Tories welcome liberal!

Well, well. It didn’t take long for Stephen Harper to show us how full of shit he is.

No sooner had Harper taken the oath of Prime Minister than he welcomes Liberal MP David Emerson into his party and gives him a cabinet post, no less!

Harper blasted the Liberals and Belinda Stronach when she crossed over and took a cabinet post but, somehow, it’s okay for his party to do it now that they’re in power. Yeah, way to impose some proper ethics into government like you promised, Stephen.
Imagine how those Tories, would worked hard these past few years and during the election, must feel, being passed on for a cabinet position for a turncoat Liberal?
And Emerson is the guy who said during the election, and I quote:
“It’s now not just, ‘Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?’ It’s people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?”
“And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I’ve been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn’t come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election.”

This is not to mention how betrayed I would feel if I was a constituent in Emerson’s Vancouver-Kingsway riding, where the Conservatives finished a distant third, behind the NDP!

This should not be allowed. People vote, mostly, for a party. To switch parties just weeks after an election is gross misrepresentation and a breaking of the public trust.

So do you still think “so far, so good,” Fingahz? Even you can’t spin this one positively.

Be careful making broad generalizations like that without proof to back it up. When I vote, it’s for the individual I’m voting for and NOT the party.

Mike

This actually bothers me less than the fact that he just appointed some un-elected dude to the Senate so that he could be a cabinet minister.

Didn’t he specifically say that someone who hasn’t been elected should not be allowed to sit in parliament?

{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?


{o.o}
|)_(|
-"-"-
YA RLY


{o,o}
(__(|
-"-"-
NO WAI!

Payback’s a bitch, huh??

Empty. As expected. 8)

[quote=“Eso”]This actually bothers me less than the fact that he just appointed some un-elected dude to the Senate so that he could be a cabinet minister.

Didn’t he specifically say that someone who hasn’t been elected should not be allowed to sit in parliament?[/quote]

Oh, yeah. Another broken promise - and he hasn’t been PM for a full day yet!

[quote=“Eso”]This actually bothers me less than the fact that he just appointed some un-elected dude to the Senate so that he could be a cabinet minister.

Didn’t he specifically say that someone who hasn’t been elected should not be allowed to sit in parliament?[/quote]

Maybe he wants to create a ruling class of appointed people just like Mr. Bush does in the states ( aren’t most of the Hawks appointed people?).

But NDP supporters must be happy: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/topics/news/story.html?id=5a821c82-948f-4a65-8351-d877def64f24I

I think that it would be interesting to see statistics about who votes for the party and who votes for the person. Like Crazymike, I vote for the person first but I will say that the party has influenced me in the past.

poolboy wrote:

Ok…so you want more from me.

I have to be honest and say that I am both disappointed and excited that Emerson has jumped ship from his own party and joined the Conservatives.

Big Thumb, poolboy and Crazy Mike have already stated their position on who they vote for, the person or the party. Myself, I vote for the party. If you are voting for the person then you are not really giving the party platform a chance. I said several times before that if I was voting for the nice guy I would have voted for Cullen, which I didn’t. Look at all of the debating that went on in here before the election. People were paying close attention to the issues and what was important to them. I really think that most people vote for the party. Party platforms are federally based and although occassionally local issues come up like the Ridley Terminals deal most of the campaigning revolves around federal issues. I also think that people vote for the party in their own riding because of who they want to see as Prime Minister. This is why I feel that David Emerson has let down his constituents. Over 40% of the votes in Vancouver-Kingsway went to the Liberal candidate, Mr. Emerson. He was re-elected while flying the Liberal flag and that is what his constituents asked for. He has betrayed them in my mind.

Having said that I am excited that he has joined the governing party. He is a man who is from Northern BC, knows our issues and has paid careful attention to our port and it’s development.

It seems that there may have been some dissension in the Liberal ranks. Emerson wanted his government to stop this deal with Fortune Minerals. He and Harper were already on the same page about a few things a while ago. Here are a couple of quotes that I found of Emerson’s that I found similar to Harper’s views on the softwood lumber issues with the US.

Again, Mr. Emerson said this during the election:

“It’s now not just, ‘Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?’ It’s people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?”
“And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I’ve been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn’t come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election.”

Fingahz, virtually your sole point against Cullen was his flip-flop on the gun registry, that it showed a lack of intregrity, yet it doesn’t bother you with Emerson, as long as some of his views are in line with yours? You’re willing to trade Emerson’s shortfallings for what you perceive as his pluses.

Hmm. Sounds like what Cullen did in supporting the gun registry . . .

[quote=“poolboy”]Again, Mr. Emerson said this during the election:

“It’s now not just, ‘Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?’ It’s people now having to decide, 'Can we really live with what Stephen Harper will deliver?”
“And I have to tell you, I have never seen a right-wing government in all of my life, and I’ve been in government or near government for 32 years, I have never seen a Conservative government that didn’t come in, in the first year or two and slash social programs, raise taxes and create an awful lot of havoc that they did not disclose before the election.”

Fingahz, virtually your sole point against Cullen was his flip-flop on the gun registry, that it showed a lack of intregrity, yet it doesn’t bother you with Emerson, as long as some of his views are in line with yours? You’re willing to trade Emerson’s shortfallings for what you perceive as his pluses.

Hmm. Sounds like what Cullen did in supporting the gun registry . . .[/quote]

Is there an echo in here?? Didnt you just say most of that in your first post?? Doesn’t bother me?? Did you even read my post?? Let me restate something…

You are condemning me for my non-support of Cullen’s and the NDP’s waste of $70 but yet say that it doesnt bother me with Emerson?? I don’t support what Emerson did but I am looking at the bright side of a dim situation. These two issues, Cullens flip-flop and Emersons jump to the Conservatives have one very distinct difference. One was a waste of $70 million while the other has positives written all over it for our area. I am appalled at the lack of integrity that these politicians seem to have.

Maybe there should be electoral reform. If votes were made for the party rather than the candidate then they maybe they would have to finish their term with the party that they were elcted under. Don’t mis-construe what I am trying to say. I don’t like it but I do see a benefit for our long abused and neglected region.

[quote=“fingahz”]
If you are voting for the person then you are not really giving the party platform a chance. I said several times before that if I was voting for the nice guy I would have voted for Cullen, which I didn’t. Look at all of the debating that went on in here before the election. People were paying close attention to the issues and what was important to them. I really think that most people vote for the party. Party platforms are federally based and although occassionally local issues come up like the Ridley Terminals deal most of the campaigning revolves around federal issues. I also think that people vote for the party in their own riding because of who they want to see as Prime Minister. [/quote]

I think that you’re mostly right, most people are voting for the party. It is not necessarily a bad thing but there are disappointing events that may happen ( Bill Belsey!)
However, when you are voting for a person, generally you agree more with his/her political position than the other candidates. So indirectly, you are voting for the party that is closer to your own political view. What you’re saying is that people do the other thing around, vote for party first. The danger lies in that people get swept up by polls and media soundbites and forget to really look into the political platform of the party. In other words, people do what you suggested before Jan 23: vote for the party that will win!
Look at it this way, if a party chooses a candidate that you can’t stand for any reason but you like the party’s plateform, you would vote for him anyway but I wouldn’t for sure.
At least, if you vote for the person, you try to know the candidates better and try to figure out what political view they hold.

BigThumb wrote:

Just look at the three terms before Cullen was elected. Mike Scott was elected for two terms and Andy Burton one. Neither is a particularly nice guy and were not near as popular of a person as Cullen but they were elected based on the party that they represented.

True enough fingahz. But did they do a better job representing all of the North Coast than Cullen?

Now fingahz, lets talk about flip-flops. Harper, as the PC leader, must have been aware of Bill C-408 put forward by one of his MPs. So he wanted to put some limits to MPs crossing the floor and that’s one of the first thing he allowed. Sounds like a flip-flop to me.

But wait, there’s a second flip-flop today. Harper wants an elected senate (http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1738/35233) but one of the first thing he did, to serve his own purpose, is to name someone to the senate. On top of that, this someone is an organizer:

From: http://tinyurl.com/df9ke
So talk about putting your friends first. Sounds like the same kind of things the PC was saying about the Liberals. Could that be a third flip-flop in one day?

Stop calling them PCs, they’re not PCs.

This is the Reform Party. Remember the party that said “we don’t think MPs should get fat pensions! We don’t think MPs should get clothing allowances! We don’t think the leader of the opposition should have an official residence, paid by taxpayers!” All these were official election platforms and positions, yet as soon as they were elected, they conveniently changed their minds.

Now they say they want an elected senate, and that it should represent the regions equally. A lot of people (including my brother in Newfoundland) voted for them for this platform alone.

So when a senator from Newfoundland dies, the Reform Party will do the Alberta thing and hold a quick election in Newfoundland and put the winner in the senate, right?

Nope, they were only kidding about Senate Reform too. Fooled you! Hahaha! We’re just going to appoint party hacks to the senate, no voting for you, Canada!

Which brings me to the conclusion that I’ve had about the Reform Party and “Western Alienation” for about 10 years now:

“Western Alienation” means Reform Party people who don’t like democracy.

Sure its democracy. About as exclusive a democracy as you can get.
“If you leave out all those who disagree, the majority of the rest have decided…”

Emerson has shown himself to be an incredibly opportunistic, unethical person, the epitome of what Harper accused Liberals of being.
Harper’s shown himself to be as two-faced as Mulroney on his very first day.
And all those radio callers to CBC this afternoon moaning about 'Belinda did it", ‘Churchill did it’ miss the point that you usually cross the floor after a major disagreement on party policy or personality. Not ten minutes after you’re elected.

That quote does not make any sense. Western alientaion is all about democracy. Western Canada has long been neglected by Ontario. I love democracy and I want it to improve. I love my home and I want my region to prosper. Finally things are turning around with the Pacific Gateway Initiative and I finally see hope that Ottawa is paying attention to Western Canada and the role that it can play in making Canada’s economy stronger. You seem to be stuck in the dark ages with this insistence on calling the Conservatives “The Reform Party”. Sure there are some hold overs from that era of Canadian politics but the party is no more Reform than they are Progressive Conservative.

I agree with what all of you are saying about the Emerson bolt to the Conservatives. I am somewhat disappointed with Harper as well. There is a pattern that elected governments pull off all of their shitty moves right after being elected into office. This gives them the rest of their term to kiss and make up with voters. I wonder what will be next??

That is not the issue but I have to say that Cullen has represented this riding well. I’m just not a fan of the NDP at all. Other than the $70 million thingy that I have spoken about before I think he did a great job. He’s just associated with the wrong party for me.

[quote=“fingahz”]

That quote does not make any sense. Western alientaion is all about democracy. Western Canada has long been neglected by Ontario. I love democracy and I want it to improve. [/quote]

The people who spout “Western Alienation” generally don’t believe in “one person, one vote.” Maybe not outright, but that’s the assumption. Canada has 30 million people, and for some reason, the 3 or 4 million in Alberta think that it’s not fair that the 15 million in Ontario and Quebec can out-vote them.

‘Western Alienation’ is a crap term like the one today about ‘liberal media’.
We conned a railway out of Ontario to join. The prairies were literally colonized by Canada. When I was a kid my cousins in Alberta were poor cousins compared to BCers, their oil was just beginning to be of value.
The West wasn’t alienated under Diefenbaker, Joe Clark, or Mulroney. Only when the Libs held power and the “West” voted Tory did the rednecks coin the idea.
I had Tommy Douglas (NDP), Mark Raines (Lib), Waddell (NDP), Cullen (NDP) as MPs and never felt alienated. Did you feel alienated when Campagnola was in?
The only time I didn’t get any representaton was when my riding elected blockheads like Harris who wasn’t going to cooperate in any way shape or form, but expected to see rewards for that.
Albertans should remember that they got carried to get where they are now, and get little sympathy when the least taxed, most affleunt people in Canada gripe about getting a ‘raw deal’.

The last time I looked B.C. and Alberta - especially Alberta - were doing quite well, much better than the maritime provinces. AND, it was the Liberal government, with much prodding from Nathan Cullen (which the Liberals acknowledged), that approved our port project and have promoted it quite enthusiastically.

Democracy, re: western alienization, is a tricky thing. On the one hand, democracy is the will of the majority and, thus, Ontario dictates because they have the most people. It’s the same here in B.C., where the north is “alienated” because we have so few votes. Is that fair? And what of minority people, whether it be by race or sexual orientation, who have often been oppressed in democratic societies?

What was that Churchill said? “Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others.”