Whom shuld your MP serve first?

[Machjo]

Same as the rest of the NDP. Nothing but whine.

Are other parties any different?

I used to live in a Conservative riding, and that MP was just as bad.

 

[L Gilbert]

Humankind, ultimately. Any human should be serving to better humankind.

 

[taxslave]

Are other parties any different?

I used to live in a Conservative riding, and that MP was just as bad.

I live in a conservative riding as well. That is why I voted Pirate. Although when I live in the North Island I voted conservative because I've known the MP for years and he worked for a living just like the rest of us. Not a bad guy despite of being a bornagain.

 

[darkbeaver]

- DB ... GH aka Georgeous George actually did a good job as the Trade and Commerce minister under Diefenbaker and the Veterans Affairs minister under Mulroney but he was always a womanizer and too ambitious by half wanting to knife the leader so as to become PM himself. Still, it was hard not to like George and he along with Trudeau's Veterans Affairs minister Dan MacDonald were the two most popular VA ministers in the yes of actual veterans because they had both been in real armed conflict during WWII and cared about and fought for honour and benefits for veterans and they also both had a very down to earth manner with veterans of all ranks.

- I met Hees socially a couple of times but I actually got to know and like MacDonald back in the summer of 1976. That was the summer just before my 20 month stint in Nigeria and so I rented an apartment for the summer in a downtown apartment hotel (The Ambassador) whose most famous occupants at the time were minister MacDonald and the research offices of the Ledain (sic) Commission which was set up to study the medical and non-medicaal uses of marijuana.

- Since Dan and my mother were both from PEI and since I had been in the armed forces after university, and since Dan was such an engaging and down to earth guy who was a real veteran of combat (his missing leg on on side and missing arm on the other gave him away), we got along well as neighbours.

- I still remember one pleasant summer night sitting and chatting with Dan on the roofgarden of the building while downing a pint or two. Maybe ten feet from where we sat was the bottom half of a wooden barrel and planted in that barrel were unmistakenly a number of marijuana plants. Tongue in cheek, I chided MacDonald that as a minister of the crown he was duty bound to to take down the offending plants, confisticate them as evidence, and lead the search to find and charge the growers (obviously research staffers at the Ledain Commission).

- Dan responded, "Hey, its not my department, I'm not the police and I'm a live and let live kind of guy so I really don;t give a ****."

- I always liked Dan and hope he is enjoying himself in that big roofgarden in the sky.

I forget to much that there are good people in the political mix, or at least there were, I sincerely hope that is still the case because I fell strongly that they will be needed soon like this country has never needed them before.

 

[tay]

Good thing it was CTV and not the CBC or there would be a lot of bias screaming.................




Heritage Minister Shelly Glover is under fire from opposition MPs over a fundraising event where members of Winnipeg's art and culture community were asked to donate money to the cabinet minister -- donations that may have breached federal conflict-of-interest rules.
...
CTV News was then asked to leave the house by the homeowner when the reporter asked Glover why she was taking money from people who depend on her department for funding.

According to federal conflict-of-interest rules, cabinet ministers are forbidden to solicit or accept funds from a person or organization who has lobbied or is likely to lobby the public officer holder of the officer or department. The rules go on to say that a minister must avoid situations where issues of preferential treatment of other conflicts could arise.



Ralph Goodale asks ethics commissioner to probe federal Heritage Minister Shelly Glover's fundraiser | CTV News

 

[Blackleaf]

They should serve their constituents AND their nation.

Because if no MP served their country then the government itself wouldn't be serving its country, and that'd be just daft.

 

[petros]

Table 8.

 

[Simple Man]

Same as the rest of the NDP. Nothing but whine.

Whine (NDP) & Cheese (Cons) Party (Libs)......couldn't think of anything for greens.

 

[petros]

I live in a conservative riding as well. That is why I voted Pirate. Although when I live in the North Island I voted conservative because I've known the MP for years and he worked for a living just like the rest of us. Not a bad guy despite of being a bornagain.

Conservative or Reform?

 

[taxslave]

Good thing it was CTV and not the CBC or there would be a lot of bias screaming.................




Heritage Minister Shelly Glover is under fire from opposition MPs over a fundraising event where members of Winnipeg's art and culture community were asked to donate money to the cabinet minister -- donations that may have breached federal conflict-of-interest rules.
...
CTV News was then asked to leave the house by the homeowner when the reporter asked Glover why she was taking money from people who depend on her department for funding.

According to federal conflict-of-interest rules, cabinet ministers are forbidden to solicit or accept funds from a person or organization who has lobbied or is likely to lobby the public officer holder of the officer or department. The rules go on to say that a minister must avoid situations where issues of preferential treatment of other conflicts could arise.



Ralph Goodale asks ethics commissioner to probe federal Heritage Minister Shelly Glover's fundraiser | CTV News

I can see where that one could get sticky.

Conservative or Reform?

Mater of opinion. Reform would be closer although I am not sure if he ran as reform or not. That would be before I moved into this riding.

 

[damngrumpy]

Is this a wish or reality? The first duty of an MP by the law of the land is to
serve the nation or in this case the Queen. That is what the oath is about.
Secondly the constituents, as long as the actions are in the interests of the
country. That is the law of the land. For some time now we as voters do not
understand that fact and we also seem to lack the skills to elect people who
also understand it.
If we did we would listen to politicians with a critical ear. There is a hell of a
difference between promises and actions. They will promise but can they in
fact carry out their word in government or the opposition? We are the deciding
factor when it comes to electing them. In my view regardless of party we are
worse than the politicians in our expectations.

 

[WLDB]

What if the constituents were demanding you support something that is in conflict with the
constitution of the country.

Then the MP should work towards changing the constitution. It isnt written in stone, untouchable or infallible. Very difficult to change but not impossible. There are some changes to it I'd like to see and I know there are a number of people here who would also like to see some changes.

If we did we would listen to politicians with a critical ear. There is a hell of a
difference between promises and actions. They will promise but can they in
fact carry out their word in government or the opposition? We are the deciding
factor when it comes to electing them. In my view regardless of party we are
worse than the politicians in our expectations.

Agreed. Unfortunately I doubt the majority of voters will be that critical.

 

[NancyDL]

I'd be perfectly ok with that. I'd actually like to see a government where there are multiple elected from a given area and at any given issue, they hold the votes of a certain proportion of the electorate. People are free to change who holds their vote for any given issue.

It has a number of benefits (you might not see them all as benefits). First, the situation would be expensive to implement at first, but if it was implemented as a chip based SIN card + card reader generating a one time pass, it would be more secure than the current electoral system and we wouldn't need Muslims to unveil themselves. Future elections would be cheaper, since it is a once off cost. Elections could happen continuously because I could just log onto a webpage and change my vote. There would be a reward for staying educated about the electoral process: you could immediately change your vote to support the side of the issue you believe to be best. You wouldn't have to sacrifice issues, yes I agree with the liberals on gay marriage, the conservatives on senate reform, the Bloc Quebecois on mandatory minimums, the conservatives on the gun registry, the NDP on the digital locks wording in the recent copyright bill, so on. Voting would be extremely easy, so maybe voter turnout would be higher.

We have the technology. The days when it was unfeasible for everyone to cast their vote on every issue are gone. Why do we need representative government at all when direct democracy is so easily achievable?

Imo, that kind of system is way to easy to scam.