# Liberal MP Wajid Khan defects to Conservatives



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2007)

Isn't this just commonsense for the Leader of our nation to choose the best man for the job, transending any Party Politics?

Shared in compliance with the Fair Dealings Act

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070105%2fkhan_harper_070105&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True


> Liberal MP Wajid Khan defects to Conservatives          05/01/2007 10:49:35 AM
> 
> Former Liberal MP Wajid Khan has crossed the floor and joined the Conservatives, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday in Ottawa.
> 
> ...


  

More on link


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2007)

I think the Liberals have just stepped on their own ****. The request of Khan was not partisan, and the Liberals have just told Canadians that they will not cooperate to solve problems.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2007)

Now I don't know who he is so I can't say he's the best person for the job however this little paragraph below is what REALLY burns my butt about the way our political morons have made things.
Quote,
_On Thursday, Dion told Khan to choose between his party and the Conservatives. 
Dion said Khan could not continue serving as Harper's 'special adviser' and remain a Liberal. 
"You can't have a foot in the government and a foot in the opposition," said Dion. "He needs to choose. I hope he will stay with us."_ 

Why can't he stay on?  Should not the proper running of this country be more important than 'advising'?  I could see if he thought he was 'spying' or something but ....advising?


----------



## Yrys (5 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why can't he stay on?  Should not the proper running of this country be more important than 'advising'?
> I could see if he thought he was 'spying' or something but ....advising?



+ infini on that

It's very sad that the citizens in a party believe that the party is or important than the country.

Harper (even if it may have come from a political agenda, because he knows those unwritten rules,
 and may have choose mr. Khan knowing that he would have to change partie ) goes a bit more up
 in my esteem, and Dion down.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now I don't know who he is so I can't say he's the best person for the job however this little paragraph below is what REALLY burns my butt about the way our political morons have made things.
> Quote,
> _On Thursday, Dion told Khan to choose between his party and the Conservatives.
> Dion said Khan could not continue serving as Harper's 'special adviser' and remain a Liberal.
> ...



Who is he? He's my Liberal MP, or at least he was. Now he's my Conservative MP. The riding had a strong contender for the Conservative Party but people of this riding chose a Liberal...Mr.Khan.
As Mr.Dion says you can't have your feet in both parties.  It is fairly clear that we are going to have an election in the near future, Mr.Khan couldn't wait until then to switch parties ? Or did Mr.Harper offer a small inducement ?


And this from the CBC also speaks to another aspect of this story, our riding is made up of a very large percentage of Indian/Pakistan immigrants, who I beleive Khan hopes will continue to vote for him in the next election.

 "In an interview with the CBC following the defection, riding association president Khalid Sagheer said Khan "is my friend, I support him and I will continue to support him."

Asked whether backing Khan would mean switching party memberships himself, Sagheer said "that decision will come in due course."

"I agree with him and my own personal opinion is that the Liberal party has been taking us for granted — immigrants that have worked and supported the party so much, it's been so far only a one-way street," Sagheer said.
                                   -----------------------------------
Khan, 60, immigrated to Canada in 1974, emerging in Toronto as a successful businessman and a prominent voice for the Pakistani and Muslim communities. He left the Liberal caucus on Aug. 11, though he continued to sit as a Liberal.

In the 2006 federal election, Khan defeated Conservative candidate Raminder Gill by 5,792 votes, taking 46 per cent of the vote.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/05/khan-defect-070105.html

Sorry about sticking more stuff on here but I just came across this in the G&M and feel that it adds to my last comment:

Jeffrey Simpson: Wajid Khan will disappear after the next election. He signed up several thousand Muslims and won the Liberal nomination in a safe Liberal seat. The Liberals will nominate another Muslim against him, and he will likely lose. It gives a government a visible minority presence that it lacks, so in the short term this is good, and it balances a little the optics of a government that had pretty much handed its Middle East policy over to the Canada-Israel committee.

http://tinyurl.com/y65vgp


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Who is he? He's my Liberal MP, or at least he was. Now he's my Conservative MP. The riding had a strong contender for the Conservative Party but people of this riding chose a Liberal...Mr.Khan.
> As Mr.Dion says you can't have your feet in both parties.  It is fairly clear that we are going to have an election in the near future, Mr.Khan couldn't wait until then to switch parties ? Or did Mr.Harper offer a small inducement ?



Funny that though isn't it? Seemed that the voters of Newmarket and area were not swayed by the defection of Ms. Stronach in the reverse order when she did this.


----------



## Franko (5 Jan 2007)

Just goes to show you that Dion is in no way, shape or form wanting to work with the PCs on anything _together_.

I think the next session of Parliment is going to be a very ugly one...with so much back stabbing it'll make your stomach turn.

Anyone else notice the latest "most important" thing on Canadian's minds now is the environment (according to the latest CTV blurb)

Who the hell takes these polls anyways?

Regards


----------



## beach_bum (5 Jan 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Just goes to show you that Dion is in no way, shape or form wanting to work with the PCs on anything _together_.
> 
> I think the next session of Parliment is going to be a very ugly one...with so much back stabbing it'll make your stomach turn.



The fact that Dion puts party lines and politics ahead of the best interests of the country speaks volumes to me.


----------



## Yrys (5 Jan 2007)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> The fact that Dion puts party lines and politics ahead of the best interests of the country speaks volumes to me.



Yes, but how many politicians don't do this ? It seem to me that they ''think'' that the country will be better
taking care of by themselves, because they are RIGHT, so everything that comes in the way isn't that important...


----------



## beach_bum (5 Jan 2007)

While I agree that many politicians do this, Mr. Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party and hopes to become Prime Minister.  As a leader he should be setting an example of both leadership and cooperation.


----------



## Yrys (5 Jan 2007)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> As a leader* he should be* setting an example of both leadership and cooperation.



For me, ANY politicians should be emulating an example... But how many does (grammar ?) this ?


----------



## Reccesoldier (5 Jan 2007)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> The fact that Dion puts party lines and politics ahead of the best interests of the country speaks volumes to me.



And that is the message that must be hammered home during the next election.

The Liberanos, more of the same... me, me, me!

The Liberal #1 priority = The Liberal Party


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Jan 2007)

The Librarian  Today at 12:34:28  said:
			
		

> Funny that though isn't it? Seemed that the voters of Newmarket and area were not swayed by the defection of Ms. Stronach in the reverse order when she did this.



<rant>

To our eternal discredit. 

Despite the StatsCan figures to the otherwise, Newmarket-Aurora is probably the stupidest riding in the country, with an MP not too much farther ahead. Ms Stronach could have had a great affect on the CPC government, but sold out for short term gain, now she spends her time as the Paris Hilton of Canadian politics. Her value is nil, in one of the fasted growing and dynamic ridings in the country, we got Barbie. 

First she upset a well oiled CPC party machine with her 'johnny-come-lately' Tory candidacy, based on the laughable assumption that she could be elected leader of the CPC. (Puh-leeze, don't anyone come to me with the 'well she's a successful businesswoman' argument, she couldn't run a clothing store or a restaurant, that she magically morphed into some Trump-like tycoon at the head of Magna is beyond belief).

Then she screwed up the Liberal machine in northern York; remember she displaced the redoubtable Martha Hall Findlay for Liberal candidate after her crossing.

She holds the riding not just on a very effective campaign of 'fear-the-Tories' but also on the remarkably well spun image her (not inconsiderable) fortune can buy her. 

It's all about Belinda, she makes a great Liberal, me, me , me....

As much as I detest short governments and frequent elections, I for one, can hardly wait.....

</rant>

(No; I won't touch the Ti Domi thing, that's her business)


----------



## JesseWZ (5 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Her value is nil, in one of the fasted growing and dynamic ridings in the country, we got Barbie.


+1


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> <rant>
> 
> To our eternal discredit.
> 
> ...






+2  Especially the "she displaced the redoubtable Martha Hall Findlay", mores the pity for Newmarket-Aurora.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2007)

I don't see why this has to mean Dion won't work with the Conservative government; the most I would conclude is that Dion won't allow any Liberal MP to showboat by working unilaterally with the Conservative government.

In general, I don't believe the Liberals like to see any really useful groundshaking new policy passed in Parliament unless it is clearly trademarked as a Liberal Party creation and delivery.  I do believe Harper and the Conservatives are currently willing to share credit with the NDP or BQ or Libs if it helps to move stuff through Parliament.  A Conservative minority government in which the Cons+NDP have enough votes to pass legislation is probably the best situation the NDP can ever hope to achieve.  I think they'd be stupid to throw it away in a fit of ideological pique by toppling the current government unnecessarily, but I'm not impressed by their ability to put achievement ahead of ideology.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Jan 2007)

Mr Kahn, its good to see you are serving the interest of your riding and not blindly following the lieberals.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Mr Kahn, its good to see you are serving the interest of your riding



Did you say the same thing when Belinda crossed....I mean at the time the riding went from a newbie MP to a cabinet minister MP, so was that in the "best interest" of her riding?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Did you say the same thing when Belinda crossed....I mean at the time the riding went from a newbie MP to a cabinet minister MP, so was that in the "best interest" of her riding?



Of course not.  CPC good.  LPC bad.  Too simple.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2007)

Belinda said at the time it was because she couldn't stay in the CPC owing to a conflict of beliefs.  I don't recollect that the question of the interests of her riding or any personal gain entered into it.  The cabinet appointment was just a happy and completely uncorrelated coincidence.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The cabinet appointment was just a happy and completely uncorrelated coincidence.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Jan 2007)

Bruce, NO. I did not say the same thing when Belinda crossed the floor. Why? Mr Kahn said he had gained new found respect working with the Prime Minister as an advisor on the Afghanistan affair over the last while (weeks or months, i am not too sure). He had time to reflect on his decision. It doesn't seem like it was something done on a whim.

Belinda crossed the line for power, thats it. Any clown can see that.

It was not a simple cheer anything Conservative and jeer the liberals at all times type of respect.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Did you say the same thing when Belinda crossed....I mean at the time the riding went from a newbie MP to a cabinet minister MP, so was that in the "best interest" of her riding?


The only similarity is that both crossed the floor. Ms. Stronach's motivation was a cabinet position.  Full stop.
Mr Khan's position is a bit more muddled.  He was asked by Mr. Harper to be the Government's representative on the Middle East and Afghanistan.  He asked the then-leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Graham said "yes".  Mr Dion (aka: son of Chretien) comes along and then draws a line in the sand.  I believe that Mr. Khan chose the "greater good" rather than just toeing the line.  It seems to me that the tone in the Liberal Party is such that Mr. Chretien is pulling the strings, attempting to run his little empire called "Canada" from the shadows.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

Personally I find that floor-crossers do more damage to democracy than good.   I am not questioning his motives or his commitment to the betterment of the country.  I really don't know enough about the guy.

He ran on a liberal campaign, represented himself as being part of that party and was duly elected by a majority of voters. Democracy in action. By crossing the floor he has ignored his constituents wishes and, albeit minor in the big picture, has hurt the democratic process.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/guide/member_parl-e.asp

Above is a quick link to the duties of an MP.  He's failed at properly representing his constituents.

Is he more interested in being an MP with those related duties, or is he more interested in being the PMs advisor?  Did an elected official have to be this advisor?  Could there not have been a better choice (non-elected) to do this job?  If he is the best man for the job, will he keep this position should he not win his seat in the next election?

Now this isn't a party-bias thing for me.  Just that the process gets damaged when someone crosses the floor.  A disturbing trend that is happening more often than not  lately.   My soap box rant isn't just about Khan, it's about all floor crossers, Stronach, Emmerson etc etc.

I believe the Harper government is trying to work with all parties, a good thing.  But keep in mind that they are a minority government.  They really have no choice.

If Mr. Khan's contribution to the country is positive, then good.  Hopefully his insight will do some good.  Unfortunately the democratic process got damaged a little more in the process.


----------



## Jungle (5 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Of course not.  CPC good.  LPC bad.  Too simple.  ;D


Exactly...


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> He ran on a liberal campaign, represented himself as being part of that party and was duly elected by a majority of voters. Democracy in action. By crossing the floor he has ignored his constituents wishes and, albeit minor in the big picture, has hurt the democratic process.



If i am not misstaken he has the support of his ridding association President in this course of action so i would not go that far.  Wish i had the link to where i read this but i'll look.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

To further muddy the waters as to how this is "undemocratic", he got a seat with less than 50% of the vote in his riding, though he was first.  Also, Mr Chretien....er...sorry, Mr Dion told him to no longer perform his function as advisor on Afghanistan and the Middle East.  This in spite of the previous interim leader of that same party who encouraged him to do so.  


"Democracy", where the leadership of a party is won through back door shenanigans and sheeple voting how they are told to vote rather than the true choice of the people.


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> If i am not misstaken he has the support of his ridding association President in this course of action so i would not go that far.  Wish i had the link to where i read this but i'll look.



It was on all the newscasts.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> If i am not misstaken he has the support of his ridding association President in this course of action so i would not go that far.  Wish i had the link to where i read this but i'll look.



Yep.
_In an interview with the CBC following the defection, riding association president Khalid Sagheer said Khan "is my friend, I support him and I will continue to support him."

Asked whether backing Khan would mean switching party memberships himself, Sagheer said "that decision will come in due course."

"I agree with him and my own personal opinion is that the Liberal party has been taking us for granted — immigrants that have worked and supported the party so much, it's been so far only a one-way street," Sagheer said._

The friend part worries me.  And what sort of consultation was done?  A poll?  We all know the value of polls on this site.  The riding president is still one man.

I would prefer that a member of parliament resign and run in a by-election for a true estimation of the riding's wishes.  There should be a better process for MPs wishing to switch sides.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jan 2007)

This sort of thing happens from time to time I wouldnt make a big deal about it. Eventually he will face the voters and he will either be re-elected or he wont, he knows what he is doing. The bottom line is he is supporting Harpers party much like the other members of his coalition.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

In fact the riding president's own words damn the whole thing  "friend"  "My own personal opinion".


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

To call someone friend means more than just toeing the line.  It means that you have made a character judgement about said person.


As for "personal opinion", what other kind of opinions do people have?  What is your opinion?  Does it damn your argument?  Methinks not.


Remember, he was forced into this decision by that most-recent winner of Liberal-Survivor, who made back room deals to win the immunity idol.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jan 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> The only similarity is that both crossed the floor. Ms. Stronach's motivation was a cabinet position.  Full stop.
> Mr Khan's position is a bit more muddled.  He was asked by Mr. Harper to be the Government's representative on the Middle East and Afghanistan.  He asked the then-leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Graham said "yes".  Mr Dion (aka: son of Chretien) comes along and then draws a line in the sand.  I believe that Mr. Khan chose the "greater good" rather than just toeing the line.  It seems to me that the tone in the Liberal Party is such that Mr. Chretien is pulling the strings, attempting to run his little empire called "Canada" from the shadows.




I am one of Mr.Khan's constituents and I am p***ed. This riding is strong Liberal. Mr.Kahn is Muslim and he faced a strong CPC candidate in the last election who is also Muslim, but the voters chose Khan the Liberal.  An important ingredient is the large Muslim population in this riding. What will happen to Mr.Khan in the next election? 
Many of your points are well taken, in the GTA Khan often speaks for the Muslim population and he also speaks too Muslims defending the federal perspective. You could marshal an argument defending his actions as a way to advance the Muslim voice at the federal level. 
Ref Graham, he was a temporary leader in the House, Dion is the elected leader about to go into an election. But I do like your "Mr. Chretien is pulling the strings, attempting to run his little empire called "Canada" from the shadows. "


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This sort of thing happens from time to time I wouldnt make a big deal about it. Eventually he will face the voters and he will either be re-elected or he wont, he knows what he is doing. The bottom line is he is supporting Harpers party much like the other members of his coalition.



Of course.  The democratic process will come full circuit.  And yes, in the big picture it's no big deal.  But how can a voter trust the system if a person will just switch sides?  I vted conservative last election.  I'd be pretty peeved if he switched and voted along the liberal party line, *against*  the wishes of the majority.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2007)

I dare say Cretin has his hand up Dijon's ass, just like a puppeteer. Dijon didn't tell Khan to walk............Cretin did. The street hoods have changed, but the moustache Petes of the Liebrano mob are still in control, running the game from the kitchen of the bistro. Just my hohum Lieberal thought for the day


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

But this guy didn't just jump ship for personal gain.  He was in a position of helping people that he is intimately knowledgeable on, then Cretin Jr. pulled the rug out from under him.  What was the burning need for that?  If anything, having an inside Liberal guy would have been a better strategy, rather than getting into a hissy fit.  The man was told to choose:  partisanism or service.  He chose service.  It is the Liberal parties own fault they are minus a seat.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> To call someone friend means more than just toeing the line.  It means that you have made a character judgement about said person.
> 
> 
> As for "personal opinion", what other kind of opinions do people have?  What is your opinion?  Does it damn your argument?  Methinks not.
> ...



Sorry HS, I guess I should have been clearer about my point.  It was in relation to the argument that since the riding association president supported the decision the it was ok.  By his own admission of being his friend, and stating his own personal opinion (not the riding's opinion) then his support of the move cannnot be credible in the sense that it represents the riding's wishes.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

Whether Interim leader, temporary leader or just leader du jour, Bill Graham was leader, Mr. Khan recognised that and prior to acting in the role of advisor on the Middle East and Afghanistan for the government, he sought for and received permission, and probably encouragement.  If for nothing else, but to work in the interests of Canada.  Mr Dion brought forth the politics card and in this case, Mr Khan felt that the needs of the country to have a credible voice in government re: Afghanistan and the Middle East were more important that following Mr Dion.
As ZC points out, Chretien Dion could have gone to the voters and said "Look, we had to advise the governement of 'Steve' Harper on Afghanistan" or "We worked with the government.  Look, Mr Khan advised them..."  But no, he took the tack of "Liberal first, Canadian second".


Your other points, Crantor, re his opinion rather than the opinion of the association are well taken.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2007)

Graham gave him the OK with past PM Martin's blessing. Cretin was out in the snow. Well, guess who's back in the warmth. This has got the 'petite gangster de Shawinigan' all over it. 'Meet the new boss, same as the ol............sorry, IT IS the old boss'.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry HS, I guess I should have been clearer about my point.  It was in relation to the argument that since the riding association president supported the decision the it was ok.  By his own admission of being his friend, and stating his own personal opinion (not the riding's opinion) then his support of the move cannnot be credible in the sense that it represents the riding's wishes.



I never said that the Ridding assc.president's opinion represented that of the entire ridding.  What i would consider though is that, freind or not, if he is not willing to chastize the MP for switching sides, i would say that the ridding association itself is not that concerned. Part of being someone's friend is telling them when they have screwed up so i dont think his relationship with the MP is necesarily a source of Bias.


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> But this guy didn't just jump ship for personal gain.  He was in a position of helping people that he is intimately knowledgeable on, then Cretin Jr. pulled the rug out from under him.  What was the burning need for that?  If anything, having an inside Liberal guy would have been a better strategy, rather than getting into a hissy fit.  The man was told to choose:  partisanism or service.  He chose service.  It is the Liberal parties own fault they are minus a seat.



Agreed.  And again yes he will be helping service the country. Does Khan really have to be an MP to contribute in the scope of his expertise? Many people advise the PM without being in office.  Do we have to ignore the fact that the people who lose out are the constituents?  Honestly most people won't care because it doesen't affect them.  But their democratic process has been sullied.

Honestly I would rather have seen him step down and force a by-election.  There is no reason why he can't go on advising the PM win or lose.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

The democratic process was sullied when Mr. Dion went against the previous leader and said that Mr. Khan could no longer do his role of advisor....


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (5 Jan 2007)

x


----------



## Remius (5 Jan 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> The democratic process was sullied when Mr. Dion went against the previous leader and said that Mr. Khan could no longer do his role of advisor....



Ahhh, but Mr.Khan was appointed to that job not elected to it by the people of his riding.   Mr.Dion however was elected by his party and as such is carrying out its will as far as their policies as official opposition are concerned.

Don't get me wrong, at face value, Mr. Dion seems to be showing the autocratic tendencies of his previous leader.  A worrying thing and hopefully the PCP will capitalise on it when the next election rolls around (this fall maybe?).  One has to wonder what led to this.  We'll never really know.  I think it is easy to say Dion is playing King Cretin.  But was Khan getting too deep under the covers of the Conservative bed?  Was he alienating his former colleagues?

Anyway, my overall point is that it is too bad that democracy takes a hit when politics are played around with.  And floor crossing, for whatever reason does exactly that.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Jan 2007)

You better call Mr. Bobbit and let him know your "Directing Staff" icon is burned out.   :
I for one would love to see Recceguys quote in the paper.  That would be a riot, CF or not.


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> If i am not misstaken he has the support of his *ridding association President * in this course of action so i would not go that far.  Wish i had the link to where i read this but i'll look.



Is it really any wonder he left? When your Riding happens to have a Ridding Association President vice a Riding Association President, what the heck do the voters expect?

All righty then, now we can go back on track... ;D


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Is it really any wonder he left? When your Riding happens to have a Ridding Association President vice a Riding Association President, what the heck do the voters expect?
> 
> All righty then, now we can go back on track... ;D



I hate you  ;D


----------



## Remius (6 Jan 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Is it really any wonder he left? When your Riding happens to have a Ridding Association President vice a Riding Association President, what the heck do the voters expect?
> 
> All righty then, now we can go back on track... ;D



Booo-urns!  Boo-urns!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Jan 2007)

Nah, I'm good.  Bein' a plain talker an' all.   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2007)

Are you guys done apologizing and saying how much you have moved on.........?


----------



## Franko (6 Jan 2007)

Ahem....gents...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Regards


----------



## DSB (6 Jan 2007)

1.  Any time a member of parliament switches their party it is an affront to all those in his constituency; including those who supported his appointment.    The PC riding association voted for a candidate and worked really hard to get THAT person elected.  They are done a disservice when people turn tail. Voters vote for members and parties; we all are chumps when people ‘cross the floor’.

2.  Riding associations are supposed to be independent of candidates.  However they can be hijacked by massive member sign ups.  If you have the money, and a loyal group of people, you can take control of a riding association.  Often associations are linked to candidates.  I was president of my riding association for a year and helped get my member elected.  It was fun and exciting, but really not for me.

DSB


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2007)

I happen to be one of those voters who actually votes for who I think will best represent me and my interests, irrespective of their political stripe. So if my candidate does cross the floor? Well they are still the same person I voted for because I didn't vote for them because of which party they happened to belong to. 

Could be Liberal, could be Conservative, perhaps even Independant.


----------



## Meridian (6 Jan 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> He ran on a liberal campaign, represented himself as being part of that party and was duly elected by a majority of voters. Democracy in action. By crossing the floor he has ignored his constituents wishes and, albeit minor in the big picture, has hurt the democratic process.



Two points here:

1) Did he actually run on a liberal party assigned platform, or did he run his own campaign with a liberal logo on the sign?

2) Canadians need to stop voting for parties and start voting for people.  This is why political scientists so often argue for coalition-style governments, and so often against two-party/major-party style democracies like the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada).   

Harper actually said it really well today (paraphrasing..) "I think Canadians understand that when we have differences and different objectives, we will work against each other.... What I don't think Canadians understand is when we both agree on something and we still refuse to work together just because [of party alliance]...."

Most people -do- vote for a party, rather than a local candidate, but in all reality, this is increasingly becoming a more moronic method as we go along.  The Liberals today are not the same party as 10 years ago (doesn't mean they are any better/worse) and the liberals during an election will be different than liberals in government and liberals after being in government for another 5 years, even with the same leader!  In fairness, the Cons are actually one of the few parties as of late that has done much of actually doing anything they bothered to run on - which is interesting given the true meaning of conservatism in political science...


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Newmarket-Aurora is probably the stupidest riding in the country Her value is nil, in one of the fasted growing and dynamic ridings in the country, we got Barbie.



Agreed...

Next time can she make her face a little smaller on the signs?  :


----------



## Jaydub (6 Jan 2007)

How's Dion's Shatner impression?






*KHAN! KHHHAAANNN!!!*


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2007)

And,

moving back onto topic.....


----------



## Scratch_043 (6 Jan 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

> 2) Canadians need to stop voting for parties and start voting for people.  This is why political scientists so often argue for coalition-style governments, and so often against two-party/major-party style democracies like the US (and to a lesser extent, Canada).


Here here!!

I think it's about time that Elections Canada took the party affiliation off of the ballot.
I know what you're going to say "mwewewewewe, but how will we know who we are voting for?"
THAT'S THE POINT!!! If you don't know who you're voting for [the individual's standpoint, personality, platform. etc.] then you shouldn't vote. Do your research, learn who the candidates are, party affiliation, etc. and then, when you get to the polling station, you aren't just blindly voting for a particular party, you'd have to do at least a little bit of research first. Either that, or have a requirement that you need to spell your candidate's name on the ballot card.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jan 2007)

More of my fellow constituents voice their opinion:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/168753


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jan 2007)

It may be true that most people vote for party rather than person; but, in Canada, when you vote for the party you are also effectively casting a vote for the PM.  The power in the PMO spells that out.  That concentration of power is why I counter that some floor-crossing _strengthens_ democracy: the parties, and party leaders, should not take the MPs for granted as being not much more than proxies in the House.

The instructive point here is that in the case of neither Emerson nor Khan did Harper go on a shopping spree to acquire a vote to stave off impending non-confidence.  It's not hard to believe that the overriding concern has been to juggle the parliamentary arithmetic to ensure the NDP is a potential voting partner (whether the NDP appreciate it or not) in order, in the long term, to reduce chances of failing to pass a non-confidence vote.  However, I suspect that since the parliamentary arithmetic is known well beforehand it tends to dampen hot-headedness in the House.  Dion and Duceppe and Layton are each less likely to indulge in as much destructive and pointless brinksmanship if they know there are two rather than one (or no) alternatives for Harper to prop up his government.  That, if so, would be a good thing.  The government still has to make deals to survive, but over the long term it has to make deals with parties which represent all slices of the Canadian electorate.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> More of my fellow constituents voice their opinion:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/168753



And we could _*clearly*_ trust the Toronto Star to publish a fair and balanced cross section of letters that it received.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jan 2007)

The _Globe and Mail_ has, as expected, weighed in with all Liberal guns blazing in the form of an editorial, Saturday – “Mr. Khan’s crossing," found at:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070106.EKHAN06/TPStory/Opinion/editorials , and a column today (9 Jan 07) by pundit Jeffrey Simpson – “Welcoming Khan makes a mockery of democracy,” found at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070109.wxcosimp09/BNStory/National/home 

Both betray a profound ignorance of parliamentary democracy and Canadian history.

While it is almost certainly true, as the _Good Grey Globe_ insists, that most Canadians vote for a party leader and team rather than for a specific candidate, ignorance is not an excuse for upending the Constitution.

Constitutionally, parties do not matter; in fact they do not even exist.  Remember the CCF, the Créditistes, Progressive Conservatives, and Social Credit?  All were Canadian political parties which elected MPs during my voting life.  Parties are transient things which provide a convenient but not vital way for a would be government to convince the sovereign (the people) that it can govern with parliament’s confidence. 

The electors sent Mr. Khan to Ottawa as their representative – nothing more or less; not as a Liberal or a Conservative; and certainly not as a member of ‘Team Martin’ or such silliness.  Mr. Khan did nothing wrong by deciding to join the government’s caucus, and neither the electors nor the press have any legitimate complaints.  He is representing his constituents according to the best traditions of Edmund Burke – which is one helluva lot more than one can say for most of the other 307 MPs in the House of Commons.  He is offering them his best judgement in pursuit of their best interests and those of the nation.  If the electors don’t like that – and being as they are typically ill educated, ignorant Canadian electors I am certain they will not – they can reject him if he offers himself again.

While I, personally would _*prefer*_ a purely political _convention_ which would require members to sit as independents for a wee while after they abandon one caucus and prior to joining another there is no valid Constitutional reason why such a thing should exist.  Calling for a by-election to get the voters’ views on a member’s choice is, quite simply, silly – even juvenile.

One, but only one, of the things which keeps Canada mired in a mid-19th century sort of proto-democracy is the rigidity of our system of party discipline.  It could change if more and more MPs thought for themselves – rather than acting as drones in the Harper, Dion, Duceppe or Layton ‘teams’ – and broke party ranks often on any matter, including (save for cabinet ministers) matters of _confidence_.

So: Bravo, Mr. Khan, for striking a small, albeit self serving blow for democracy in Canada! And Hiss and Boo, _Grope and Fail_ for making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2007)

Edward,

+1.

I often wonder what this fine nation of ours would be like, when and if, each voting citizen in Canada actually voted for the best candidate for the job. Thereby duly electing the best candidate in each riding in Canada based on their credentials vice the current method of voting which is based upon which colour adornments are worn with the candidates dress or which colour tie is worn with the suit to the various photo-ops.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jan 2007)

Thumbs up, Edward, as usual well said


----------



## cplcaldwell (9 Jan 2007)

So then, I would ask, how would one juxtapose Mr Khan's actions with the actions of Ms Stronach?


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> So then, I would ask, how would one juxtapose Mr Khan's actions with the actions of Ms Stronach?



Read the rest of the thread!! Apparently the answer to your question above is purely dependant upon which colour tie or dress-accessories (you never know... >) one wears while casting their own ballot, in most cases.


----------



## Remius (9 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> So then, I would ask, how would one juxtapose Mr Khan's actions with the actions of Ms Stronach?



I condemn them both.  But understand that people (most people) wear their political affiliations on their sleeves here.  Stronach has been slammed on this site many many times and it is directly related to her crossing over to the liberals.  

Keep in mind though that that depending on how things go down will determine reaction.  Khan was given an ultimatum.  And he went with his conscience.  So people wil react accordingly.  Emmerson is the worst of the three in my mind, having crossed mere days after the election and after claiming he would be Harper's Worst nightmare.

Depends on what your convictions are and what the flavour of the day is.  Belinda got re-elected, Emmerson wouldn't if he was running again (at 16% PC support in his riding during teh last election I doubt it) and Khan probably won't be back.

I'm not a fan of floor crossing, regardless of the party stripe.


----------



## observor 69 (9 Jan 2007)

In a perfect world we would vote for the best candidate/MP, unfortunately starting a few Prime Ministers ago the government in power virtually runs the government from the PMO. Therefore I vote for the election platform offered by the party. In Harper's case it was his "Five Priorities." Of course the platform normally confirms to the ideological beliefs of the party, more government or less, more taxes or less, public health care or two tier etc. Therefore when I voted for Mr.Khan I expected him to support the platform and ideas of the Liberal party and I rejected the platform presented by Mr.Harper. I now find my democratic choice is nullified and the MP from my riding has chosen on his own to support the platform opposed by the majority of his riding's voters.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> In a perfect world we would vote for the best candidate/MP, unfortunately starting a few Prime Ministers ago the government in power virtually runs the government from the PMO. Therefore I vote for the election platform offered by the party. In Harper's case it was his "Five Priorities." Of course the platform normally confirms to the ideological beliefs of the party, more government or less, more taxes or less, public health care or two tier etc. Therefore when I voted for Mr.Khan I expected him to support the platform and ideas of the Liberal party and I rejected the platform presented by Mr.Harper. I now find my democratic choice is nullified and the MP from my riding has chosen on his own to support the platform opposed by the majority of his riding's voters.



Perhaps, like many in his riding and taking their lead, he has re-evaluated which platform to support.   ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jan 2007)

I just want to know in what riding and when are we going to get to vote for Edward for MP?   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> . I now find my democratic choice is nullified and the MP from my riding has chosen on his own to support the platform opposed by the majority of his riding's voters.



How many voted liberal again? 32-35% was it? Hardly a majority of the voters. :


----------



## armyvern (9 Jan 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How many voted liberal again? 32-35% was it? Hardly a majority of the voters. :


To be fair here, they (ie the Liberal candidate) did get the majority of votes in Baden Guy's riding as he said.


----------



## observor 69 (9 Jan 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How many voted liberal again? 32-35% was it? Hardly a majority of the voters. :



46% LPC, 34.8% CPC  :http://tinyurl.com/yhhd6u


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2007)

He said by a majority of the ridings voters. That would encompass all voters, from every party. So the total of the other parties combined would be the majority of the riding's voters, if the LPC only garnered 46%. Splitting hairs I know, but let's not give the liberal myth any more credit than they're due.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2007)

The next question is whether or not 46% of those voters still approve of the Liberal platform?   

We know 54% did not before.  Perhaps those numbers have increased.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2007)

>So then, I would ask, how would one juxtapose Mr Khan's actions with the actions of Ms Stronach?

Stronach crossed to save the life of Martin's government, and received an immediate cabinet appointment.  She didn't have to sit as a Liberal let alone as a cabinet minister if she disagreed with the platforms of the CPC or wanted to preserve the minority government.  We know this because we know Chuck Cadman was able to do his bit.  Nothing untoward was proven, or likely ever will be - and perhaps nothing really untoward was done, even if there was a hint of a bad smell in the air.  Make of the character of Martin and Stronach what you will.

Also, it happened after Martin refused to recognize what was intended as a statement of non-confidence (the motion to ask a parliamentary committee to express non-confidence) by the opposition parties, because the motion wasn't conventionally one of non-confidence:

Opposition to Government: Government, we have no confidence in you.
Government to Opposition: You forgot to say, "Simon says".  Nyah nyah.

Neither of the crossings from the Liberals to the Conservatives since the last election have taken place with the stench of desperation in the air.  Whatever Khan might receive, his work with the government preceded his crossing and any other perceived reward which might follow.


----------



## observor 69 (9 Jan 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He said by a majority of the ridings voters. That would encompass all voters, from every party. So the total of the other parties combined would be the majority of the riding's voters, if the LPC only garnered 46%. Splitting hairs I know, but let's not give the liberal myth any more credit than they're due.



Your right recceguy. I was in a rush with thinking "first past the post" represented the majority.


----------



## Remius (9 Jan 2007)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=32b31613-7abd-413d-abdb-551d5424b1af

Raises some questions although I wouldn't take Mr. Turner's comments too seriously.  His credibility isn't the best in this case.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Your right recceguy. I was in a rush with *thinking "first past the post" represented the majority*.



Unfortunately, a regular, and all to common misconception of our antiquated political system. A ludicrous and entrenched view held by our politicians and the sheeple that follow them without question.


----------



## Remius (15 Jan 2007)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=35f2a358-66c2-4ac5-b9be-165642372fc2

More on Khan.  Not that I think any of that is any good but I wonder if the media would be making a story out this if he hadn't defected?


----------



## cplcaldwell (15 Jan 2007)

> I wonder if the media would be making a story out this if he hadn't defected?



Probably not, after there's no News in the headline "*Funding Irregularities found in Liberal party campaign*".

It's all old hat.

Now a cheatin' tory, gotta reach back a bit for that one..... :


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2007)

Hmph....
What as good for Belinda is good for Wajid.
as for the citzens who voted for him:
 - They'll sort things out at the nesxt election by either voting FOR or AGAINST him.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmph....
> What as good for Belinda is good for Wajid.
> as for the citzens who voted for him:
> - They'll sort things out at the next election by either voting FOR or AGAINST him.



Well Khan won't have any problem with his old Conservative rival. Harper appointed him to the Immigration Review Board after he lost to Khan.


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2007)

I think the Liberals are working to place a "wunderkind" to run against Khan


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Well Khan won't have any problem with his old Conservative rival. Harper appointed him to the Immigration Review Board after he lost to Khan.



Actually he was appointed in Septembre, a short time before Khan was made a special adviser.  Maybe  a coincidence maybe not.  It leaves the riding open for Khan to run as a conservative.


----------

