[Newsbot]

Title: NDP MPs disciplined for long-gun registry vote
Category: Political
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2012-02-20 12:43:27
Canadian

[Curtman]

All the complaining about the lack of free votes by the Harperites doesn't mean so much anymore. I don't agree with the decision to scrap it either, but it's done. To discipline their MP's for voting how their constituents wanted makes them no better than the control-crazy cons.

[Regina]

Looks like two weasles left without their spines.

Dennis Bevington, the NDP member for the Western Arctic in the Northwest Territories, abstained from voting and Nathan Cullen, who is a candidate for the NDP leadership, left the house before the vote.

[martin14]

So many positive comments for the MPs, the CBC closed comments..


Good on these 2 for supporting their ridings.


Only shows the Dippers are just as power hungry as anyone else.

[herbie]

No Regina, Cullen left because he'd either have to go against his caucus or his constituents. Neither is an option for someone making a leadership run.
That's why he's a successful politician and we're not.

[FieryVulpine]

Curtman Curtman:

All the complaining about the lack of free votes by the Harperites doesn't mean so much anymore. I don't agree with the decision to scrap it either, but it's done. To discipline their MP's for voting how their constituents wanted makes them no better than the control-crazy cons.

From what I've observed the Liberals and NDP never had any moral high ground to take. Each party vies for control of parliament and seldom give the constituents who voted for them a second thought. Hell, the raison d'tere for the LGR was to pander to certain voters in the first place.

Wow. Am I that cynical?

[Regina]

Exactly.......

[PublicAnimalNo9]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

Curtman Curtman:

All the complaining about the lack of free votes by the Harperites doesn't mean so much anymore. I don't agree with the decision to scrap it either, but it's done. To discipline their MP's for voting how their constituents wanted makes them no better than the control-crazy cons.

From what I've observed the Liberals and NDP never had any moral high ground to take. Each party vies for control of parliament and seldom give the constituents who voted for them a second thought. Hell, the raison d'tere for the LGR was to pander to certain voters in the first place.

Wow. Am I that cynical?

Never mistake truth, no matter how harsh, for cynicsm

[bootlegga]

No big surprise really - in the Parliamentary system the votes are whipped and MPs are supposed to vote as the party tells them to - otherwise the government/opposition can't function properly because their are more two parties.

If we used a republican system like the US, then everyone would vote however they wanted (or in the US model, how the lobbyists tell them to), which kind of works in a two party system.

[gonavy47]

Gee, I guess some people can hug trees AND carry a gun.

[Gunnair]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Gee, I guess some people can hug trees AND carry a gun.

Yup, we can.

[Regina]

Personally I think Hyer is a goof. I sat beside him on a flight from Toronto a few years ago and watched him read the paper and tear out some of the articles. After ripping out the stories he wanted, he just tossed the rest shredded on the floor of the plane and left it there. Stomped all over it while deplaning like it wasn't even there. Granted it was Air Canada.........but really??

Having said that............I totally respect him for having the courage to go with the people that elected him. Rafferty too.

[Bruce_E_T]

bootlegga bootlegga:

No big surprise really - in the Parliamentary system the votes are whipped and MPs are supposed to vote as the party tells them to - otherwise the government/opposition can't function properly because their are more two parties.

If we used a republican system like the US, then everyone would vote however they wanted (or in the US model, how the lobbyists tell them to), which kind of works in a two party system.

Why can't it work with more than two parties? You are giving a representative freedom to choose independently of his party if he/she sees cause to. This weakens the hold the parties have on their members but is actually more democratic. I don't see how whether you have a two party or multi-party system makes any essential difference.

[bootlegga]

Bruce_E_T Bruce_E_T:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No big surprise really - in the Parliamentary system the votes are whipped and MPs are supposed to vote as the party tells them to - otherwise the government/opposition can't function properly because their are more two parties.

If we used a republican system like the US, then everyone would vote however they wanted (or in the US model, how the lobbyists tell them to), which kind of works in a two party system.

Why can't it work with more than two parties? You are giving a representative freedom to choose independently of his party if he/she sees cause to. This weakens the hold the parties have on their members but is actually more democratic. I don't see how whether you have a two party or multi-party system makes any essential difference.

Oh I agree it is more democratic, but if MPs vote their conscience, governments in parliamentary systems may not be able to operate effectively.

A quick look south of the border shows how Democrats and Republicans vote for the same bills at times, while at the same time other Democrats and Republicans votte against it. That opens up the possibility of weakening the Presidency when it happens.

Up here, if it happened, you'd have near anarchy at the federal level, because a majority would lose all meaning. That's because MPs could vote whichever way they felt like, negating said majority. Because we do NOT elect a Prime Minister separately, the PM here could wind up having his/her iniatitives stopped (as happen in the US frequently), weakening the PMO significantly. Essentially, the PM would drop to just being another MP. And that could open up the possibility of total gridlock in our government, as no government would ever be assured of passing key legislation.

It would also weaken the status of parties in general, as parties could promise anything, but lack the ability once elected to actually pass them (although that might not be that bad an idea).