NDP MP Looks to ban MP floor crossing

[Durry]

My position on this issue is simple, if you don't like what your MP is doing or has done,,,,, don't vote him in on the next election.
You are the employer, you have the ultimate decision. It is your responsibility send all MP a strong message that it is you who they work for.

Let me give you another example.
Re the asbestos situation;
The NDP candidate went to these miners and told them, vote for me and I'll represent you in Ottawa. Now this NDP MP got elected.
Layton now wants these mines shut down and the workers put on the poggy..
He (Layton) never told these miners, before they voted, that NDP would throw them out of work.

Now, this NDP MP is going back to these miners and telling them, thanks for voting for me, now I'm going to close your mine and throw you out of work.

If this MP had an once of decency, he would cross the floor to the Cons who are protecting the miners jobs, and tell Layton to go to hell. And he can do this, but if this was law that he couldn't, then Layton would excercise his dictatorial powers.

 

[petros]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Unforgiven]

Crossing the floor certainly does cause problems for those who simply vote for the party and pay no attention to what the candidate has to say. I can see why someone would be angry about that sort of thing happening and making them look a bit silly should they make it known who they voted for.

 

[petros]

I'm still baffled how my MP made Speaker of the House. I guess that is a reward for doing absolutely nothing in 7 years.

 

[Tonington]

The voter is taken completely out of the process and that is utter bull crap. This is something I vehemently oppose whether it is done by the opposition or the party I support.

It also completely bypasses the selection process for local candidates. When Bill Casey was punted by the Conservative party officials, the local riding association wanted to keep him as their Conservative candidate in the following election. The Conservative party basically had to clean house in the riding association, and parachute some sham candidate into the riding. Bill Casey won the next election with 69% of the popular vote as an Independent...a rare person on the Hill.

 

[Machjo]

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Stoffer. If you are voted in as a specific party member and decide you want to change party's you should have to step down and run a new election campaign.

I totally disagree. Taking it further, should the MP adopt a new religion, etc. will he have to re-run too?

Or what if the party ran on a particular promise, and another party having made the same promise is going through with it. Should a principled member of the first party not be allowed to change party without running again while the rest of his party can sit unchallenged?

I totally disagree with this bill. Clearly another party power-grab.

 

[Unforgiven]

Or what if the Leader of the party just up and kicks you out without an explanation and tells the RCMP to investigate you for some unspecified activities?

 

[Mowich]

Horse hockey! If they want to leave the party they are welcome to go, but they should sit as an independent until the next election or relinquish their seat.

Agreed, RCS. They sit as an independent until a by-election is called. How can someone join a party then become a candidate, get elected and then decide - Oops! I guess I don't really agree with this party's platform after all? I could actually understand it a bit coming from some of the newly elected NDP members in Quebec as many of them were almost snatched off the street to run, but the Libs and the Cons - no way. Good post, RCS.

 

[wulfie68]

Or what if the Leader of the party just up and kicks you out without an explanation and tells the RCMP to investigate you for some unspecified activities?

If the leader expels you from caucus, then you are free to look at other options, including joining another party but thats not the same as quitting and joining someone else.

And no Machjo, I don't think a religiou conversion has any bearing in this, unless it is accompanied by a radical shift in values espoused by a candidate.

 

[JLM]

If the leader expels you from caucus, then you are free to look at other options, including joining another party but thats not the same as quitting and joining someone else.

And no Machjo, I don't think a religiou conversion has any bearing in this, unless it is accompanied by a radical shift in values espoused by a candidate.

Agreed BUT only with endorsement from the electorate! :smile:

 

[Machjo]

What about freedom of association? In the end, as long as the candidate is free to vote as per his conscience, then what does it matter what party he's a member of.

 

[wulfie68]

What about freedom of association? In the end, as long as the candidate is free to vote as per his conscience, then what does it matter what party he's a member of.

You're starting to confuse the basic freedoms of an individual with the restrictions that a person representing others voluntarily takes on when they choose to run for and hold office. When you run, the social contract with your electorate is (or is supposed to be) that you will represent your constituents and their interests to the best of your ability and judgement. When a person takes on that responisbility, they are acknowledging that their own wishes are secondary to those they represent (or again at least theoretically... in reality it usually plays out differently but the theory and hope that it will be followed is how we vote). Its like a soldier swearing to follow lawful orders or a police officer or judge vowing to uphold the law, thats why we swear in elected bodies, as a reminder of the trust that is placed in them.

 

[Machjo]

You're starting to confuse the basic freedoms of an individual with the restrictions that a person representing others voluntarily takes on when they choose to run for and hold office. When you run, the social contract with your electorate...

... Exactly, with your electorate, not with your party.

As long as you vote your conscience and not party line, then your party membership becomes irrelevant. Party membership is relevant only in a partisan electoral system. The bill being proposed in the OP makes sense only in a PR system, not one where you vote for a candidate under a plurality system.

If this MP really wants the Bill to pass, then first he should present a bill to change to a PR electoral system, then within that context this bill would make sense. Until then, as long as we're voting candidate in an electoral system where we are in fact voting candidate and not party, then the candidate has no obligation whatsoever to the party on behalf of his constituents.

 

[The Old Medic]

It will never become a rule. He can bleat to his hearts content about this, but let one Conservative decide to join the NDP, and they WILL allow it to happen,.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Or what if the Leader of the party just up and kicks you out without an explanation and tells the RCMP to investigate you for some unspecified activities?

I love this.

Up until the point Harper punted the Diva of PEI the opposition was calling for her head on a stick.

Funny how attitudes change.

I can dig up some Iggy footage if you like, but you know I'm right.

And by the way, this isn't about Conservatism or Liberalism its about the voter of which we both are and rightly so we should be considered before these ass bags abandon our vote to pursue their own interests.

 

[Nuggler]

Hey, it's NOT a problem!!

How many MP's have crossed the floor in the last 4 yrs.???

NDP want a law to a problem that does not exist!!

Typical NDP!

Yes! Like harsher sentences for "unreported crime".....(Jockwell Stay)...............Get a fukkin life.


We should make them all WASH the floors.

 

[Bar Sinister]

well, with our current system, we claim to elect the MP, not the party, so the MP can darned well do whatever he likes, then be held accountable at the polls the next time he seeks re-election. It works for some of them, and doesn't for others.

I am not a fan of whipped votes. If we didn't have whipped votes, then we wouldn't have a reduced need for a person to cross the floor, so I would have no problems putting a stop to both practises at the same time.

Precisely. If Canadians really want MPs to vote their conscience then MPs must have the freedom to stand on their principles and defy their own party; even to the extent of joining a different party. After all, political parties are artificial constructs, not a sacred part of the system.

 

[Nuggler]

Like I said, it's not a problem and typical of small people to get all wrapped up in minior issues that have no consquences.

This will never become law anytime soon and anybody who thinks it should does not understand politics let alone how our country operates !!

What's a "minior" issue??

 

[Machjo]

My position on this issue is simple, if you don't like what your MP is doing or has done,,,,, don't vote him in on the next election.
You are the employer, you have the ultimate decision. It is your responsibility send all MP a strong message that it is you who they work for.

Let me give you another example.
Re the asbestos situation;
The NDP candidate went to these miners and told them, vote for me and I'll represent you in Ottawa. Now this NDP MP got elected.
Layton now wants these mines shut down and the workers put on the poggy..
He (Layton) never told these miners, before they voted, that NDP would throw them out of work.

Now, this NDP MP is going back to these miners and telling them, thanks for voting for me, now I'm going to close your mine and throw you out of work.

If this MP had an once of decency, he would cross the floor to the Cons who are protecting the miners jobs, and tell Layton to go to hell. And he can do this, but if this was law that he couldn't, then Layton would excercise his dictatorial powers.

Or rather than join the Conservative Party, better to just stand as an independent. That way he could even better represent his constituents than to be held by the nuts by some nut... er, I mean party.

 

[Durry]

Or rather than join the Conservative Party, better to just stand as an independent. That way he could even better represent his constituents than to be held by the nuts by some nut... er, I mean party.

Yes, he could go as an independent, the only thing as an independent he would have almost zero influence on structuring new laws or policies for the country.
But in any case, I think it's just a farce for him to support the NDP when they promised to represent them during the election campaign!!