Most vote for the best of the worst. An Independant MP gets little for the Riding.
Do you follow the UK Parliament. Much different than our Commons. Real debate and backbenchers often vote against Party Bills. More free votes.
Brent Rathgeber Leaves Conservative Caucus
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
Most vote for the best of the worst. An Independant MP gets little for the Riding.
Do you follow the UK Parliament. Much different than our Commons. Real debate and backbenchers often vote against Party Bills. More free votes.
It seems to me that end game has started for Harper's 'Conservtives'. Maybe some semblance of the old PCs will come back... real nationalists and economic dirigists.. and real social conservatives as well.. rather than the social and economic libertarians of the Reform party that have hijacked the party and imposed the term 'Conservative' on a platform that is anything but.
I totally agree. Unfortunately the electorate at large doesnt. Independents rarely win. It happens, just not often.
Yeah Id love to see that here. It'd be a huge improvement.
Another good song for the coming campaign.
The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again 1985 - YouTube
That is an excellent article.
It's sad, because there is value in the conservative perspective and there needs to be balance in the political spectrum in Canada, we need the right as much as we need the center and the left, it gives all Canadians the opportunity to express their views.
You can have conservative representation in Parliament, and even majority conservative representation, without any party brand.
Supposing for the sake of argument that all CPC MPs suddenly decided to sit as independents, chances are they'd still tend to vote conservativesly and might even support an independent cabinet, essentially forming a kind of loose conservative coalition. The advantage though would be much more freedom of MPs, thus keeping the government in check.
Supposing for the sake of argument that all CPC MPs suddenly decided to sit as independents, chances are they'd still tend to vote conservativesly and might even support an independent cabinet, essentially forming a kind of loose conservative coalition. The advantage though would be much more freedom of MPs, thus keeping the government in check.
Why? Because the dude spending gobs of money campaigning is everywhere (figuratively) and in your face more than the dude who can't afford to be. Besides that, they can "buy" a lot of votes, afford high-powered marketers (who have a shkazillion sneaky tactics in their toolbins) and speech-writers. There are probably a few more tricks that moneyed-campaigners have but that should give you an idea. So those methods that cost lots of money are also why most voters are "trained seals".
And now from Rex.
What’s this? A politician with a backbone? | Full Comment | National Post
The resignation of Brent Rathgeber from the Tory caucus presents a rare sight: a politician who cares more about his principles than his personal advancement within Parliament’s hierarchy.
But this phenomenon is not unprecedented. In this regard, let me supply two noteworthy examples from my native province.
A long while ago, in the then-new province of Newfoundland, there was a great uproar when a highly esteemed, salt-of-the-earth minister in Joey Smallwood’s post-Confederation cabinet suddenly up and resigned. His name, unknown to many Canadians outside Newfoundland, but both revered and well known at home, was Ted Russell.
Russell was a man of modest means and strong conscience. He thought Smallwood was doing things he ought not to have been doing, that Smallwood was drifting toward a form of megalomania. His Cabinet was an applause choir. Russell had tried to tame the new Premier’s ego. But he failed, and seeing that he could not change what he thought was wrong, he resigned.
Russell knew that he was incurring the inevitable and sleepless wrath of Joey, and even courting financial ruin. (Smallwood was known to pursue those who crossed him with vigor and venom, whether they stayed in politics or not.) But Russell did the honorable thing anyway. He stepped down, suffered something very close to persecution, and was abandoned by his Liberal friends (or pseudo-friends as they turned out to be). His example remains a beacon in the practice of Newfoundland politics to this day.
Flash forward some 20 years, and there is another Newfoundland figure, this one known well to Canadians everywhere, who jumped headfirst into another contest with Smallwood, during the wrathful sunset of the tireless Premier’s career.
As his power diminished, Smallwood became more vicious and wild. Those who opposed him were seen as “enemies.” But John Crosbie, who ran against Smallwood for control of his party in 1969, had courage and independence of mind. He took all that the famous and ferocious Smallwood temper could hurl at him, his family, his friends and business.
I thought of both Russell and Crosbie as I watched this week’s saga of Brent Rathgeber, who has left the national Conservative caucus to sit as an Independent. Mr. Rathgeber does so to protest the “concentration of power” in the PMO, and the treatment of individual MPs as, in his words, “trained seals.”
Parliament could use more people who resist the high hand of their respective party whips. The Conservative party itself would be in better shape if more MPs simply told the “brains” in the PMO and the wizards who do strategy to just go away.
This Prime Minister needs a bit of sense shouted at him. A few more MPs with backbones, and no lust for the perqs of ministerial office, would be a godsend. The same goes for other parties. (The Liberals, for instance, need someone to shout at Justin Trudeau when he is at his most vaporously platitudinous.)
No matter what one’s party affiliation, Rathberger supplies a fine role model in this regard. Like Russell and Crosbie, he refused to be intimidated, refused to elevate his own ambition above his actual role as representative. Canada needs more politicians like him.
Yep- Multiple versions on that fund from various Cons. Testing the waters to see what the public will swallow.
Stephen Harper will have difficulty winning back support | Full Comment | National Post
Finally and perhaps most important, there’s the retooling of the PM himself. All Ottawa now breathlessly awaits the personal re-engagement of Stephen Harper. No one expects to see him grooving and jiving, Michael Ignatieff-style, in a summer street dance. But there is an expectation that, in addition to grilling sausages at the Calgary Stampede, Harper will warm up a little, and begin speaking directly to Canadians about his vision of the country. The ideal launch pad would be the Conservative policy convention in Calgary, June 27 to 29. As has often been pointed out, by me among others, Stephen Harper can be a very persuasive speaker. He doesn’t need to go all Justin Trudeau: He just needs to speak, now and then.
Well, yes. This is all plausible. But here’s some cold water.
The shuffle-as-regeneration scenario presupposes that elevating figures such as Rempel, Leitch, Bergen, and other perceived up-and-comers such as Chris Alexander and Pierre Poilievre, will materially renew the government’s image and brand. Except that these folks have already been front and centre, for more than a year. When Defence Minister Peter MacKay was in trouble last December over the F-35 debacle, it was Alexander who ran point. Whether in the House of Commons or on the weekend news shows, it’s the Rempels and Leitches who often carry the can. Unless the PM digs much deeper into his caucus than he’s currently expected to, in other words, the brand effect of a shuffle will be limited.
Next, while we’re on the subject of caucus: Before the “backbench spring” transformed social-conservative MPs such as Woodworth, Warawa and Rathgeber into warriors for free speech and accountability, they were mainly considered an impediment to Conservative electoral hopes. To be precise: The more these MPs speak up about their deeply-held beliefs, the harder it is for Harper to persuade Ontario and British Columbia swing voters — the key to the 2015 election — that they can safely re-elect the Conservatives, without fear of a social-conservative legislative revival. The original purpose of talking points is to prevent mistakes. It will take just one reactionary “bozo eruption” of the kind that torpedoed Wildrose in last year’s Alberta election, to bring caucus glasnost crashing down.
Last and most important, is the ticklish problem of Harper himself. According to party insiders he has been, since the Duffy-Wright scandal broke in mid-May, serving as his own chief strategist and communications advisor. That isn’t going so well. Nearly a month in, very simple questions about the affair (Where is the cheque? Can it be produced?) remain unanswered.
Given the stakes, and the natural uncertainty about whether Harper even intended to run again, before the Duffy affair, the weeks of bungling, deflection and obfuscation are strange and inexplicable. They begin to make sense, perhaps, if there are more and worse revelations still to emerge, which the PMO has been frantically trying to tamp down, till the summer break. Either way, Harper’s personal credibility has taken a massive broadside — and one that shows few signs of being temporary.
This all may be more than tweaking, reshaping or rebooting can address, in other words. It may require something more fundamental, such as change at the top.
Last edited:
I thought you forgot the link.
So in your opinion which paper is doing an evenhanded job on all Harper's troubles - in depth and all - G&M, CBC, NP and I will not throw in the TO Star.
The system, by design, encourages and promotes sycophancy. Prove yourself to be a loyal team player and your career prospects brighten
Confessions of a former trained seal
In modern Canadian party caucuses, blind loyalty is valued over constructive criticism. Such loyalty is beneficial for promoting caucus solidarity. But it has a decidedly negative effect on an individual MP’s self-esteem, and is ultimately detrimental to both democracy and to good political decision-making.
The government — i.e., the ministers and parliamentary secretaries — are bound by what is known as “two-line whips” (instructions from party leadership) during votes. But backbenchers, at least theoretically, are supposed to be allowed to vote independently on all but “three-line whips” (such as confidence votes).
The convention of cabinet solidarity requires that a minister (or parliamentary secretary) must always support the government position when voting, or in public, or resign from his or her position. No similar doctrine of caucus solidarity exists — but in recent years, an imposed one has been evolving.
more
Brent Rathgeber: From an ex-Tory MP, confessions of a former trained seal | National Post
Confessions of a former trained seal
In modern Canadian party caucuses, blind loyalty is valued over constructive criticism. Such loyalty is beneficial for promoting caucus solidarity. But it has a decidedly negative effect on an individual MP’s self-esteem, and is ultimately detrimental to both democracy and to good political decision-making.
The government — i.e., the ministers and parliamentary secretaries — are bound by what is known as “two-line whips” (instructions from party leadership) during votes. But backbenchers, at least theoretically, are supposed to be allowed to vote independently on all but “three-line whips” (such as confidence votes).
The convention of cabinet solidarity requires that a minister (or parliamentary secretary) must always support the government position when voting, or in public, or resign from his or her position. No similar doctrine of caucus solidarity exists — but in recent years, an imposed one has been evolving.
more
Brent Rathgeber: From an ex-Tory MP, confessions of a former trained seal | National Post
Yeah....party discipline in the Canadian parliamentary system is completely over the top.
In the UK, party members are only expected to vote with the party line on money bills (confidence votes) and on policies that were part of the election platform. Most votes are free, allowing the individual MPs to vote their conscience (if they have one) or the wishes of their constituents.
That, IMHO, is the way it should be.
Pierre Trudeau expressed the attitude of the Canadian executive for elected MPs when he referred to his own backbenchers as "those nobodies".