A true rouge to any party will not just get up and cross the floor. What they will do is foment discord within the caucus they were elected to until it becomes untenable for that party and kicks them out. At that point they either spend time in the wilderness of the Independant for a period of time then cross the floor. If it is the case of a big fish whoever they're crossing the floor to wants a large impact as soon as possible so in that case it would be immediate. All Stoffer is trying to do right is attempt to insulate the NDP from defections. That doesn't reallty show too much faith solidarity does it?
NDP MP Looks to ban MP floor crossing
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
I have my doubts there'll be many NDP defect to Harper. Cross-overs to the Bloc are very possible though when the honeymoon winds down....
Layton is afraid of detections all right, I agree that is why he is doing this.
Layton is a closet Dictator, he likes to come accross as a nice guy, but deep down inside he is obsessed with power and control. You got to see some of this when he formed his short lived alliance (can't think of the other word that is used here) with the Libs and BQ. During this period he was so obsessed with the thought of Power he was practically frothing at the mouth..
Politically it might be, but it depends on how firm they are in their ideology. Young people tend to be more idealistic (generally speaking), so they may be willing to sacrifice their career ambitions for the Cause.
Not surprising- politicians regardless of the party they claim allegiance to are all tarred with the same brush. He's just another clone of Harper but of course would never admit it. :smile:
Yep, either idealistic or unrealistic................oooooooooooooops I guess they are the same thing. :smile:
Oh my, Cranky, I think you are WAY off on this one........
The people of Quebec did not vote for the candidate in their riding. That much is obvious, as at least one of the candidates had never, ever even been in the riding on the night she was elected.
The people voted for the NDP.........and the candidates got in basically by default.
To switch sides would be absolute political suicide for these candidates.
Although I strongly suspect very few of them will be re-elected anyway......
That was danged funny. I think she was out partying one night and said, "**** it, I'll think I'll run for the NDP"............wish I'da done it. two terms and yer in for a lifetime of super pension, good contacts, chance for graft, employment opportunities. Woops, too old.8O
Let me get this straight. You complain about someone calling you a name, yet you call someone else a name? I find that a little confusing...
Now, let's have everyone in this thread refrain from calling other people names. Thank you.
When an MP does not vote with the party line and has the courage to actually REPRESENT the wishes of the constituents, or the MP votes according to his/her conscience which might be different from the party line, he/she is automatically expelled from the party.
If the party has such power to dictate the individual member, why should not that individual member have the power to decide where his/her loyalty might be?
If the party has such power to dictate the individual member, why should not that individual member have the power to decide where his/her loyalty might be?
By the way, Durry, have you noticed that you and I are in agreement in our opposition to the Bill presented in the OP?
Scary, isn't it, that you should be in agreement with an Eastern Canadian and therefore a socialist.
Oh my, what happened there?
Scary, isn't it, that you should be in agreement with an Eastern Canadian and therefore a socialist.
Oh my, what happened there?
If a party leader has the right to expel a duly and lawfully elected member of Parliament for not being a spineless slave and toe the party line, then the member should have the right to have the right and vote according to the wishes of the constituents and/or his/her conscience.
Or change parties if and when it obvious that the 'leader' is a jerk.
Or change parties if and when it obvious that the 'leader' is a jerk.
I agree with the above.
The member had a choice when they signed on with the alleged jerk. The Member answers to the people of his/her riding and if they are willing to give that member another mandate after they declare their intentions then so be it, but it is the people the politicians work for, not the other way around and the vote of the people should be respected.
Yes, but it depends what one conceives the role of an MP to be. It's true that an MP represents a constituency, but Parliament's rules suggest that all MPs represent all Canadians, it has never accepted that an MP has to do what constituents want. Quite apart from the problem of finding out what that is on any particular issue, it must be obvious to anyone that not everybody in a constituency thinks the same way. Every constituency, for instance, I'm sure contains a mixture of pro-lifers and pro-choicers on the abortion issue, no MP can represent both sides of that and it's unreasonable to expect it. Pick any issue, there's certain to be a divergence of opinion in any constituency, MPs can represent only one opinion: their own.
The party system does a certain amount of violence to that ideal, but I think it's a very bad idea to destroy the principle. It's a violation of the traditions and privileges of Parliament to try to bind MPs as that private members bill suggests. MPs must be free to cross the floor if they wish to, abandon a party they signed up with if they find its policies have become odious to them, but really, the reasons don't matter. It may be crass opportunism, as Belinda Stronach's defection appeared to be, or it may be a highly principled decision of conscience, and I don't think we should take that latter option away from them. They'll have to face their constituents in another vote eventually, assuming they run again, I don't even see the need for a by-election, since most MPs in our first past the post system are not elected by a majority of constituents anyway. Elections may be where the voters speak, but what they say is often garbled and incomprehensible.
Most people vote for a candidate because they support the platform they are running on and it's nothing short of crass ignorance to change platforms without getting approval from the electorate and it's quite obvious these jerks are putting their own fortunes ahead of their constituents.
This maybe a case where the old Reform policy of recall could have a place. Fine the MP crosses the floor but with recall legislation the constituancy has the ability to give approval. If enough constituants support recall a byelection is called and the member either has a new mandate from his riding or is no longer there.