Clear Full Forecast

The Written Word: Rafe Mair Oct. 22nd

By Rafe Mair

Sunday, October 22, 2006 03:44 AM

    

So Garth Turner has been given the old heave-ho by the Conservative caucus under, no doubt, the gentlest of urgings from the Prime Minister. The circle is thus complete. It went from Conservatives to Reform to an amalgamation and now back to Conservative. All those principles of Reform, much including the role of the backbench MP are out the window.

Now, let it be agreed that Garth Turner is not really suited to the role of “nice little team player”. He wasn’t when he was in the short-lived Kim Campbell government, and he isn’t now. For one thing, he’s independently wealthy and doesn’t need the money that goes with an elevation back into cabinet. More than that, he’s one of those people who like to speak his mind, a lousy thing to have going for you if you want a career in politics.

The last prominent display of independence we saw was from John Nunziata who was a Liberal. In 1993 the Liberals ran a campaign in part on the platform of abolishing the GST. Whether that promise made sense or not is beside the point – in fact that promise was part of the vaunted “little red book”. When the question came before the House as a budget matter Nunziata voted with the promise he, Liberal, had dutifully made thus against the government which after the election immediately flip-flopped. He was tossed out of Caucus and although he kept his seat in the next election lost the one after that as the Liberals threw everything they had into the fight to beat him.  

What we have then is a classic example of how MPs could be fence posts with hair for all the good they do for the constituents who elected him. Clearly in focus is the question as to whether you elect a person or a party. I suspect most Canadians delude themselves into believing it’s the person. In fact you often hear the statement “I vote the man not the party”. Well, if anyone does that, they don’t understand how the system works. In this particular case Mr. Turner, who like most other Canadians, has strong views that we must seriously address environmental concerns, said so and since that concern was never going to appeal to Mr. Harper, out he went. Mr. Turner had this choice – vote against your conscience and deeply held convictions or we’ll heave you out of caucus and fight to beat you in another election.

That’s the system, folks, regardless of what your Social Studies (or whatever they call it now) teacher taught you. Rather than the Prime Minister and Cabinet being in thrall to the Members of the House of Commons it’s quite the opposite.

In the words of the late House of Congress Speaker, Sam Rayburn, “to get along, you must go along.”


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Trying to go against a belief or a system that is different than yours is extremely difficult. Especially if you are expecting co-operation from your own team members. Often, force is used, or intimidation, or even expulsion. Not usually very successful.

My advice to the Honourable Mr. Turner is to come up with a better idea than the ones currently being used. He should be able to win many over if he has a better idea, not just a different idea. Chester
I think that the better idea would be proportional representation, BC style, where candidates have to compete with members of their own party as well as with candidates from other parties. That would promote a need to be seen as an individual not just a party animal and one could hope that would carry over into Parliament (and the Legislature).
Proportional representation brings with it a whole new set of problems, and allows people to sit in Government who have never been elected, as they come from a list put forward by the party.

It sounds good if you say it fast, but places that have tried it, or are trying it are having some problems.

I strongly suggest that people do some in depth research into Proportional Rep before they jump on the band wagon. Two examples of new solutions to problems that didnt work was the introduction of rabbits, and the horned toad into Austrailia. They eventually became a major problem. I suspect that Prop Rep could be a rabbit or a toad.
The BC style proportional representation system that was recommended and almost approved does not have party lists, and all MLAs elected under it would be chosen directly by voters.

I am adamantly opposed to any form of PR that involves casting a vote for a party, then the party selecting the MLA based the percentage of votes they get. I believe that form of PR is completely undemocratic.

I must note that our present "first past the post" system really is a dinosaur!