Giving the NDP credit for their position on Wajid Khan
I was wondering just how the NDP would react to news of Wajid Khan leaving the Liberals to join the Conservatives. It matters to the NDP because the the new distribution of seats means that an agreement between the NDP and the Conservatives is enough to pass a bill. Before, it took the agreement of three parties. The new reality is that the Conservatives are more likely to consider the NDP as potential allies, which gives the NDP more influence.
So the question is, what is the official position of the NDP? They are sticking to their principles on this one, and for that they ought to be given credit.
The NDP has issued a statement via their website on Wajid Khan:
Peter Stoffer MP (Sackville-Eastern Shore) says Wajid Khan’s defection to the Conservative Party is undemocratic and Harper should not accept him into his caucus.
“Prime Minister Harper continues to say that their government is more transparent and accountable to the public. Accepting an MP from another party in his caucus is as far from accountable and democratic as it can get. Harper also erred in judgement when he allowed former Liberal MP David Emerson to cross the floor and join him in cabinet and appointed Minister Michael Fortier to a cabinet post even though he does not hold a seat in the House of Commons.”
"I feel very strongly that as MPs, our political future must always be decided by our constituents,” said Stoffer. “If a Member of Parliament wishes to cross the floor, they should resign their seat and seek nomination under the new banner for a by-election or the next general election.”
Under the circumstances, the NDP might have chosen to say nothing. Nevertheless, they are taking the public position that, despite the unsaid benefit to the NDP, Khan ought not to have joined the Conservatives. Moreover, he ought to have resigned the seat, even though the outcome might well have been a Liberal win in a by-election and no net benefit to the NDP.
Of course, it's easy to speak of principles when you yourself have no direct action that can be taken. If the NDP had it in their power, somehow, to force Khan's resignation, that would have been the real test. But even though it is easier to just say the right thing when you don't have it in your power to do the right thing, saying the right thing still counts for something. If nothing else, it puts the NDP on record. Should one day a Liberal MP, say Scott Brison, decide to defect to the NDP, the NDP will have to refuse to accept him into caucus (in Scott Brison's case, that might be a wise choice anyway, since he would almost certainly run for the leadership of the NDP within a week of joining).
So bravo to the NDP for being consistent in their position, even though it might hurt them one day. I don't happen to agree with it, but it's good to see some consistency in the opposition benches in Ottawa.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
NDP New Democratic Party Wajid Khan Peter Stoffer Liberal Party Conservative Party Scott Brison Canada
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
It seems to me that if we were to follow the logic of the NDP that people only vote for parties and not MPs, than by extention only the leaders are needed as the party is all and the leader is the party.
Sounds like communism to me.
Posted by: Durward at January 6, 2007 07:57 PM
I see your point , and agree in part , but if you remenber back with Belinda they talked the same talk , but then took full advantage of their new found power by hijacking parliament to re issue a new pork infested budget.
The NDP have to always talked out both corners of their mouth on these issues , however , until a law is passed in the commons banning such moves in parliament , floor crossing will continue as it has since Sir John A McDonald. All the polictal haymaking and grandstanding on the subject will amount to zero.
Belinda will stay put , Kieth Martin will stay put , Scott Brison will stay put , Mr Emerson will stay put , and so will Mr Kahn. If you remember Sheila Baby face Copps was considering a walk to the NDP , and very little was voiced by the NDP at the time.
The NDP know fully that the grandstanding is only for appearance to shore up support for the numskulls to stupid to understand that the status quo will stand , and you may have noted , that no one is ever really serious about jumping ship to the Mr 18% NDP crowd. So it only stands to reason that the NDP would make the most noice on the subject , and then stand to gain the most benefit.
Posted by: Timothy Coderre at January 6, 2007 08:14 PM
I don't really think that the NDP saying the crossing over is undemocratic or accountable makes much sense, actually.
It's as democratic as forcing your caucus to vote along party lines, rather than the way your constituents want you to vote. The NDP do that regularly.
As for accountable....well, that doesn't seem to be the correct word. Khan is accountable to his constituents, and it's up to him to explain his decision. It's not PM Stephen Harper's problem.
If someone wants to cross over, they do it of their own free will, no matter what transpires before.
That's accountable, but put the accountability on the person doing the crossing over.
I'd like Jack Layton account for some of his back-room deals with the Liberals to help keep them in power.
My two cents for what it's worth.
Posted by: anonymous at January 6, 2007 08:52 PM
This is the same incoherent argument that said that for the NDP to disapprove of the 25% pay raise in Ontario that they should refuse their own salary increase.
And now you're saying that their true motives can't be revealed unless they had the option to force Khan's resignation.
The fact is that the Conservatives and Libs shamlessly upped their salaries by 25% and the Dippers voted in good conscience. The fact is that Mr.Khan screwed his constituents and joined the Tories who accepted him with unscrupulously open arms. I fail to see how the NDP has lost any moral standing here.
Posted by: Adrian MacNair at January 6, 2007 09:50 PM
I'd like to add that I give Steve a half credit for giving the NDP a half credit for their stance. Kind of like the way I give Harper a half credit for giving a half a damn about the environment.
Posted by: Adrian MacNair at January 6, 2007 09:52 PM
I must disagree, Steve - I don't believe this conventional-wisdom story about newfound power for the NDP stands up to scrutiny. First of all, the NDP can afford to stand against floor-crossing because no one ever crosses to them! Secondly, the only way this helps the NDP is if Stephen Harper desperately, desperately wants to hang onto this Parliament. It would take utter desperation for him to make a deal with the NDP to prop up his minority. From all indications, the CPC would gladly go to the polls again as early as this spring.
Posted by: NCF TO at January 7, 2007 12:20 AM
When I make a decision to vote, it isn't for a specific party, it's for which candidate best suits my choice, and whom I think would best serve my riding. If, as some people think, that the majority votes along party lines and votes for party "A", even if party "A" nominated a cow. If the cow crossed the floor to party "B" because the grass looked greener and more nutricious, the people who voted for party "A" would be upset, while the people who voted for the cow would feel they still have a voice, and maybe the milk will be even better. The opposition to MP's crossing the floor to a different party seems to be more from the parties themselves and blind "party" voters rather than from the everyday voter.
Posted by: Adrian MacNair
The fact is that Mr.Khan screwed his constituents and joined the Tories who accepted him with unscrupulously open arms.
Mr. Khan has served the Government of Canada (you and I) as a special advisor to the PM on the middle east. Unfortunately Mr. Dion seems to feel that Mr. Khan's loyalty to the Liberal Party should be more important than loyalty to Canada and service for his country, which raises the question of Mr. Dion's first loyalty, Canada, France, or the Liberal Party. When Belinda crossed the floor to the Liberal Party, the only people she was serving were herself(cabinet post) and Paul Martin's 'faint hope claws' to stay in power. Who had the "unscrupulously open arms" in that case?
Posted by: LJ at January 7, 2007 05:35 AM
"The fact is that the Conservatives and Libs shamlessly upped their salaries by 25% and the Dippers voted in good conscience"
Adrian - the real test is if they take the raise. It is pretty easy to vote with your "conscience" if you have no hope of winning.
Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 7, 2007 08:18 AM
It's interesting that the dippers suddenly feel that MPs should be responsible to their constituents first and the party second. This, of course, after we've seen what happens if dipper MPs fail to toe the party line...... say on a same sex marriage vote?
And concerning the other thread here, AB Girl is right. It's nice to be able to say you voted against something when you knew it would pass despite your vote. The Ontario dippers could take a real stand on this pay issue by refusing to accept it...... riiiiight...
Posted by: Rob R at January 7, 2007 11:45 AM
IF Jack Layton and the NDP really and truly believed that floor-crossing is undemocratic and should be illegal, they would not have allowed Ed Shreyer (sp?) to have run for them. Why? Our country's esteemed former GG and former Manitoba Premier (1969 - 1977) got his first majority (he had fallen one seat short - 28 of 57) by having a newly re-elected Liberal MLA (Larry Desjardin? Desjarlais? can't quite remember, after all it is almost forty years ago) cross the floor to join his cabinet. (I will give the floor crosser some credit - he didn't sit as an NDP member, but as a "Liberal Democrat.")
Jack Layton owes Canada an apology for his lack of leadership. And before my NDP friends point out that this happened decades ago, so did the scandal in the Saskatchewan PC Party, and Mr Harper still refused to allow Grant Devine to run federally for the CPC.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 7, 2007 03:57 PM
If the NDP were sound in their logic, then we would not have by-elections when a member of parliament resigned or died--the party elected would simply appoint a replacement until the next election. But the NDP are wrong. We elect people, not parties.
Posted by: murray at January 7, 2007 08:56 PM
Who cares what the NDP think. They are truly a protest party and nobody really takes them seriously anymore. Mr. Layton will prostitute himself again with Mr. Harper so he can pretend he has some influence. However, the NDP had better not wish for an election too soon because those votes that Liberals lent him last time will go back to the Liberals or the Green party. So sorry for your luck Jack.
Posted by: hollinm at January 8, 2007 06:58 AM
 
|
|
