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.
1 comment:
simple message on valentine day for couple
propose day quotes for husband
happy hug day card message for husband
happy kiss day sweet messages for girlfriend
Post a Comment