February 06, 2006

• Critics of Mike Harris's government will probably disagree, but I think it's a good cabinet. Certainly as good as a Conservative cabinet was going to get. As for the issue in the FPP, I know many, many pro-Conservative types who viciously attacked Belinda Stonach when she crossed the floor. Many wanted to see the practice made illegal. To Harper's credit, he wasn't one of them; my Conservative MP, Lynne Yelich, was. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if they deplore the same action when the parties are reversed. For my part, I don't have any principled opposition to the practice. I thought Belinda Stronach did the right thing when she crossed the floor, and I think David Emerson could make a good case for the same. He'll have to, if he wants to run again.
• David Emerson is a dirty, dirty whore. Mind you, switching parties is nothing new for him. He was a Socred before turning Grit, I believe. Clearly, he puts power above any principle, which would suggest that the Liberals would be his natural party. But Emerson himself is the least important part of the story. The significance comes from the stink the Conservatives raised at the time of the defection of Belinda Stronach. There should be a by-election, they said, she should sit as an independent. The fact that Emerson didn't have to do the same shows that the Conservatives are adopting the Liberal principle of no pinciples at all (aside from Power). Hell, at least Belinda had come out and said that she tried, but she couldn't find a space for her in the Conservative party -- which was no doubt true to some degree. But the same can't be said of Emerson's relationship with the Liberals. But even with all this, Emerson isn't the story of the day. That belongs to the appointment of Fortier, with him not being in the Commons. He's getting a 'temporary' appointment to the Senate -- the understanding being that he'll step down at the time of the next election, and run for the House. (I'd write that down, but I don't seem to have a pen...) After years and years of griping about the need for change for the Senate, Harper goes against that on day one. The Reform elements of the party are bound to be pissed off today -- about this Senate appointment, about Emerson's switch, about only four Ministers from the Great State of Alberta... Harper has broken the first rule of politics -- Don't Piss Off Your Base. And if all this is anything to go by, perhaps we need not be so worried about a Conservative majority the next time around. Good start, Steve. Well done.
• Dealing with the US on the issue of softwood lumber tarrifs will be top of Emerson's agenda. That, and that alone, will determine my opinion of him.
• I'm willing to give the new government a chance but Emerson's move strikes me as a betrayal of his own riding...unless they were voting for the man, rather than the party. But if that's the case, why didn't he run for the Conservatives in the first place. Note the full name of Emerson's new portfolio: "Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics"
• Even better was the appointment of a cabinet minister to a person who was not elected by the Canadian public. Tory patronage is alive and well!
• Apparently, Harper indicated his admiration of Emerson before the election, and invited him to cross the floor. Emerson was a Liberal minister -- so if the Liberals won, he'd be OK, and if the Conservatives won, he'd be allright too. And Harper campaigned on restoring honesty and integrity to the political system. Sweet Mothra, even Mulroney took some time to work his way up to the trough... If there's anything positive to come from this sheer disdain for the voters, and for Democracy itself, it's that this incident makes yet another case for Proportional Representation. Each seat belongs to the party, so this bullshit becomes impossible.
• Be loud and proud, Capt. Small tags is for small minds, or something.
• I just don't want to have massive blocks of text. That, and people tend to listen more closely if you're speaking softly. Gives the illusion that it's all dignified and intelligent and shit.
• *holds computer at arm's length attempting to decipher flyshit*
• Andrew Coyne:

  DAVID EMERSON??? Has crossed floor -- days after being elected as a Liberal. First reaction: he should immediately resign his seat and run in a byelection, having effectively won it by false pretenses. Second point: so much for Tory fury over Belinda Stronach trading her vote for a cabinet seat. This is not a good note to be striking on their first day.

  Paul Wells:

  David Emerson should resign from the House of Commons and run in a by-election. He had two months to decide he was a Conservative and mention this fact to his electors. He forgot. Stephen Harper's excuses are transparently absurd. "It's not about Liberal or Conservative"? Uh. He ran a Conservative against Emerson.

  Warren Kinsella:

  I guess all of the noise in May 2005 about Belinda Stronach crossing over for the promise of a cabinet post was just that, noise. I deplore what was done in her case, and I deplore this. This is one of the principal reasons why people are so cynical about politicians. Shame.

  Tomorrow's op-ed and editorial pages should be ugly for Harper.
• I'd love to see a politician get elected, then renounce ties to ALL political parties. Yes, yes, I know, political suicide. But it'd be fun to watch.small>
• Ok, I'm pretty slow, but could you explain to me why a 40% Liberal vote equals a win by Conservatives. The US Electorl College may be less cookoo than I had thought.
• Whoops I should have clarified it, path. It was a 40% Liberal vote in his (Emerson's) local riding so Emerson was elected as a Liberal. But when they toted up *all* the ridings, the Conservatives won the most ridings out of all of the parties and got the right to govern.
• The Canadian federal system is composed of 308 (at the moment) districts or ridings. Each riding has a choice of MPs (Members of Parliament) they can vote for at election time. The MPs run under a party banner, but voters vote for the MP, not the party. So an individual MP might receive 40% of the vote in his district, but his party might lose in every other district. Thus, he would be outvoted in the House by 307 votes. The governing party needs majority support in the House, meaning it needs to win a majority of the ridings, in order to govern. This is made more complex by the fact that we have more than two important parties, so it's actually quite possible to win a seat with 40% of the vote in a district, since the vote can split in a number of ways, and this happens quite often. The current situation, for example, is a minority government. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won the most, but not a majority, of the seats in Parliament. So he is allowed to govern until he loses the "confidence" (i.e. support) of a majority of the MPs in Parliament on a "matter of confidence" (i.e. what this means is actually up for debate, but it undeniably includes budget and other money bills). That means that if every party teamed up to vote against the Conservatives, the Conservatives would lose and an election would be called.
• Oops. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, there should have been a "usually" between "it" and "needs."
• Hah! Your politics aound so much more fun than ours in the US. Or, at least not set in stone in any one year or more. But, doesn't the contention kind of delay action?
• Majorities are very stable, mostly because party discipline is so powerful in Canada, and they tend to be the norm. Minorities tend to be inefficient, yes, and they tend to collapse after only a year or so, usually when the opposition thinks it's to their advantage to do so. However, the government is much more powerful in Canada since there isn't nearly the same separation of powers (more of a "fusion"), so arguably it balances out.
• There have been at least two US Senators that I know of who've changed parties after elected. Most recently Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican party in 2001 and declared himself an independent. Jeffords' defection gave the Democrats an effective majority in the Senate (it had been split evenly 50 to 50), which was a big deal because committe chairmanships and other leadership positions are controlled by the majority party. He's still an independent but it's become moot now that the Republicans have a clear majority in the Senate. Senator Harry Byrd Jr. of Virginia in 1970 decided that the Democratic party was insufficiently racist and declared himself an independent and was re-elected as such a couple of times.
• And then there's that nutjob Zell Miller, who may as well have switched parties.
• Not to USianize this thread -- just to follow up on timefactor's comments.
• Screw that "Sober second look" crap they fed me in eighth grade social studies, do we really even need the Senate anymore? Did we ever?
• Nice, succinct explanation of our electoral process, Smo. I have to agree with the good captain however that Emerson is a whore of the first order and Harper is his pimp. We unfortunately don't have a federal recall law, unlike some provinces, but if I was one of Emerson's constituents, I'd be pushing for a by-election. This doesn't bode well.
• Actually, if the other parties were to bring in a non-confidence vote, and agree on a basic platform, then they could approach the GG, and argue that while Harper has lost the confidence of the House, they want to allow another party to govern. (Not quite King-Byng, but allowable). The Bloc though, is the wild card. While they probably don't want an election, they don't want the Conservatives to strengthen their (federalist) base in Quebec. While not wanting to support the Liberals, they especially won't want to support the Conservatives. Daycare is likely to be the first flashpoint.
• Sure, complicate things whydontchya ;) I don't see the Liberals cooperating with the Bloc, at least not formally and that's what they'd have to do to form a government. I also have to wonder if the Liberals even want to govern at the moment. Many Liberals admit that they need some time to restructure and regroup. They'll need to elect a new leader, for starters. Add to that the conventional wisdom about minority governments: the people want the opposition parties to give them a chance. For these reasons, I think Stephen Harper is in his strongest position right now and stronger than the typical minority government, since the Liberals will be most reluctant to collapse the government. If he wants to pass controversial legislation, he should do it sooner rather than later. Most Canadians might not like it, but I bet most Canadians don't like the idea of voting for a Liberal party in disarray, either.
• I also have to wonder if the Liberals even want to govern at the moment. I'd agree with that. With all the big names that have announced they don't want to run for the leadership, it looks like they're in disarray. This may be one reason why Emerson jumped in the first place. With no Liberal strongman in the wings, it's every MP for himself.
• Fortier didn't run for election because he didn't want to. Mais, bien sur!
• Most of the Liberal A-list expects to lose the next election, and don't want to sit as leader of a party in opposition. But, as long as Martin sits in the House, there is a possibility of his own Trudeau moment, where he returns to lead the party, even only temporarily. If that happens, and he says he's only a caretaker, the A-list may decide that politics is in their blood. It's not good for the Liberals in the long run - I'll agree there - but I can't see that all three opposition parties will step aside and let the Conservatives have their own way, particularly if they can guarantee that there won't be an election.
• Funny, but the official bio for Vic Toews, our new Minister of Justice, fails to mention his best qualification for reforming the system -- the fact he has a , record, stemming from campaign overspending. (Scroll down to 'Conservative MP'.) But to be fair, he didn't know about it. He just pled guilty, that's all. So, you know, it's ok. Ladies and Gentlemen, honesty and integrity in government.
• I don't want to run in an election either. Where's my Senate seat?
• Hey Capt., that overspending was for a provincial campaign, so, like, it doesn't count, alright?
• About time!!! The heat is on. Serves the Reform Party bastard right for going against all the principles they've spouted for the last decade and a half.
• In the end, he [Fortier] said, he decided to take a cabinet post "because the Prime Minister phoned me and there was this gaping hole in the Montreal area." What, Longueuil? Public Works is going to fill in Longueuil? About bloody time...
• I really do feel sorry for those poor bastards who volunteered to help with Emerson's campaign . . . giving up you Christmas holidays to help the bastard, going door to door in the cold of winter (OK, yeah, it's BC, but everything is relative), running around putting up Liberal campaing signs. I figure they should say to hell with the $100K the Liberal Riding Association is demanding back from him, and just tar and feather the bugger and run him out of town the next time he shows his face there.
• Emerson refuses to repay $97K in Liberal campaign contributions, "maintains he ran his constituency office on a non-partisan basis and that he moved to the Tories to serve his constituents better." Funny, I didn't know he ran as an independent. OH WAIT HE DIDN'T. Dumb fuck. Expect the process servers to come up the drive, pal. I think you may have underestimated the Liberals' natural capacity for revenge.
• "In an interview with the Vancouver Province, Emerson said his two children, age 12 and 14, were being treated with hostility at school because of his defection." He didn't think of the children. Oh, won't someone think of the children! Fucktard.
• What a fucking idiot. I like this little quote: "Liberal attacks on his defection are a sign of "deep sickness," he told the paper." Yeah, nothing to do with them feeling swindled or anything. I mean, why woud they be upset at him running as a secret torie? Sheesh.
• There are members in each party who would be a better fit elsewhere, so I'm not strongly opposed to politicians crossing the floor, provided it's a matter of principle. Changing for a reward is disgusting. Emerson fails. Stronach, a week earlier may have been acceptable, particularly if she wasn't named to cabinet immediately, but under the circumstances, fails. Brison was originally elected as a PC, so jumping from the Alliance could be argued as legitimate. But he still shouldn't have been put in cabinet so quickly.
• The base salary for all MPs is $69,564. As well, each MP has a non-taxable expense allowance of at least $22,950 (it may be higher, depending on the MP's riding). MPs also get a housing allowance of $12,000 for accommodation in Ottawa . On top of their base salaries, some members of parliament receive extra pay: Prime Minister $75,582 Cabinet Minister $50,286 Secretary of State $37,715 Leader of the Opposition $53,040 Other Party Leaders $31,820 Parliamentary Secretary $11,322 Speaker of the House $53,040 This move nets Mr. Emerson an extra $50,286 in salary.
• Oh no, he only did it for the good of his constituents. And so kind of him to let them have a say in what is for their own good.
• Because the next election is so far off, you see... A judgement call needed to be made, and he made it. So really, it's all about the people. People named David Emerson.
• Don't know if anyone caught the interview from last night with Emerson, but what an arrogant prick. I swear, he has singlehandedly ensured NDP victories in every riding in Vancouver next election. Probably in a lot of other Canadian ridings, where people "voted strategically" for Grits. There was also an interview on the CBC this morning with a gay Vancouverite, who was standing outside of Emerson's constituency office, holding his marriage certificate, demanding the hundreds of dollars he donated to teh Emerson campaign back . . . if anything throws the distinction between the Reform Party and the Grits into perspective, it was right there. Of course, if you believe Emerson's claims, there is no difference. He just can't understand what all the fuss is about, and why people are being sooooo mean to him . . .. and his children, of course, please won't someone think of the children? Oh poor baby! Of course, he is thinking of nothing but the children when he jumped to a party that is cancelling a national child-care program, and replacing it with a taxable, $100 a month benefit. Hell, here in Ottawa, child care generally starts at $50 a day. That will go far. I seeth.
• I'm worried that this issue will fade away and die. I hope the constituents of his riding keep up the fight, but what can those of us in other ridings do to help force a resignation/byelection?
• What if this is part of a plan to push soft Liberals to the NDP? He'll lose some soft Conservative voters for sure, but if some of people think the Libs and Cons are alike, some of them may go to the Dippers, increasing the odds of a Conservative win. I should fill this thought out more, but I don't have time right now.
• What if this is part of a plan to push soft Liberals to the NDP? I kinda doubt it. For me and maybe most others (?), it's not about parties so much as about an individual: Mr David Emerson, jerk Emeritus.
• If it really was an honest switch to better serve his constituents, as they'd be in the tent rather than outside of it, he could have: a) instructed the voters accordingly, and say "I'm going to be at the table to serve you guys, no matter what", b) let his then-fellow Liberals know beforehand that he was going to switch, give them a heads-up, rather than letting them find out through TV coverage of the swearing in, and c) return at least some of the campaign donations on the grounds that he wasn't being dishonest, but he could appreciate how some people might have been confused. In short, if you haven't done anything wrong, don't behave as if you have. If he had those principles, there'd be no reason to be up front about it. Only he wouldn't have been elected then, would he?
• I also have to wonder if the Liberals even want to govern at the moment. Nope they want to give the re^H^Hconservatives a good year of spotlight. Let some of the more radical wacko MPs from Alberta get on the record as thinking abortion should be illegal and all gays should be imprisoned.
• Nope they want to give the re^H^Hconservatives a good year of spotlight That could work both ways. If the wackos come out of the woodwork, everyone will be watching to see what Harper does about it.
• Dissident Tories call for Emerson to resign
• New parliamentary secretary to Francophonie can't speak French
• Boy, Harper just can't catch a break, can he. I think it is hillarious that the Reformers carefully crafted and planned their election campaign for over a year, but didn't bother to have any plans for if they actually won.
• That's some quality spin, there. Must be all the practice they're getting.
• Hehe. I love these quotes from Garth Turner (Conservative MP) after speaking out against the Emerson Affair. Especially: "Speaking of offices, after today I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa. That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses."
• Over 9,000 signatures so far.
• No wonder Emerson is being so arrogant and getting away with it - apparently he can't be recalled. At least, not for a year. Also from MeFi: Emerson blocked deal on softwood lumber before defecting?
• NDP requests investigation into Emerson crossing
• Emerson's defection is different according to MacKay. This is coming from the man who's still bitter he's not getting bj's in the House bathrooms anymore.
• Tory MP may quit caucus
• Oh yeah, Garth Turner, cry me a river. This guy's no better than Emerson. Former minister of national revenue under Kim Campbell. But here's the dirt on him. Dude used to flog "investment opportunities" to investors on his tv show while taking under the table payments. He was one of the MPs that was deliberately not picked to join cabinet (no surprise). So now he's taking shots at Harper (again no surprise).
• Ethics Commissioner to probe Emerson. Bernie will look at "what influence Harper wielded to convince Emerson to cross the House of Commons floor", which is off the mark from the get-go. What we need to know isn't if Harper talked him into it, but if Emerson defrauded the voters.
• Heh heh. You said "probe"
• Yeah, I thought you'd like that.
• Surprise!