My thoughts on the Emerson defection
Well, I'll admit, I was initially thrilled, but then wary of the news. So, rather than posting immediately, I chose to wait and see, then comment after chewing on some thoughts. So to those who were wondering where I stood (thanks for caring), here's my answer...
I initially thought that he should step down and hold a byelection, but now, I'm not so sure. After a lot of thought, and a look at what the media is saying, and the Blogging Tories, I'm going to take a fairly unpopular stand... I DON'T think he needs to hold a byelection. True, I think the optics look bad, with PM Harper running on a platform of cleaning up how Ottawa works, but I think that this defection doesn't in reality violate that principled stand.
I went over my thoughts about the Belinda affair, and I still stand by them... there was a critical vote of confidence coming up in a couple of days, and we had a PM who was desperate to cling to power by any means necessary (ie - the Grewal affiar). And, being having the business mind that she has, managed to negotiate the price for her vote... an immediate cabinet post.
Many will say that Emerson did the same thing, but I disagree. There are several factors that make this situation totally different. One, this is a NEW Government, that has not even sit in the House yet... the agenda has not yet been set, and there are no votes of confidence waiting on the horizon. Two, his defection does NOT shift the balance of power like it did with Belinda.
The right of an MP to defect, switch parties, or sit independatly, has always been a part of the system upon which our nation is built. Now, he'll have to live with, in the next election, any fallout from his own consitiuents, whenever that may be. And the fact that he did so right now has both positive and negative aspects. He was elected as a Liberal, and some people in his riding may be ticked about that, and rightly so, I think. I would have been ticked had Belinda been my rep, as I'm a Tory through and through! But when Belinda switched, I was ticked mostly for when and why she did it, not the fact that she did it. Acutally, when Kilgor left the Liberals shortly afterwards, I was hoping he would join the Tories! But, he didn't, likely due to the uproar regarding Belinda's swap, and was effectively an independent conservative anyway.
Back to Emerson. If anything, PM Harper taking on this MP is an extremely risky move... but one that could have extremely positive benfits to Canadians in many ways. One, there are now TWO representatives in Harper's Cabinet that represent the major cities... Montreal and Vancouver. And there are several others, who though are not from Toronto, understand a great deal regarding the GTA and Toronto... three of them being from Queen's Park. EVEN LIBERAL TORONTO MAYOR DAVID MILLER SAID THAT HE THINKS HARPER MADE GOOD PICKS to represent Toronto!
Apparently, it was not Emerson shopping for a new job... it was the Conservatives coming to him looking to build a bigger and better coalition from which to govern this nation more effectively... at great personal risk to themselves.
In many ways, don't you think that actually shows that this new government means business?
I was the first to admit that this didn't look to great... the optics were troublesome; having campaigned on cleaning up government, this was not the greatest way to start. But upon 24 hours of reflection, it may turn out to be a gutsy and good move for the nation. I say that this story will fall off the radar of Canadians within three to four days. The blogs will talk about it off and on for a couple of weeks, and then we won't hear about it again until the next election. As many have been saying, PM Harper is a strategist, and he's just attempted a daring manouver that could either hurt or help him both in the short and long term.
As a Christian, I agree that lying is unacceptable, but I don't know if you can say Emerson has actually been lying about anything. You could say it was dishonest, however, in what way, exactly, was he dishonest? (other than flying one set of colours, then switching) In terms of where he stands on issues, I don't think he's changed at all... he has always been a small-c conservative. The people who voted for him still have him as who he is... he has indicated that he feels he can better represent his people under PM Harper, than from the Opposition benches. (then again, so did Belinda...)
We REALLY don't know how this one will play out... we'll have to see how the history books write it. And despite everything postive I've said here about this affair, for the record, I'm not 100% decided on how I feel about this one. I just figured I'd try to broaden the discussion with a few points that I've been mulling in my head.
UPDATE: Looks like I'm not alone in my thoughts. Read Kate's post after I made mine... it's nice to be in good company.
UPDATE II: Nope, I'm not alone. (check the list)
I initially thought that he should step down and hold a byelection, but now, I'm not so sure. After a lot of thought, and a look at what the media is saying, and the Blogging Tories, I'm going to take a fairly unpopular stand... I DON'T think he needs to hold a byelection. True, I think the optics look bad, with PM Harper running on a platform of cleaning up how Ottawa works, but I think that this defection doesn't in reality violate that principled stand.
I went over my thoughts about the Belinda affair, and I still stand by them... there was a critical vote of confidence coming up in a couple of days, and we had a PM who was desperate to cling to power by any means necessary (ie - the Grewal affiar). And, being having the business mind that she has, managed to negotiate the price for her vote... an immediate cabinet post.
Many will say that Emerson did the same thing, but I disagree. There are several factors that make this situation totally different. One, this is a NEW Government, that has not even sit in the House yet... the agenda has not yet been set, and there are no votes of confidence waiting on the horizon. Two, his defection does NOT shift the balance of power like it did with Belinda.
The right of an MP to defect, switch parties, or sit independatly, has always been a part of the system upon which our nation is built. Now, he'll have to live with, in the next election, any fallout from his own consitiuents, whenever that may be. And the fact that he did so right now has both positive and negative aspects. He was elected as a Liberal, and some people in his riding may be ticked about that, and rightly so, I think. I would have been ticked had Belinda been my rep, as I'm a Tory through and through! But when Belinda switched, I was ticked mostly for when and why she did it, not the fact that she did it. Acutally, when Kilgor left the Liberals shortly afterwards, I was hoping he would join the Tories! But, he didn't, likely due to the uproar regarding Belinda's swap, and was effectively an independent conservative anyway.
Back to Emerson. If anything, PM Harper taking on this MP is an extremely risky move... but one that could have extremely positive benfits to Canadians in many ways. One, there are now TWO representatives in Harper's Cabinet that represent the major cities... Montreal and Vancouver. And there are several others, who though are not from Toronto, understand a great deal regarding the GTA and Toronto... three of them being from Queen's Park. EVEN LIBERAL TORONTO MAYOR DAVID MILLER SAID THAT HE THINKS HARPER MADE GOOD PICKS to represent Toronto!
Apparently, it was not Emerson shopping for a new job... it was the Conservatives coming to him looking to build a bigger and better coalition from which to govern this nation more effectively... at great personal risk to themselves.
In many ways, don't you think that actually shows that this new government means business?
I was the first to admit that this didn't look to great... the optics were troublesome; having campaigned on cleaning up government, this was not the greatest way to start. But upon 24 hours of reflection, it may turn out to be a gutsy and good move for the nation. I say that this story will fall off the radar of Canadians within three to four days. The blogs will talk about it off and on for a couple of weeks, and then we won't hear about it again until the next election. As many have been saying, PM Harper is a strategist, and he's just attempted a daring manouver that could either hurt or help him both in the short and long term.
As a Christian, I agree that lying is unacceptable, but I don't know if you can say Emerson has actually been lying about anything. You could say it was dishonest, however, in what way, exactly, was he dishonest? (other than flying one set of colours, then switching) In terms of where he stands on issues, I don't think he's changed at all... he has always been a small-c conservative. The people who voted for him still have him as who he is... he has indicated that he feels he can better represent his people under PM Harper, than from the Opposition benches. (then again, so did Belinda...)
We REALLY don't know how this one will play out... we'll have to see how the history books write it. And despite everything postive I've said here about this affair, for the record, I'm not 100% decided on how I feel about this one. I just figured I'd try to broaden the discussion with a few points that I've been mulling in my head.
UPDATE: Looks like I'm not alone in my thoughts. Read Kate's post after I made mine... it's nice to be in good company.
UPDATE II: Nope, I'm not alone. (check the list)
posted by Christian Conservative @ 9:48 a.m.
11 Comments:
At Tue Feb 07, 02:09:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Stephen Who?
On his very first day as PM, Stephen Harper showed clear signs of following in the footsteps of the bungling Joe Clark, who not only lost his luggage but succeeded in losing his bearings in Parliament as well. Like Joe, Harper seems to have forgotten that his is a minority government, not a majority one, and seems to have assumed – at great risk to his fledgling government – that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will not oppose him and force another election for 12 to 18 months.
We shall see if that assumption is valid.
If an election is held soon, the Tories will start off with egg on their faces, due to Holier-than-thou Harper’s baffling judgment on Day One.
Why on earth did Harper harpoon his own left foot?
He did it once, with his turncoat-conversion and the Liberal into the cabinet before anyone can see it sleight of hand.
He did it twice, with his appointment of – among others – Stockwell Day to his cabinet, instead of more women, and more women it important posts. Does the other half of the population – women – not count in Stephen Who’s world?
He did it thrice, with his U-turn on an elected senate. Principles dumped for expediency?
He did it fourthly, with his appointment of a former lobbyist – and then breathtakingly wants to legislate against others being allowed to do the same.
He did it fifthly, with his introduction into Canada of the Karl Rovian doublespeak. Thanks to Stephen Who, Canadians can now also spend delightful hours parsing the speeches of politicians, to decipher just how they are being bamboozled.
What a beginning!
I wonder if he will last as long as Joe Who....
At Tue Feb 07, 02:15:00 p.m. EST,
Shawn Abigail said…
Stockwell Day is in the cabinet to show loyalty to the old guard reformers, and because he did a decent job as Foreign Affairs critic. To many people take the loyalty of the old guard for granted, and then end up losing their support. You don't have to fill the ranks with reformers; just a couple appointments will demonstrate that the old guard are still appreciated.
At Tue Feb 07, 03:16:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
How is that like the old boss? Did he lie? Harper has always been honest about the 'crossing the floor' parliamentary procedure.Has he put our tax dollars into Liberal pals pockets. Was this a power trip for the CPoC?These types of appointments(Fortier) aren't new parliamentary procedure.I don't understand all the anguish by conservatives.(Maybe they should stick to knitting) Emerson is the one who deceived his electorate.We should be hearing his story sooner than later. How long was he considering this? Why didn't he cross over before the election?How many other Libs are thinking about leaving the naturally crumbling party?Why aren't we more enraged about the real deceit behind Dingwalls package?
preacher...your reasoned comments sound a lot like kate at sdm...she waited for the dust to settle too.VF
At Tue Feb 07, 03:54:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Remember how we used to hate the Liberal spin on everything?? Right was wrong etc etc...this was wrong!!! Mr. Harper used the power of the PMs office to pry a Liberal candidate away from the Liberal voters...so spin that??
Like it or love it thats what he did?? And if you were all honest folk...if we had a Conservative candidate that jumped our party to serve as a cabinet minister for the Liberals..it would be outrage..and we would say to the Liberals that you can have him...if he's that untrustworthy he should sit as a Conservative anyways...so why arent we saying that now??? One day and power change's us.
At Tue Feb 07, 04:30:00 p.m. EST,
廢苦滋燃 said…
May be good for the country (in the long run), but obviously bad optics!
However, in the long run, we all die ......
The soundbyte of Emerson telling ppl that Harper is scary and he is going to be Harper's worst nightmare still resonates loud and clear - and that was just a couple of weeks ago.
Now Emerson becomes team player with Harper? My question to Emerson will be: Was he lying then or is he being hypocritical now??
At Tue Feb 07, 09:06:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"instead of more women, and more women it important posts. Does the other half of the population – women – not count in Stephen Who’s world?"
What are you talking about? Harper has the same percentage of women as Paul Martin did.
At Wed Feb 08, 08:30:00 a.m. EST,
Luke Coughey said…
I don't disagree with asking Emerson to take the position. However, what I don't understand is why he had to change parties to do so. This has caused me to think about how the caucus works. I'm thinking that, by default, the leaders of the "official" parties be given a position in the caucus, as well.
At Wed Feb 08, 01:09:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Harper’s One-Man-Band, and Pretzel Tories.
So, a little time has passed, and Harper’s daring moves to impress the electorate with his political acumen have now sunk in a bit. Reaction across the country to his cabinet appointments – and abandonment of principles espoused during the election – have varied from sheer disbelief, to shock, to amusement. Never has a Canadian politician fallen so far so fast. Usually it takes time for power to corrupt, but Mr. Harper is a man in a hurry.
Many Tories have had to swallow their tongues and bend themselves into pretzels defending the indefensible. Some MPs have said they fear going back to their ridings because they will have to explain to their supporters how the Harper crew did a sudden U-turn on the accountability issue, which, after all, was the Tory strong point in the election. Harper ran as Mr. Clean, and painted Martin as Mr. Corruption at every opportunity he had.
Even the rightwing press is stunned and disappointed.
Examples of press reaction:
The Vancouver Sun:
“"I expected some of the superficial criticism I've seen," Mr. Harper told The Vancouver Sun in an interview. "But I think once people sit back and reflect, they'll understand that this is in the best interests of not just British Columbia but frankly of good government." Mr. Harper referred to his statements on Monday, when he said he recruited Mr. Emerson to Cabinet to give Vancouver -- which didn't elect a Tory MP in five city ridings -- a voice in Cabinet. He used the same rationale to explain why he appointed Tory national campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, a Montreal businessman, to the Senate and as Minister of Public Works. Montreal, like Vancouver, did not elect a government MP. "I think I was clear what I did and why I did it," Mr. Harper said yesterday.
The Calgary Sun – Roy Clancy:
“Stephen Harper must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Just minutes after being sworn in as prime minister, he relieved himself of one of the biggest burdens he had carried into the job. No longer must he live up to the impossible standard of political purity and ethical integrity saddled upon him by a naive electorate. ...But as widespread moans of anger illustrate, many Canadians took Harper seriously when he promised Monday to "begin a new chapter for Canada." No wonder they were disappointed when they learned within moments that this new chapter looks a lot like the old one. ...Harper's pragmatic moves may not have violated the letter of his promises to change the way government is run, but they shattered the spirit. .... Monday's manoeuvres quickly lowered the bar when it comes to public expectations of this new regime.“
The Calgary Sun - Rick Bell:
“See the Tories wriggle. Wriggle, Tories, wriggle. Ah yes, one party's turncoat is another party's principled politician. No anger now. No demands to step down and face the voters now. No nasty name-calling now. No sympathy for the poor electors of the riding of the quisling now. ... The trouble with talking about the moral high ground is you actually have to walk on it or, like the kid standing by the broken window after throwing the snowball, insist without shame you've done nothing wrong. ... So the rationalizations flow, the lame explanations are exhaled into the hot air and only those who have drunk the Conservative Kool-Aid will follow as good old ideological ants.”
So, what lessons can be taken from Harper’s first exercise of Prime Ministerial power? Here are a few for you to ponder:
• Just as it is unfair to accuse every Republican of having the same moral vacuity that President Bush has displayed, so too is it unfair to say that all Conservatives – and all voters who voted for the Tories – lack good moral and political judgment. It is very clear that there are a lot of people who voted Tory because they sincerely believed that it was time for the Liberals to mend their house, and for another party to bring in some anti-corruption measures. These people still have high standards; they are as bewildered by the events of this week as others are.
• Harper obviously believes he is above trifling things like having to take the feelings of others into consideration. This exercise of Prime Ministerial power shows that he will think things through – apparently mostly on his own – and then decide on the best way forward. If he explains his thought process, it is obvious to him that voters will then understand why he is right, and fall into line. There is a word for this: paternalism. Harper shows clear signs of seeing himself as the Big Wise Daddy of Canadian politics. His use of the word “superficial” to describe the reaction of others to his crass abandonment of some of the major planks of his election platform illustrates this very clearly.
• Harper is focused on winning a majority in the next election, to happen within 18 months. Everything he will do or say is geared to that. If lesser mortals within his own party do not understand this, that is their problem. They must suck it up and stay in line. Big Daddy knows best.
• Harper does not believe in a democratic party for the Tory government. It is his way or the highway (witness Stronach). This is perhaps the most worrisome aspect for many Tories: did they realize they were electing a dictator rather than the leader of a parliamentary party fashioned along the lines of a Westminster democracy? How many more decisions will be made by The Leader, and rammed down the throats of the caucus? And how can Canadians expect such decisions to be the best, if they are not tested by vigorous debate within the governing party before being made?
If Harper continues in the same vein for the next 12 months, expect him to join the ranks of the Clarks, Campbells and Martins as a short-lived blip on the Canadian political firmament.
At Wed Feb 08, 04:42:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
I am willing to bet that DE was increasingly disgusted with the Liberal antics during the election but had no way of removing his name or if he announced that he was dropping out, the dippers would have gotten in. He probably contacted a CPC rep and let it be known that he wanted to abandon ship. They may then have decided to have the CPC rep contact him after the electin. Since PMSH had to put a cabinet together and he had the expertise of DE available, he probably named him to cabinet and was willing to take the heat for it for the betterment of Canada.
To have DE on the back bench would have been an absolute waste of talent. Even if he had sat as an independent and been named to cabinet, the howls of rage would have been as loud. I am willing to bet that there are going to be more libs that lean right crossing as well, but that they will sit as independents or backbenchers.
Also, let us not forget that although candidates run under a party banner, technically the electorate votes for the person and not the party.
At Wed Feb 08, 04:45:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Too funny. If I had the money I'd put $100 down on a Liberal minority, if not a majority, in 18 months or less. :D
At Wed Feb 08, 06:25:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"Lack of women' comments irritate me. You can't make those situations. This is a country of free choice is it not?Were any women told "Don't even try'? I don't believe so. More women would be in the House of commons IF MORE WOMEN WANTED TO DO IT!VF
Post a Comment
<< Home