David Emerson - BBBJ This!

[Buntoss]

The people in his riding went from having no voice in Ottawa to speak of to having a cabinet minister as their voice. Really - can't you see the benefit of that? Before getting in a hissy fit - wait until parliament resumes this week and we see just what the Con's are going to do and are made of. You just might be pleasantly surprised. I personally think it can only be an improvement over the cr@p we've been getting for the last 8 years.

Actually Emerson was a Liberal Cabinet Minister...

I live in his riding and a voted for him because he was a Liberal not because of who he was. If he had ran as a Conservative, I would not have voted for him!

He should have stepped down, and got a job as Deputy Minister which is not elected but appointed, and everybody would have been happy.

 

[aznboi9]

And they should all still .......
RESPECT THE COCK!!!! - Frank TJ Mackey, Magnolia

AND TAME THE CUNT!!! - Frank TJ Mackey, Magnolia

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Actually Emerson was a Liberal Cabinet Minister...

I live in his riding and a voted for him because he was a Liberal not because of who he was. If he had ran as a Conservative, I would not have voted for him!

He should have stepped down, and got a job as Deputy Minister which is not elected but appointed, and everybody would have been happy.

You should vote for the candidate not the party. That ensures the most qualified people are elected.

I doubt very much if everbody will ever be happy - its not possible.

 

[sdw]

You should vote for the candidate not the party. That ensures the most qualified people are elected.

I doubt very much if everbody will ever be happy - its not possible.

The persona that a Political Candidate presents has no connection to reality. The reason that the media can find dirt on people once they have been elected is an elected person no longer enjoys some of the protections of the Privacy Act. Before the person is elected, that information can't be accessed. Example: Criminal Record, Arrest Record, if the person is on the Abuser Database, Education and a few others.

In our parlimentary system, you elect a party, not a person. Polling done by Mustel and others demonstrates that 95% of people vote for a party or to keep a party out.

 

[smackyo]

Here's a few facts, for what they're worth...

1) If they wanted some sort of 'floor crossing legislation' like the NDP is proposing, they would need a consitutional amendment, not just a law. Good luck with that one. Of course, the NDP is famous for proposing things that they know they'll never actually have to back up since they will NEVER form the government.

2) Legally, 'party affiliations' of candidates are an add-on option and have NOTHING to do with anything at election time. They are a creation of the party mechanisms themselves and legally mean absolutely nothing. That's why you can have independant candidates. It is similar to the electoral college system in the US (sort of) in that you are voting for a candidate who SAYS he supports party X or Y but in reality he is free to do whatever he wants in the end.

3) MPs are ALWAYS free to vote however they wish. The only thing the party leaders can do is kick them out of caucus (which they can do whenever they feel like it anyway). Technically firing a cabinet minister for voting against the government is illegal and would result in a large penalty (of course, with our current hugely partisan ethics commissioner this only applies if you aren't a liberal)

4) Emmerson is doing exactly the same job in exactly the same way after the election as he did before the election. The only difference is that he's sitting in on different caucus meetings. Everyone yelling and screaming about it has no clue what they are talking about because the guy hasn't even voted on a single issue yet. How can you say someone isn't representing your views when you haven't even seen them vote on a single issue?

It reminds me of the stupidities coming out of Jack Layton's mouth lately. He's actually acting all surprised that the conservatives aren't doing what he wants any more than the liberals were.. Well Duh!!! What did he think would happen when he helped bring down the liberal government? Did he think that he would have an easier time getting Harper to agree with him? What was he smoking? No wonder he doesn't believe in long jail terms for crack heads, he must be sucking on a crack pipe a bit too often himself

well for one thing political parties as a whole have party platforms and policy that they run on. yes you are right that in the end even if an mp is in a party that he/she is free to vote how they want but usually it is that everyone in the party votes the same way because of these platforms and policy's that draw like minded people to that party.

so it is not too far a stretch for someone that isn't a conservative minded person to say that emerson does not represnt what they voted for by changing party's despite not having yet vote on an issue. vancouver/kingsway did not vote for the conservatives, they voted for the liberals. not too sure why its so hard for some of you neo western seperation if my party doesn't win conservatives to get.

i think hedy fry is fucking joke if you want my honest opinion. i would love to have a better liberal rep in my riding but that wasn't the case so i voted for the liberal party.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

The persona that a Political Candidate presents has no connection to reality. The reason that the media can find dirt on people once they have been elected is an elected person no longer enjoys some of the protections of the Privacy Act. Before the person is elected, that information can't be accessed. Example: Criminal Record, Arrest Record, if the person is on the Abuser Database, Education and a few others.

In our parlimentary system, you elect a party, not a person. Polling done by Mustel and others demonstrates that 95% of people vote for a party or to keep a party out.

You are absolutely correct SDW it is that easily manipulated 95% who virtually guarantee we always end up with this:

or this:

 

[David in Van]

Elected as a Liberal?

better than anything Emerson's come up with.

But the simple fact remains, David Emerson was not elected as the sterling individual he is in his own mind. He was elected as a Liberal. And it was as much the party plus some NDP "strategic" voters that put him in.

I would like to draw attention to what the ballot looks like. Scuse me if I am wrong on a few spelling or formatting details.

Actual Ballot:
David Emerson
Liberal

If you were voting for a party, rather than the individual, the ballot would look like this:
Liberal
David Emerson

and we would have a dictatorship by PM that would make Chretien and Martin's centralization of power look mild in comparision.

The people that are upset about Emerson defecting should be upset at themselves for not understanding how our particular system of democracy works. That said, I am willing to grant surprise as a valid emotion.

 

[Rod Steel]

I would like to draw attention to what the ballot looks like. Scuse me if I am wrong on a few spelling or formatting details.

Actual Ballot:
David Emerson
Liberal

If you were voting for a party, rather than the individual, the ballot would look like this:
Liberal
David Emerson

and we would have a dictatorship by PM that would make Chretien and Martin's centralization of power look mild in comparision.

The people that are upset about Emerson defecting should be upset at themselves for not understanding how our particular system of democracy works. That said, I am willing to grant surprise as a valid emotion.

My sentiments exactly David!!

 

[smackyo]

I would like to draw attention to what the ballot looks like. Scuse me if I am wrong on a few spelling or formatting details.

Actual Ballot:
David Emerson
Liberal

If you were voting for a party, rather than the individual, the ballot would look like this:
Liberal
David Emerson

and we would have a dictatorship by PM that would make Chretien and Martin's centralization of power look mild in comparision.

The people that are upset about Emerson defecting should be upset at themselves for not understanding how our particular system of democracy works. That said, I am willing to grant surprise as a valid emotion.

good now tell that to the ndp voters that voted liberal to keep the cons out. pretty sure they voted for the party and not the man.

 

[hardup]

As you said, USUALLY what draws people to a particular party is that they share similar ideas about policies etc...

Well, is it maybe possible that when it comes to international trade and the olympics both Harper and Emerson shared enough 'similar ideas' that it made sense for Harper to appoint Emerson to be the minister responsible for these portfolios?

Does the fact that Emerson and Martin agreed on these two portfolios mean that Emerson cannot possibly agree with Harper on them? Do you seriously think that Emerson is such a blatent crook that he would completely reverse his position on every vote just because the conservatives won the election instead of the liberals? If you really do think that, and you voted for the guy, well... I guess it's understandable that you are upset because you feel like a total moron, as well you should. If Adolph Hitler was alive and running for the liberals, would you have voted for him, because you 'vote for the party not the candidate?'.

It always amazes me how the left wing completely disregards the idea of 'the best person for the job' unless that person is a disabled black lesbian in a same sex marriage on welfare who thinks that Trotsky was the greatest political mind of all time.

Sometimes the right guy for the job actually gets the job, even if he's a white straight guy with a wife and kids who works for a living. Deal with it.

Also, suppose that a bunch of people voted for Emerson because he was wearing a black tie and the other guy was wearing a white tie. Then, after the election, Emerson put on a white tie. Would those people have a valid complaint that he wasn't representing them because he changed the colour of his tie and that was the only reason they voted for him? Just because a bunch of people voted for a guy for their own reasons and not for what he actually believed or stood for, does not mean that the guy is bound to live up to their artificial expectations of him. If Emerson had personally campaigned on a platform of wearing black ties and then changed his tie, then maybe there would be a point. Until he actually votes in a manner contrary to what he supported (or did not support) prior to the election, what justification is there in complaining?

After all, some of the liberals in the last government voted against same-sex marriage, does that mean that they should have resigned their seats because they were elected as liberals and the liberals were (as a party) in favour of it.

What possible benefit is there to proving beyond any doubt that no matter what Emerson and Harper do, that riding isn't going to vote for them, ever? Sounds like a great way to bend over and say 'give it to me'.

this is a very intelligent response on this topic ^

I thought that having a strong voice in the government would be more important than having another chair filled across the floor in the house.

Over the years the west has been left out of the decision making and even though I don't agree with all of Harper's politics the west(including B.C) has a serious voice. Canadians tend to lean towards the Liberal ideaology.......but the party had become corrupt and the only viable alternative is the Conservatives, they're a bit right for my tastes BUT they will fix the finances which would benefit everyone including B.C.

 

[smackyo]

As you said, USUALLY what draws people to a particular party is that they share similar ideas about policies etc...

Well, is it maybe possible that when it comes to international trade and the olympics both Harper and Emerson shared enough 'similar ideas' that it made sense for Harper to appoint Emerson to be the minister responsible for these portfolios?

Does the fact that Emerson and Martin agreed on these two portfolios mean that Emerson cannot possibly agree with Harper on them? Do you seriously think that Emerson is such a blatent crook that he would completely reverse his position on every vote just because the conservatives won the election instead of the liberals? If you really do think that, and you voted for the guy, well... I guess it's understandable that you are upset because you feel like a total moron, as well you should. If Adolph Hitler was alive and running for the liberals, would you have voted for him, because you 'vote for the party not the candidate?'.

It always amazes me how the left wing completely disregards the idea of 'the best person for the job' unless that person is a disabled black lesbian in a same sex marriage on welfare who thinks that Trotsky was the greatest political mind of all time.

Sometimes the right guy for the job actually gets the job, even if he's a white straight guy with a wife and kids who works for a living. Deal with it.

Also, suppose that a bunch of people voted for Emerson because he was wearing a black tie and the other guy was wearing a white tie. Then, after the election, Emerson put on a white tie. Would those people have a valid complaint that he wasn't representing them because he changed the colour of his tie and that was the only reason they voted for him? Just because a bunch of people voted for a guy for their own reasons and not for what he actually believed or stood for, does not mean that the guy is bound to live up to their artificial expectations of him. If Emerson had personally campaigned on a platform of wearing black ties and then changed his tie, then maybe there would be a point. Until he actually votes in a manner contrary to what he supported (or did not support) prior to the election, what justification is there in complaining?

After all, some of the liberals in the last government voted against same-sex marriage, does that mean that they should have resigned their seats because they were elected as liberals and the liberals were (as a party) in favour of it.

What possible benefit is there to proving beyond any doubt that no matter what Emerson and Harper do, that riding isn't going to vote for them, ever? Sounds like a great way to bend over and say 'give it to me'.

yeah emerson is so similar to harper that he villified the cons just weeks before the end of the race. he shared lots of ideas with him then didn't he?

well i guess we'll see next election if emerson runs again weather or not the people of vancouver/kingsway voted for the man or that party.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

well i guess we'll see next election if emerson runs again weather or not the people of vancouver/kingsway voted for the man or that party.

He won't need to run again. Once an MP has served thru two terms he is eligible for a nice pension. Add to this the benefits Emerson has accumulated in his prior positions - I doubt if he will run again.

 

[smackyo]

PS: it is 3 terms to get a full pension, as far as I remember (unless Martin changed it in the short time he was in power?). But, do you really think that has any importance to Emerson? It might cover his budget for designer suits (or at least most of it).

Again, maybe knowing a bit about who the candidate is might actually be useful.

yeah that he ran for the liberals. goddamn its hard to get that through your thick skull. the people know who they voted for, they voted for a liberal. alright mr. i love harper, how would you feel if after the race harper and a few other ministers from the cons switched sides actually giving the balance of power to the liberals?

would you be saying "oh well harper all along has had liberal ideas, you all should have known who you were voting for." gimme a fucking break dude. the people voted for a liberal and got a conservative. don't know why thats so hard for you to get.

 

[Restless]

What always pisses me off when something like this happens is it becomes a partisan debate. "They did it, so it's ok that we do it." (Even though we campaigned on the promise never to act like they did)

This is not a party issue. Let's fix the f****ng system. I have no problem with a member crossing the floor. There are often legitimate reasons for a member to part ways with their party. Let's just make sure there is a referendum on that decision. If a defector had to justify their actions within 6 to 12 months by standing for re-election, there would be fewer self-serving decisions by any party members.

Being enticed by a cabinet post would be far less attractive, if it would be effective for only a few months. Other enticements, such as monetary ones, are illegal and can be dealt with in another way.

We have a democracy worth fighting for in this incredibly free and affluent country. Let's not let cynicism and ennui destroy it all. I am not a member, or supporter of any party. I assume that all politicians are lying, unless proven otherwise. I do however support this country and this democracy. When we accept poor behavior, just because we support the party, we help politicos to subvert it.

 

[Sonny]

Each candidate's political party association in printed on the ballot for a reason. Since the common electorate votes primarily on a party platform and political philosophy (both of which are presumably embraced by the party candidate), the party association on the ballot is to assist the voter in casting his/her ballot. Not all voters are well-educated, well-informed about individual candidates, etc.; but they are still voters who in our free democratic society have a right to make their voice heard.

If a Member of Parliament wishing to cross the floor had to first resign his/her party and sit as an independant for a few months while waiting for a by-election to be called in his/her riding, then there would be fewer instances of floor-crossiing, opportunistic or not.

The MP's choice is then no longer simply a personal discretion but a choice that must secure the approval of the electorate. With the by-election, the candidate would soon discover if the voters were choosing him/her if he/she won or his/her former party if the former party won.

If a constitutional amendment were required to enable this, I doubt if many in the federal or provincial governments would offer arguments for keeping the present system. The logic behind the by-election necessity is, IMO, readily supported by the vast majority of Canadian voters.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Emerson has no interest at all in running again, he wants to be the minister in charge of the vancouver olympics and to get the softwood lumber fiasco (than you for that mess Liberals) sorted out.

I wonder just what those majestic duties might be. The deals are all done, Vanoc is organizing, the money has been allocated, so just what does the big brain have to do, exactly? When Sheila Copps was in charge during the Salt Lake Olympics her chief duties seemed to be reserving hotel rooms that were never used, showing up at the glamour events and getting her picture taken wearing an Olympic jacket.

 

[Sonny]

There is no Constitution of Quebec. Constitutions are for independant states, which Quebec is not. There is a so-called "draft constitution" that Daniel Turp came up with in 1995 as a suggestion if Quebec separated and became an independant state.

Some provinces have their own human rights charters, but all are subordinate to the Canadian Charter of Rights, unless the province has invoked the notwithstanding clause in the Canada Constitution of 1982. Even though Quebec does not officially recognize the Canada Constitution of 1982 and prefers instead the BNA Act, Quebec used the the notwithstanding clause from 1982 to 1985 on every piece of Quebec legislation as a political protest against the 1982 constitution, but used it meaningfully later in 1988 to establish and enforce its language laws.

Curiously, Quebec also participated with the federal government in 1997 using the amending formula in the 1982 Canadian Constitution (which is possible under section 83 of the act where there is a bilateral agreement - in this case, in the matter of education) to add section 93A to the BNA Act releasing Quebec from guarantees of religious denominational schools contained in section 93 of the BNA Act. This was so that Quebec could re-align its schools along linguistic lines.

Quebec does have its own separate civil justice system which is modelled after the French Napoleonic Code, in contrast to the English civil case history precedent system.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

PS: it is 3 terms to get a full pension, as far as I remember (unless Martin changed it in the short time he was in power?). But, do you really think that has any importance to Emerson? It might cover his budget for designer suits (or at least most of it).

Again, maybe knowing a bit about who the candidate is might actually be useful.

Wrong JJ - it is two terms and the MP gets his pension, has been for some time - here is some recent context from Randy White (Fraser Valley West) : Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.):

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The Liberals and Conservatives have squandered funds going into the Canada pension plan for many years. Now they want average Canadians to pay as much as $1,300 more per year out of their pockets to pay it back.
Most of us know that the MP pension plan is the best in the world, with exorbitant benefits after just two terms in office, more than any Canadian could ever get from the Canada pension plan.

I ask: How much are the Liberals, the separatists and other MPs paying in additional premiums to the MP pension plan, just like they asked the rest of us to do into the Canada pension plan? Nothing. That is right, nothing.

What comes to mind? Gimme. Gimme. ``Please, sir, can I have some more. It's good for me but it is not good for you''. Elitists at the trough, that is what this is all about.

I know plenty about Emerson, met him several times. Even voted for him twice now as I'm in his riding. In case you don't realize, it most of these guys are in this for the money. Every nickel counts.

You may want to check out the bottom of this item as well:

http://www.collectionscanada.ca/epp...cal_association/cmaj/vol-156/issue-9/1315.htm

 

[Randy Whorewald]

You are quite correct JJ - to a guy like Emerson the MP Pension is only pocket change (even though) most Canadians don't make that much per year. Nonetheless the game has always been about $$$ and POWER.