Anti floor-crossing bill and the Titanic's deck chairs

There has been some talk recently about NDP MP Peter Stoffer's attempts to pass a bill that would prevent MP's from leaving one party to join another party in the House of Commons... commonly referred to as floor-crossing. It is his and many other people's belief that if a person is elected under the banner of one party, for them to leave that party and join another is a betrayal of the constituents who elected that MP.

Nonsense.

The problem is not in whether a person leaves one party and joins another. The problem is with the whole concept of parties in general.

Citizens are voting for parties. Not for ideas. Not for MP's who live in the area and understand both the needs and how to best represent the interests of the constituents. They are voting for parties.

The recent election of countless placeholder NDP MP's in Quebec is indicative of the real problem here. How is it possible that people who have never set foot in an area can become the functional leader of that area?

The fact that the focus is on the party and not on the individual best suited to represent the local constituents is a betrayal of the whole concept of local representation in government. Local constituents are no longer voting for local representation. They are voting largely for the image and rhetoric and not for needs and ideas.

I have no sympathy for this bill because it is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Party focused systems of government are the problem, not whether a person decides that the best interests for their constituents lies in voting or even sitting with the government.

If he or anybody else has a problem with MP's deciding that it is better to be part of the government who makes decisions affecting their local constituency rather than part of a party on the sidelines, then the solution is simple. Don't ban floor-crossing. Ban the concept of parties. That would take care of two birds with one stone.

No more placeholder candidates.

No more floor-crossing.

Just a return to the real purpose of local representation.

Follow Up: Jack makes good

As a follow up to my previous post calling Jack Layton out on his stance on civility in the House of Commons and the episode of former Senate page Brigitte DePape's disrespect to the Governor General, the House of Commons and Parliament in general...

...I have to commend him on doing what none of my left-wing friends are doing and stating that what she did was in fact wrong.

I guess he realized the gulf that would exist between a call for civility and keeping silent after the first shot taken is from his side of the political spectrum. Of course, while nobody is acting out, it's just as expected seeing how the smugness and insincerity hasn't taken a bow yet.

But it's a start.

I guess it helps when the natural egotist party isn't the one taking the lead and guiding the House of Commons' civility into a nosedive on the first chance to speak.

Calling Out Jack Layton On Civility

So, Jack... you're the one who was so fired up about civility in this session of Parliament. Not that you've really kept your word so far.

I have yet to hear word one from you about Brigette DePape, the young Senate page who disrupted the Governor General during the throne speech with a dramatic and churlish demonstration.

It doesn't surprise me that the media seems to be going out of its way to avoid having to ask you your opinion on this. It's much easier for them to build this unprofessional imbecile up as some martyr of civil disobedience without exposing her to the yardstick that you set for Parliament.

But if you're so dedicated to transforming Parliament into a place where the people charged by Canadians to keep the wheels of government turning productively and politely, let's hear what you have to say about one of those people turning her back on her responsibilities and in fact disrespecting the institution and mechanisms (the throne speech) of Parliament.

The definition of civility is quite clear. And this page certainly was neither courteous nor polite.

So let's hear it.

We'll wait.

Globe & Mail Engages In A Blistering Attack

Let's get this straight.

According to the Globe & Mail, the Conservative Party is testing the NDP's pledge to seek more civility and respect between members of Parliament" by launching a "blistering attack" on the NDP.

What was that blistering attack? International Trade Minister Ed Fast said that the policies the NDP have said they want to put forward would be bad for business.

Now, let's compare.

Mr. Fast called Jack Layton's party “reflexively and ideologically anti-trade,” accusing it of acting contrary to the interests of “hard-working Canadians."

So, according to the Globe & Mail this is what one could consider to be a "blistering attack". Never mind that article author Steven Chase was reduced to cutting and pasting one or two word fragments as quotes to make his point that this was some kind of "blistering attack".

Now, let's compare that to what Jack Layton said a couple of days ago about the Harper Government's response to the flooding in Quebec:

"His policy is to not help people. He said he's not there to do the cleanup or something to that effect. That is an attitude that does not respect the population."

And...

"And the idea that they don't want to interfere with the private sector . what is this? You want to promote the private sector to make money off the misery of people.

"What kind of an attitude is that? Is that the beginning of the attitude we're going to see on the privatization of health care and the privatization of all kinds of things which should be done by the government?

And those were just straight up, full sentence quotes of Jack Layton. Didn't even have to cut it down to one or two word fragments to frame what he said.

Geez... I don't know. I can't figure out which is more of a "blistering attack". Mind you it's not like we expect such incivility from Mr. Layton, the least civil MP in the House of Commons.

There really is only one clear element to this entire brouhaha involved in a blistering attack.

That would be the editorial staff of the Globe & Mail.