Emerson Asked To Pay Back Donations
Sometimes, the best laid plans don't always work out. Especially in politics where just about everything is questioned. Mr. Emerson has been asked to repay most of the $97,000 that was donated to his campaign because the donations were donated to elect a Liberal representative. I agree!! He should have to pay it back. He was elected as a Liberal and those donations were a contribution to make that happen.
On that note...Belinda Stronach should have to pay back the local Conservative riding association for her defection. I wonder if the media will jump on that...
Here is the story on the Emerson issue:
Vancouver Liberals want Emerson to repay $97,000
10 comments:
That's interesting. The only difference between Emerson and Stronach is the timing. Emerson hasn't yet sat as a Liberal after the election, whereas Stronach served almost a year as a Conservative.
The whole issue of party lines is screwy. I think each candidate should present their personal agenda that they would push for in Parliament and they could then vote for bills independently. They could loosely be affiliated with a party, so that a party leader could form a government, but beside that... I think it is too rigid.
(and you could extend it to people like David Kilgour and Deborah Grey (I think it was her) and several others in recent years for leaving their caucus to sit as independents)
That's pretty damn interesting, and I definitely see the point...
I think he should have to pay that back. Otherwise, people could run based on the strength of the party in that area, and then reveal themselves later. It's like a villain taking off a mask...
I was about to post a little political analysis of my own. This is pretty disappointing really, especially after the public showed how upset they were with the Stronach turn-coat.
When you run on platform X, and are elected on platform X, how does it make any sense at all to be legally allowed to switch to platform W (W for "WHATEVER THE HELL YOU PLEASE") when the constituents clearly voted for platform X?
I am also disappointed with the Senate appointal of someone who wasn't even in the running. Especially after a major point of the Conservative platform was an elected senate.
There's a dilemma with what dalban said though (I agree with what was said, but the dilemma remains): If a person is sent to gov't based on proportional representation it is on a party line - he/she then no longer has the freedom to choose his/her own reason for voting.
I really like what the Scandinavian countries did - they have appointed professionals - doctors, professors, philosophers, experts in their fields draft legislation for the gov't. These people were given mandates by the gov't - that's their main job, to give mandates to solve problems and improve society. Things are discussed and explained publicly in forums and on television so the public understands the legislation. Then the gov't approves it.
Our country is too big to do this though, some very different cultures represented - Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Prairies, BC, the Northern Territories. Off the top of your head, can you name 10 pieces of legislation the gov't proposed/passed last year? Same-sex marriage, the budget, ummm... We aren't involved in gov't enough. Our gov't's primary job (at least the Senate for sure) is to give contracts to corporations and to incorporate businesses. It's not really about serving the people.
As an aside...one of my colleagues at work said that the reason for the switch was because Mr. Emerson was the person who was doing the negotiating on the softwood lumber issue. That was apparently the reason he was brought on board...to continue that role. Haven't looked for the story so haven't confirmed it.
Sometimes you really do have to wonder what people are thinking. How can Emerson be surprised at the response of people in his riding, he ran as a Liberal previously, sat as a Liberal during the past government, go re-elected as Liberal this time and now he wonders why people are pissed that he switched to the Conservatives. I don't think he should be surprised or offended. As a point of interest, the last Conservative elected in Vancouver-Kingsway was in 1958.
I have a post about Emerson, a little more viscious and tongue-in-cheek though.
http://namwarts.blogspot.com
Dalban,
I agree with the proportional representation comment...I think it should be done. In a lot of ways I would float the idea of no parties...but not sure how that would work.
Oh...and Dalban, we out in Alberta thought we were in a dictatorship :-)
But you can not have proportional representation without party lines. It is built around parties slate of electors. One party gets 8% of the vote, then the top 8% of the electors goes to Parliament. If those 8% (could be 2 people, could be 13, depends on the province of course) don't vote the party line, then they have no right being on that party's slate. You can't have a free vote - if you do, then I, who do not have a personal vote in Parliament, lose my voice, because I sent someone to Parliament to vote a certain way.
Dictatorship, bad ring to it. Benevolent Monarchy. Now there's something we should look into.
Bureaucrats and Technocrats in Canada are in league with big business though. If we looked to educators and people who don't have a serious conflict of interest, then we can develop legislation that is more principled and better serves the people.
You're right about Québec being a political culture. I believe it's because of their unique identity. I lived there for a year and was blown away by the philosophy and principles that are spoken about on a daily basis - not unlike what happens in these blogs, except that it is over a cafe.
Zaak,
Just pondering here but if you vote for an independent and he/she was sent to parliament based on the majority of votes, wouldn't he/she also vote primarily the way you would even if he/she wasn't tied to a party? I am sure there would be times he/she would vote differently than what you want them to, but being in a party would not change that. My MP has voted differently than what I would have liked, but like your scenario, there was nothing I could do about it. Was my vote wasted? No. If they vote the way I would like most of the time then I would be satisfied. There is no way to have your cake and eat it all too.
Bureaucrats and Technocrats in every country are in league with big business. If not, there wouldn't be much of a free economy. I suppose the only way that would change is with Communism...but if you have another idea lets hear it. I would be interested in how to tie these educators into something that helps people and lets business go it alone. Economies are run by commerce and business needs commerce to run otherwise there wouldn't be a business. No business...no jobs...no economy.
Post a Comment