The Rants of Issachar
Monday, February 07, 2005
I was driving taking the ferry across to Fort Langley and I was listening to CBC 1 around 6:15ish. I'm not sure what the program was, but they were having an interview with Peter Stoffer. He's an NDP MP from Nova Scotia. He was going on record as saying that NDP Leader Jack Layton's insistance on forcing NDP's to vote in favour of the government's same-sex marriage bill is a bad idea. What I found most interesting about the interview is that Mr. Stoffer is in favour of the bill and is planning on voting for it. He was objecting to the concept of forcing people to vote a certain way. I am impressed with his stand. He obviously has political opinions and supports the NDP, but he believes in representative democracy in a way that's seriously lacking in our country these days. As he phrased it, he's never believed in the idea of a "whipped vote".
He was also very sensible in his explanation of how to have party policies without turning MP's into mindless automatons voting the party line. "Not every issue can be fully debated at a party convention". How very true. I also liked that he didn't say that MP's should vote the way their constituents want. Instead he said that MP's are responsible to constituents for their vote. My sentiments exactly. My MP is accountable to me and the other voters. Not to the party whip. Now if only we had a government that agreed.
Update: 7:30AM February 8th
I was listening to the CBC's World Report while driving in to work today. Mr. Stoffer's comments made the news. Layton has apparently talked with Stoffer and remains insistant that NDP MP's will be forced to vote party lines. No word yet on what he's going to do to Bev Desjarlais, the Manitoba MP who says she will vote against the bill. Also on the news was an NDP MP who's name I didn't catch talking about how the irony was that Mr. Stoffer supported the bill so they wished that he had "kept his mouth shut". I'd say that's missing the point. I think Mr. Stoffer was commenting more on a healthy representative government than he was on the merits of the bill itself. So kudos again to Stoffer.
He was also very sensible in his explanation of how to have party policies without turning MP's into mindless automatons voting the party line. "Not every issue can be fully debated at a party convention". How very true. I also liked that he didn't say that MP's should vote the way their constituents want. Instead he said that MP's are responsible to constituents for their vote. My sentiments exactly. My MP is accountable to me and the other voters. Not to the party whip. Now if only we had a government that agreed.
Update: 7:30AM February 8th
I was listening to the CBC's World Report while driving in to work today. Mr. Stoffer's comments made the news. Layton has apparently talked with Stoffer and remains insistant that NDP MP's will be forced to vote party lines. No word yet on what he's going to do to Bev Desjarlais, the Manitoba MP who says she will vote against the bill. Also on the news was an NDP MP who's name I didn't catch talking about how the irony was that Mr. Stoffer supported the bill so they wished that he had "kept his mouth shut". I'd say that's missing the point. I think Mr. Stoffer was commenting more on a healthy representative government than he was on the merits of the bill itself. So kudos again to Stoffer.
4 Comments:
Posted by: 
kriswouldn't it be wonderful if we had a system like switzerland where we, the electorate, were able to vote personally on legislation?
:)
kriswouldn't it be wonderful if we had a system like switzerland where we, the electorate, were able to vote personally on legislation?:)
Posted by: issacharI'm not so sure about that. The problem I see is that the more stuff we voted on directly, the lower our voter turnout would be. I know I'd be a lot less likely to vote 100% of the time (which is what I do know) if we had a ton of different votes rather than just one every couple of years. So if we have lower voter turnouts, doesn't that damage the credibility of results?
issacharI'm not so sure about that. The problem I see is that the more stuff we voted on directly, the lower our voter turnout would be. I know I'd be a lot less likely to vote 100% of the time (which is what I do know) if we had a ton of different votes rather than just one every couple of years. So if we have lower voter turnouts, doesn't that damage the credibility of results?
Posted by: DreaMP's need to pick their battles. Sometimes there are battles worth fighting. But the cost in Canadian politics, may be losing a position of power. Is this worth it? I think I would like my MP to bend on some battles, vote with the party, and actually have a position where he could influence the party on the battles that are seriously worth fighting. Ideals are good, but let's work the system!
DreaMP's need to pick their battles. Sometimes there are battles worth fighting. But the cost in Canadian politics, may be losing a position of power. Is this worth it? I think I would like my MP to bend on some battles, vote with the party, and actually have a position where he could influence the party on the battles that are seriously worth fighting. Ideals are good, but let's work the system!
Posted by: issacharIdeals are good, but let's work the system? ARHG! You are a Liberal!
Consensus building is the worthy goal and winner take all is not always the best choice, but I do not want an MP who sacrifices their values for power. Neither do I want one who is so pig-headed that it always has to be his way of course. Picking your batttles is fine, but if I think you're sacrificing a deeply held belief to get ahead I'm going to try and kick you out of power.
issacharIdeals are good, but let's work the system? ARHG! You are a Liberal!Consensus building is the worthy goal and winner take all is not always the best choice, but I do not want an MP who sacrifices their values for power. Neither do I want one who is so pig-headed that it always has to be his way of course. Picking your batttles is fine, but if I think you're sacrificing a deeply held belief to get ahead I'm going to try and kick you out of power.
