscience (and constituents!) desire. If an MP is kicked out of a caucus, such as Garth Turner or Helena Guergis, then its a different issue.
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

It is allowed under the current rules and has always been a part of the way our system works.

Neither of which should be a criteria for anything!
 
WLDB
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Some times I wonder if the Communist party isn't better than anything we have.

They had a candidate at one of the local debates during the provincial election. They're a little out there. The guy somehow got 37 votes in the election though.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Neither of which should be a criteria for anything!

True, admittedly a bad point. However once you start making laws taking any semblance of independence away from an MP things could end up getting worse.
 
talloola
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You got that right Talloola, but over the long haul I wouldn't be surprised if it's a moot point. I think a few N.D.P. are going to be turning Liberal, not that I have much use for them either, but they might be better than the N.D.P. if they can find someone besides Bob Rae. Anyway NONE of them are to be taken seriously. Some times I wonder if the Communist party isn't better than anything we have.

whom they are going to be better than, has nothing to do with anything, a persons vote is a personal statement, and jumping
to another party is 'stealing' that vote'.
 
JLM
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

whom they are going to be better than, has nothing to do with anything, a persons vote is a personal statement, and jumping
to another party is 'stealing' that vote'.

Switching parties is alright as long as it's done at the end of a term, so they get to be voted in otherwise if they want to pull the pin mid term they should be Independent. The likes of David Emerson just make my blood boil.
 
talloola
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Switching parties is alright as long as it's done at the end of a term, so they get to be voted in otherwise if they want to pull the pin mid term they should be Independent. The likes of David Emerson just make my blood boil.

yes, me too, there is definitely something tainted about it, and it should be changed.
yes, independent, or just resign and wait for next election, a voter's vote should
never be given to a party which he/she did not vote for.
 
damngrumpy
#23
In a parliamentary democracy crossing the floor is part of the tradition of government.
The NDP is probably celebrating, from what I hear she was a pain since day one.
I do agree though the NDP has taken far too long to conduct a leadership race to
replace Layton. They had better get the act together and get it right the first time.
You have to get it right but it has to be in a timely manner as well.
 
talloola
+2
#24
[QUOTE=damngrumpy;1532217]In a parliamentary democracy crossing the floor is part of the tradition of government.

so I hear, doesn't make it right, but I suppose many areas of government aren't right.
 
WLDB
#25
She's 70 years old and was recently diagnosed with cancer. I have a feeling she won't be running again in 2015.
 
JLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

She's 70 years old and was recently diagnosed with cancer. I have a feeling she won't be running again in 2015.

Maybe, maybe not- 70 isn't necessarily old anymore and Non Hodgkins Lymphona isn't particularly or necessarily life threatening or debillitating. But yeah, she should be gone just for pulling that bullsh*t.
 
mentalfloss
+2
#27
I don't mind the desire to switch parties, but shouldn't there by a byelection in place so she can be democratically voted into office as a Liberal?
 
JLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't mind the desire to switch parties, but shouldn't there by a byelection in place so she can be democratically voted into office as a Liberal?

Yes, definitely.
 
WLDB
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I don't mind the desire to switch parties, but shouldn't there by a byelection in place so she can be democratically voted into office as a Liberal?

Then you'd have people complaining about the money for an unwanted election, even if only for one riding.

Perhaps there should be a recall mechanism of sorts for all MPs where changing parties is one possible reason among others for the constitutents to demand an election.
 
mentalfloss
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Then you'd have people complaining about the money for an unwanted election, even if only for one riding.

Then it should be that the candidate who wants to switch, needs to fund not only the campaign, but any other election-related expenses that would typically be passed on to the taxpayer. It should be the price of changing your rank.
 

Similar Threads

0
Man jumps through window to avoid dog
by china | Mar 15th, 2009
10
Man jumps from plane with no parachute
by sanctus | Jun 9th, 2008
2
Inflation rate jumps to 2%
by CBC News | Mar 20th, 2007
no new posts