In His Own Words

Finally a pole with no preconceived bias.
:)

Garth finally shows his true colors.

The Green Party is the watermelon party, green on the outside and red on the inside.

If he dares to announce his membership in the Green Party without running in the byelection...

What a flaming hypocrite. I don't know how he can live with such hypocrisy.

"concrete: Green Party = Watermelon"

Very Funny!

But what about the seeds? In the Green Party that would be the federal funds available it. And we all know the only good of the seeds is to see how far we can spit them!

The news item stated that Garth didn't make his move by choice. However, he was only expelled from caucus, not from the party. If he had pledged to change his behaviour, they would have let him back in. If he bolts to the Green party, he will have freely chosen to change parties, and should run in a by-election if his convictions have any meaning at all.

I voted no. Reason? The cost. If this was a majority parliament, I'd vote yes, but we may be in a general election soon, and there is no sense squandering more taxpayers money on a byelection.

Let Garth have his moment of glory as the first Green Party MP, he'll lose the next election, which is likely only a few months away.

Great post, Kate! Way to smoke 'em out....

As for the watermelon comments I believe they are fair commentary. Despite media reports to the contrary, Garth Turner is NOT a small-c conservative by any stretch. It takes more than being in favour of tax cuts to call oneself a conservative, and on every social issue you can name Garth takes the progressive i.e. liberal stand. Hence, he is a small-l liberal who belongs in the Liberal party, or maybe the NDP.

This is less objectionable than Stronach's move to the liberals or that guy from B.C. who moved to the conservatives. Turner was expelled, and he isn't joining the party in power. So really, this isn't that big of a deal.

And I say this as a full-hilt supporter in the war on terror, think Kyoto is bunk and would've voted Conservative if I lived in Canada.

Please explain: Why are you upset about Garth, and earlier BS, but not about Emerson?

Inconsistency and hypocrisy are two sides of the same coin.

In my opinion:
- all votes in parliament should be free
- there should be a recall procedure in place (fairly easy to invoke)

However, in our current strict party system (with non-free votes):
- when you change party, your need to be re-elected
- if you are pushed out (like Garth), you must sit as independent (or face the voters in a by-election)

Mr. Turner if he wants to maintain any credibility must resign and go back to his constituents to get a mandate to run as a Green Party MP. He made such a to do about it when Emerson crossed the floor he has no choice. Whether he left the party voluntarily or not, his position was that any MP who wishes to cross the floor to another party must go back to his constituents. This is what happens when you get holier than thou. However, I suspect Turner will spin it in all manner of ways to achieve his end.

Let's see if the media is outraged as they were when Emerson crossed the floor. Somehow I doubt it.

The point is, that Turner himself, made the decision that any MP, if he moves to another party, must first ask his constituents in an election, whether they permit this switch to a different party than the party for which they voted him into parl't.

For Turner to reject his own statement of 'correct behaviour' is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Yes, I'd agree, he's not a conservative but a Liberal or NDP. Therefore, he'll do just fine in the Green Party, which is a one-issue utopian section of the Liberal/NDP Party.

"Why are you upset about Garth, and earlier BS, but not about Emerson?"

Where did I indicate that I'm "upset"?

Kate,
So do you approve of Garth (potentially) changing party alliance in parliament?
What is your opinion on the issue at hand, i.e. should MPs be allowed to change party without facing the voters or not?

In general I think parties are legal fictions, and that MPs need not go back when they change parties. They should but there should be no complsion. But GT explicitly stated it was his view they should, and he should be held to the same standards he espouses for others. If he doesn't -- and he won't -- we know what to call him.

Most of us are probably surprised when our MPs represent us in any way, so if my MP crossed the floor, cross-dressed, or cross-sexed, it wouldn't surprise me.

My MP stated to me in writing that he viewed marriage as a foundational institution that pre-dated the nation state, that governments had no authority to change it, and that he opposed changing its definition. Once elected he voted the party line in favour of same-sex marriage.

The fact is, we have a very weak co-relationship between the electorate and the MPs we send to Ottawa. This weak democracy is made weaker still by the outsourcing of the critical moral judgements of our day to unelected courts acting as secular high priests.

So, I would say no. He was elected for a term; he should serve it, and then let the people give him the boot.

Becauses that's what boots are for.

He was to see as an independant. If he joins the Green Party he will have changed parties and therefore be a hypocrite.

I suspect he will be a guest on CBCpravda tonight as this is the part of the pravda mandate as well.

and I dont mean man date as per Paris Stronach or Scooter Brisons/Svend Robinson version either.

jrb wrote:

>concrete: Green Party = Watermelon"
>
>Very Funny!
>
>But what about the seeds? In the Green Party
>that would be the federal funds available it.
>And we all know the only good of the seeds is
>to see how far we can spit them!

How about: Green on the outside, Red on the inside, with a liberal sprinking of Black (fascism).

Alan

Garth was not kicked out of the conservative party. They have not recinded his membership. He just can't eat at the same table anymore.

But here's the thing...

The question of a MP moving from one party to the next, in Garth's own words, is not about the MP. It is about the vote of the people. It's about the people voting for a person in one party who moves into another. The fact that the CPC kicked Garth out doesn't suddenly cleanse him of the fact that his arguments have always been about the intention of the voters.

After all, why does his blog for today show a breakdown of voter intent at a meeting he had?

In all honesty, it doesn't matter that he was expelled from the CPC because his whole argument is not about party or the MP itself. It's about the will of the constituents. And thus, under his own argumet, he himself cannot decide to go to the Greens without first getting approval from the voters.

Want more proof?

“People should stick by their colours, if they want to change their colours they should go back to the people.” – Mike Duffy Live, Feb 9, 2006 (Garth going from Indie to Green is changing his colous, is it not?)

“It's simply a matter of satisfying the voters of Canada's desire to have people who sit in the House of Commons actually be legitimized by the voters. I don't think it's a big deal. I don't think it's a stretch.” – CTV’s Question Period, Feb 12, 2006 (if he is going to the Greens, shouldn't THAT be legitimized?)

“Everybody who makes up the government should be elected. They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government. Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it’s the other way around.” – Garth.ca, Feb 9, 2006 (if he is going to the Greens, whether or not it is from Indie or from CPC, it is switching parties)

“The Emerson affair may indeed blow over. The minister may decide not to take the heat. David may turn into a cabinet star and a national asset. But he should still have the conviction to get elected a member of the team he chose.” – Garth.ca, Feb 9, 2006 (Garth didn't choose to be a Green, he chose to be a Conservative. If he is going to be Green, shouldn't he stick by his words and get elected as "a member of the team he chose"?)

The biggest problem with Garth having such a loud mouth is that he's given himself a lot of rope to hang himself with. It's going to be interesting for him to ride the high horse with so many words conflicting his choice if he goes to the Greens.

Green Party leader Elizabeth May's first comment after winning the leadership was that Canada should withdraw from NAFTA.

Does former financial columnist Garth realize he just joined an anti-free trade party? How is that going to play with his pro-business supporters?

Conservative humour is an oxymoron. It starts almost funny but then the riffing takes it into the toilet...reverse synergy at its best.

All you wannabe Rush Limbaughs please don't quit your day jobs...if you have one.

Unfreeking believable how fast a CPC hero turns into a CPC goat.

All we need is Mackay to follow Belinda's scent and cross the floor... Believe it, he's still in love!

David,
What's your point?

Keep on speaking in generalities David Brown... we love the circus sideshow.

If you're looking to debate reality, you can join us anytime.

Seems to me the last couple of days that Garth is holding town hall meetings with his constituents and getting their vote on the matter.

A rumour that he's going to the Green Party is just that, a rumour. That makes all this speculation.

Y'all know, I don't see any reason to give Garth Turner further coverage. He seems to crave attention... he was like a troll in the CPC, just like trolls on blogsites... he got himself banned for doing nothing but annoying everyone while they were trying to govern, etc.

Yep, Garth Turner is a troll! Pass it on!

The Greenies can have him. But can they put up with him? Maybe they're so desperate to have someone in the House that they'd put up with pretty much anyone. That'd be pathetic.

here is Rex Murphy on one that didnt cross the floor but did cross the border.I think there is more than just a passing resemblance to John Kerry in face and attitude. a waffler and flipflop on policy and even citizenship.

from REX MURPHY.
That's all dust with the new Liberal Party. Mr. Ignatieff is as fresh to the Liberal Party as fresh can be, the newest car in the showroom. In fact, it's a reasonable observation that Mr. Ignatieff is only a resident of Canada because it coincides with his desire to be its prime minister. There's nothing wrong with living 30 years out of the country, but it is surely turning that consideration on its head to say it's a qualification for leading it.

But the Liberals, with the magnificent élan which only the natural governing party is capable of, have shown by this weekend's results that they really are starting over, that in the history of the Liberal Party, this is as close to year zero as they can manage. They have said that so far, the best man to lead their party is the one man that up until a couple of years ago had absolutely nothing to do with it. This is very self-effacing of them, but it's kind of brutal to their own history and not incidentally to Paul Martin as well. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy

Hmm... wouldn't surprise me if Garth was also a troll by a different ID in the blogosphere... who knows? Fits the profile, I think!

Johan i Kanada,

My point is that the CPC is dysfunctional.

There really only is a small group of Harperites in the party. Once the thinking fringe is alienated there's a table of maybe 5 or 6 left.

Doesn't make for much of a party, especially with MacKay back on daddy's farm planting potatoes!

Garth Turner has shown himself to be an ultra self-centered ego maniac and that can sometimes indicate psychopathy.

What matter to Garth is that Garth is being noticed. This little boy needs a big honkin slap upside the head.

So, Kate and others,

- Garth's problem seems to be that he said he thought floor-crossers should go back to the voters, and now that he is chased out of the CPC caucus, he might be considering to say he represents another party (and not go back to the voters).

- How is this fundamentally different from Harper and other conservatives disliking BS's floor-crossing, and then welcoming Emerson?

Again, inconsistency is the flip side of hypocrisy.

Kate (and others), take ONE position, defend it, and argue for it. Multiple incompatible positions on an issue do not do much for our credibility.

Johan,

You pest ... Emerson was a viable and valuable candidate to move to the Conservatives, Garth Turner is an idiotic egotist with no principles whatsoever.

He is the con man who convinced many seniors to give their homes away in the reverse mortgage scam that goes around from time to time.

He is a piece of crap. He will fester briefly as a green lunatic then be dispatched to oblivion after the next general election.

Don't worry though he will have his two wins and six years of service in so he can retire with the federal gold plated indexed pension.

Enjoy giving him your money Johan.

I have always been very comfortable here with all SDA *thinkers*.

However, this is a moment of uneasyness
because I fear no one is resisting the first impulse to hit the wrong button on this most un-biased of polls.

Simple integrity would dictate, *Sure, byelection first*, but this is no ordinary circumstance.

Here is an opportunity for a convicted conservative to help shape an up and coming political party that would be fresh air compared to the National Disticks and Liberals both. [Besides it would further dilute their vote count too.]

So, I hesitated and thought again.

NO byelection! You go ahead Garth and help the greens at least subdue the NDP minority by blackmail party. = TG

I thought my position on floor crossing was clear when I posted on Emerson. Go search the archives if you're that curious.

But how is my opinion or anyone else's relevant to the question being asked?

We're looking at Garth Turner and his previously stated position on the issue, in the context of his current situation and possible future actions.

Johan,

Harper defended the concept of floor crossing on national television during the election. It doesn't mean he's gonna like it when it woks in his disfavour. It is a process he defends.

Paradoxically, Garth is on record with the with the view that MPs must resign and re-run when switching parties. These are Garth's words, not Kate's (nor others). The essence of this post is to call upon Garth to be accountable to his own protocol for crossing the floor. Not anybody elses.

Kate,

All I'm saying is that we, who are on the right side in Canada, should be very careful to present well reasoned and consistent ideas and positions.

As I see it, it was wrong of BS to cross the floor, it was wrong of Harper have Emerson cross the floor, and it would be wrong for Garth to sit as a Green Party MP. This is, in my opinion, a clear and consistent position.

The other consistent alternative would be to accept all floor crossings, including also BS's, Emerson's and Garth's (potential one).

Considering Turner's former position, and his outrage at the Emerson defection, it is (at least to a minor extent) hypocritical on his part to change parties.

Overall though, I don't really care if he resigns to force a by-election, sits as an independent, or decides to call himself a "Green." His opinion will continue to have the same relevance, whichever path he chooses.

Not the same thing by any stretch. Turner, however, should resign his seat and run...right after Emerson does. And ET, what are parties of the right if not single-issue utopian: If you cut enough taxes, shrink enough government, take enough from the needy and give enough to the greedy, we'll all be fartin' thru silk.

Johan i Kanada,

What is your opinion on the issue at hand, i.e. should MPs be allowed to change party without facing the voters or not?

You can't just conflate MP's and Garth Turner. If Kate's poll said MP's I say No ... Garth Turner I say Yes.

PMSH, when asked by the MSM during the last election, whether he would introduce any bills to prevent floor-crossing said no and explained why not. Turner apparently thought his constituents were harmed by Emerson's crossing and produced his own yardstick. If it's good enough to measure others with it, it should be good enough for him.

Is that clear enough for you?

Johan: I didn't like it when Stronach crossed the floor. I didn't like it when Emerson crossed the floor.

And I think Garth was wrong in how he has handled himself from day one of the new government.

All in all, that makes for some nice wiggle room on those of us who point out that if Garth joins the Greens without first putting it to the people ("...he should still have the conviction to get elected a member of the team he chose." - Garth) then he is not getting elected as a member of the team HE chose. And thus, all his moral high ground turns to ocean floor.

I voted no. I would like to see a weakening of the party system in general.

"Turner, however, should resign his seat and run...right after Emerson does."

I doubt that Garth can profess to believe in something he isn't willing to walk the line on. Emerson never stated before his defection that he felt it necessary to be elected as a member of a certain party in order to sit with that party. But Garth did. And that makes all the difference in the world.

This situation is what is dubbed 'a call to act', or in more direct terms: "Put your money where your mouth is." If Garth doesn't run before joining another party, he'll never be able to say that it is wrong for somebody to be a member of a party he wasn't voted in as.

There is a long history of politicos crossing the floor in our history.

No one has been jailed for it so far.

This is either Politics in shark infested waters or it is sunday-school.

And Sunday-school it is not. = TG

"If they decide to change parties, they should go and get re-elected."

Except he didn't choose to get kicked out of the Cons'. One could say even if he sits independently he's being hypocritical. Thinking both of the people in his riding, the Canadian taxpayer, and the good of the country, his best option is to sit then run as a Green Party member.

"All I'm saying is that we, who are on the right side in Canada, should be very careful to present well reas...."

Oh, take a pill.

Johan ... don't you ever do something because it's fun?

There is no requirement for those of "we, who are on the right", to march in tune to your expectations. I'm not a policy maker, I'm a voter. A citizen. It's a blog site. You're free to present your arguments. Knock yourself out. Or not. You are not however, entitled to demand anyone else live up to your expectations. (Or you can, but expect to be dismissed as a pompous twit.)

That said:

You're chewing on a bone that hasn't been thrown - either that, or your tenacity in refusing to understand the written word is impressive.

I don't happen to agree with you on the ethics of floor crossing. I don't believe floor-crossing is in itself, unethical.

It is the reasons for the crossing that determine the "ethics" of the move.

Actually, maryjane, the 'right' or conservative party is not utopian nor is it single-issue.

A conservative party is about small government, leaving a lot more money and decision making in the hands of the people. It's about decentralization rather than centralization- which always requires enormous costly bureaucracies and waste. It's about less public ownership and more private ownership of production and service provisions.

A conservative party is both more piecemeal and long term focused, which means that it takes a few steps; then reacts to the effects; then takes more steps, and reacts to the effects, guiding these steps in a long-term evolving and adaptive agenda. The agenda is to empower the people not a small group known as The Government.

With this description, we have moved out of a 'single-issue' party and none of these issues are utopian, none of them assert a 'best society' if and only if, you set up these Best Structures. There is no notion of If only we conquer Poverty; or Racism; or Homelessness; or x or y, then, 'all will be perfect'. That's naive.

You may reject the conservative ideology, but, if you reject it, I suggest that you do so out of a knowledge of it; your post above shows that you are ignorant of the nature of conservativism or classical liberalism.

For anyone still pretending to be shocked about Garth Turner being a hypocrite let me remind you that he is a politician. As for the Green Party, why is everyone giving it the time of day? It's a fringe party of environmentalists who don't want to be associated with the NDP. Can't say I blame them for that.

Perhaps Garth should put his money where his big mouth is. He should resign and run in a by-election, as did Sheila Copps for the broken GST promise of the Liberals.

But why would the Greens, or any party for that matter, want Garth? He's known for babbling stuff he shouldn't. He criticized the leader, the party, etc. He was a loose cannon. He's politically radioactive.

Why would anyone want him?

Are the Greens desperate? Guess they think it's the only way they can get a seat? Maybe the Greens are idiots if they want Garth?

So where do all these self rightious fools get the idea that Turner was kicked out of the CPC? He is still a Conservative (at least as much as he ever was) but he has to sit at the kid's table because he is not grown up enough to sit with the adults. Face it, the guy has been acting like a spoilt self-centred brat from the get go. Remember the whining to the press about being given an office in the broom closet?

I was opposed to Belinduh's floor crossing, although in retrospect it may have been for the best; I opposed Emerson's floor crossing, again because I believe constituents' should know what they're voting for; and I would disagree with Garth's going to the Greens for exactly the same reason. Sitting as an independent is one thing, joining another party does really cross a line vis a vis one's electorate. I appreciated Garth's outspokeness from time to time. However, he really didn't seem able or willing to respect the realities of parliamentary democracy. In that respect, i.e. an inability to appropriately restrain his own expressive urges, he reminds me of a Carolyn Parrish, or frankly a Rob Anders (though Rob seems to have gotten a grip on himself over the years).

"It is the reasons for the crossing that determine the "ethics" of the move." -Kate

Hey, yeah... that's exactly it. It could be acceptable to cross the floor, if, for example, a Liberal suddenly has an epiphany and realizes what kind of party the Liberal Party is and cannot in good conscience remain with them.

Whether the member crosses to another party or sits as an independent is another matter. It's between the party and the member whether they'll sit in that caucus. If a party, however, offered compensation of any kind, like, say, fabricating a phony cabinet post to accommodate said crosser, who, coincidentally, is voting against his/her old party and with his/her new party, then it is unacceptable. The optics and combination of circumstances speak volumes. There'd be a definite appearance of impropriety/corruption. It smacks of bribing an elected official in exchange for a vote, which is actually a criminal offence. Woof! ;)