This is the scenario:One lives in one of the safest Liberal ridings in Canada.
It becomes apparent over time that one's MP uses an elected position to support personal preferences that differ considerably from the preferences of most riding constituents.
One's MP's church constituents are major campaign contributors; all funds raised at the riding level are applied to that member's election fund.
Local Liberals are either "in or out" depending upon whether they blindly follow the lead and quietly accept all decisions. Disagreement at any level or on any issue is seen as a lack of unequivocal support. Nay Sayers are ostracised.
One's MP votes against the majority of the Liberal party on legalizing gay marriage last year, even though the riding that one's MP represents is amongst the most progressive in Quebec and Canada.
One's MP votes along with the Party and the Conservative government in support of the Nation motion, even though the motion demotes 75%+ of constituents who are Anglos and Allophones to second tier citizens in Quebec.
One's MP votes against the Liberal party and the status quo in favour of re-opening the gay marriage debate this past week, much to the chagrin of many Liberals and local constituents.
Is this just one's personal philosophy on the role of elected officials in representative democracies, or is this strategic in going after the votes of ideological conservatives in the riding as well as steadfast Liberal supporters who will never vote another way?
Could this be a formula to govern in perpetuity? Is this brilliant or despicable?
Shhhh. Anyone who says anything may be muzzled or ostracised. Can we please keep this as our little secret?!
14 comments:
My MP is Gurbax Malhi so I know how you feel.
Yeeeeesssss....
From what I have been hearing,constituents in the beeeauutiful riding of Lac-Saint-Louis are less than impressed than ever with the poor performance of our federal representative. One needs only to scan the electoral results from the past three elections to see that MP FS has dropped the ball. Is he to blame or the cabal of out of riding flunkies that surround him?
As far as I know sitting MPs are not protected during the riding nomination process. Nothing stops riding association members from talking someone into running against a sitting MP for the nomination. That might send a wake-up call. Pick the right former nomination candidate and you might even win.
NEWSFLASH: LPCQ decided to protect all sitting MPs. The nomination took place prior to Convention with no notice to members. It's no wonder people are not pleased!
Reply to Newsflash - I live in the riding of NDG-Lachine. While the nomination for the riding took place in November, the date was chosen by the riding executive and there was a notice sent to every member by mail.
The proper process was also used in Pierrefonds-Dollard re: advising the membership. It's just LSL not following procedure - this was also the case for DSMs.
It was mandated from LPC to protect all sitting MPs and nomination meetings (although irrelevant) were starting to get passed by the LPCQ and LPCO.
Paul Martin's tiny group of head-hunters put that unwriiten rule into play before the last election.
So even if you had a candidate to run against said MP at a nomination, said candidate would have been denied the opportunity by said Party.
The decision to protect sitting MPs can be made by the Leader. Before the 2004 election, Paul Martin chose not to. Before the 2005-2006 election, Paul Martin chose to protect them based on the argument that it was a minority government, and if MPs were not protected they would have to spend more time in their ridings gathering support.
No decision to protect sitting MPs for the next election has been made (or announced).
The NDG nomination meeting was held at the suggestion of Lucienne Robillard who is the co-chair of the National Election Readiness Committee (along with Eizenga). I think it's safe to say if MPs were protected she'd know.
The decision for the upcoming election (in Qc) was made by the electoral preparedness committee some time ago.
In the absence of voluntary use of riding consultations on key issues by sitting members, there needs to be some type of superimposed accountability process - or party standard. Or, there needs to be a process to enforce or to strongly encourage this as a best Liberal practice.
Maverick MPs who are not held accountable because their ideologies are irrelevant in the face of local voting patterns (following successful nomination processes) need to be held responsible for being too self-interested for the Liberal party.
This is not what my Liberal party is all about! Would opting for this suggestion not collectively move us along the road to being potentially one day 'scandal proof'?
One of the differences between Canadians and Americans is that Canadians dearly cherish the accomlishment of a Charter, and its importance to our collective identity.
Only those whose ideology taints their perspective would not honestly conclude that this issue would be shredded by the application of "Charter principles".
The results of a Canadian referendum would be much different than in the US, as is reflected in the polls, such as a December 14-January 05, 2005 Environics Research poll, which finds a 54%-43% margin nationwide in favour of same-sex marriage.
EWV:
Scarpaleggia? Go down to his constituency office and give him a piece of your mind. If he won't listen, vote him out.
I used to live in the West Island and was disappointed by his vote as well.
EV - I'm sending Francis a nice letter explaining that his vote is an embarrassment to both the LPC and the fine people of L-S-L.
Whilst the nomination process may be closed, I suggest you actively work on another candidates campaign if you do not share the views of your local Liberal candidate.
WML - I saw you post this past week to that effect. It needs to be done. Thanks for your contribution.
EV
Post a Comment