I keep hearing the Conservatives babble on about how this is no different then what Belinda Stronach did. First of all there are major differences.
1) Belinda had the common courtesy to at least sit with the party for a year, before she decided she didn't like it. David Emerson jumped ship without warning two weeks after he was elected as a LIBERAL!
2) Belinda might have changed the shape of parliament and specifically the fact she didn't bring the government down. Emerson has actually changed the shape of Parliament by effectivly allowing 126 Conservative Votes (Plus Andre Arthur because he's a natural Libertarian, Add that to 29 NDP Votes and you get exactly 155, enough to pass tough legislation, if needed.
3) Belinda never said she was in the Conservative Party for the long haul, David Emerson said he was.
4) Belinda did it for legitimate reasons because she didn't want a budget to fall, David Emerson didn't do it for any well spelled out reason.
So to even claim Belinda was worse then this is just simply rediculous.
8 comments:
Let me answer your post point by point.
1. Belinda sat with the Conservative party for a year. True. David sat with the Liberal party for TWO years before switching.
2. Belinda's vote MADE SURE the government was not brought down. Her's was a deciding vote. How can you miss that point.
3. Does everyone have to say they are in the party for the long haul? Isn't it obvious that when you join a political party the assumption is that you are in for the long haul?
4. Belinda did it for the most legitimate reason of all. To further her career because there was no possibility of her becoming leader of the Conservatives.
Now, put yourself in David Emerson's shoes. With the Olympics coming up and the softwood lumber dispute still on-going, how could you be more effective. In opposition or in the governing party?
Having said all this, I was completely against what Belinda did and I am also against what David did.
Unfortunately, the Liberals defined the rules and all political parties from here on in are going to follow those rules whether we like it or not. So, lets just get used to the "new way of doing politics".
This is alot worse...no doubt.
So, who knew....the new PM would know how to bitch slap the Liberals for Boolinda and Brison, then give the finger to Toronto...then look into the camera and say its for the best...who knew the new PM knew how to play the game??? Gotta love the guts...dont care who you are, that was either gutsy or stupid...in 2 years we will all know, until then...I'll sit back and listen to the same crap I listened to when the Liberals would do the same thing...theres a new sherrif in town....Stone Cold Stevey Harper.
i agree. belinda seems to have changed parties on principle - to avoid being associated with the type of hypocritical behaviour we are now seeing from mr. harper. it is extremely worrying that the emerson defection changes the shape of parliament, and safe-guards of a minority government ( which harper himself told us would protect us from his most extreme ideas) are now being removed by him.
Suzanne. So what you're saying is that when someone crosses the floor to the Liberals they have principles and when the roles are reversed principles are not involved. Then you go on to say it is extremely worrying because it changes the shape of parliament. Exactly what did Belinda's defection do to parliament. As soon as Liberals in general forget about being Canada's party-for-life and realize that other people share Conservative views (and no I'm not a bible-thumping right-wing lunatic) we'll have a much broader understanding of each other and be more accepting of each others points of view.
"Belinda never said she was in the Conservative Party for the long haul..."
Uhhh, Stronach ran for Tory leadership in 2004, didn't she? How many "wafflers" run for leader?
Fly on the wall says both are the same. Both switched parties to accept minister positions (and extra salary and limo driver) they would not have received otherwise. Timing of event is not relevant except to spinners.
Ethics, Emerson and Harper’s Principles – a Question.
Mr. Harper, you are on record on many occasions as having castigated the Liberals because they were corrupt, morally bankrupt and ethically challenged. You also vowed to restore ethical principles to Parliament, should your party be elected.
Then you appointed David Emerson to your Cabinet. Some news reports indicate that discussions between senior Conservative party leaders and Emerson about switching parties began soon after his election as a Liberal.
Do you believe that you or the senior leaders of your party who initiated those discussions, breached any laws in doing so?
From Friday February 9 Globe & Mail article:
“In Vancouver, Ian Waddell, the NDP candidate who was narrowly defeated by Mr. Emerson, held a news conference to call on the Ethics Commissioner to investigate whether Mr. Harper is in breach of ethics rules for offering a cabinet post for switching parties. Mr. Waddell points to a line in Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro's ruling dealing with the allegations that former health minister Ujjal Dosanjh urged then-Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal to cross the floor. "If Mr. Dosanjh had offered a reward or inducement to Mr. Grewal for crossing the floor at this time, he would have been acting and/or attempting to act in such a way as to improperly further Mr. Grewal's private interests. Either of these would amount to an extremely serious breach of the Members' Code [of Conduct]," wrote Mr. Shapiro.”
Mr. Harper, would you – consistent with your principles outlined during the election – appoint an independent commission of enquiry into the background of the discussions held with Mr. Emerson, so that voters can be assured by the findings of the commission that there has not been any unlawful action on the part of your senior party officials?
I agree that Belinda's case is totally different! I think the point that is missing here is that Belinda ran for the leadership of the Conservative party because she wanted to shape the new party in a particular fashion. When it was clear that she didn't fit in with the way Harper chose to shape the party . . . she left. She stuck with her morals and principals and left. I admire her for that!
Emerson just wanted a good cabinet position.
Post a Comment