Garth Turner suspended from Conservative Caucus
I am not totally surprised Garth Turner was suspended, but somewhat puzzled since one would think after seeing their polling number slip, they wouldn't want to do something to cause them to slip further. Although I guess as John Ibbitson pointed out in the Globe and Mail, the party is more interested in appealing to its ideological right wing base than the swing centre and centre-right voters. Whatever the rational behind it was, I can assure the Conservatives that this will hurt them. The public may see it in one of two ways
1. The party has little tolerance for dissent within its ranks. People generally don't like trained seals and want MPs to represent their constituents, so this will show the party is not a grassroots one, but a top down one.
2. The party is an extreme one with little tolerance for moderates. Garth Turner was a staunch fiscal conservative, but a social moderate and was willing to take on social conservatives. This will just prove the party is controlled by social conservatives and why even more fiscal conservatives will turn away from it.
Either way, unless the Tories re-admit him to caucus before the election, they will likely lose the riding of Halton. As for what the Ontario caucus was thinking, I have no idea, but they obviously have weak political antennaes. Although unlikely to happen, I hope Garth Turner crosses the floor and joins the Liberals. But should he choose to run as an Independent, I would happily endorse him since we need more not less MPs like him. He could also decide to run provincially for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who have greater tolerance for dissent and have a moderate leader under John Tory who has managed to rid the party of the more right wing members (who are now mostly involved in federal politics). In sum I as a Liberal see this as a good thing in the short-term, however as someone who is centre-right and still a Progressive Conservative at heart, I worry that my hopes of one day having a Progressive Conservative party again may be fading. With some advocating the Liberals move to the left and the Conservatives bent on sticking to the Reform/Alliance ideology, many centre-right voters like myself may have to hold their noses up in future elections and vote for who we think is the least worse. At least for me, I will be going Liberal next election, although if it is Dion or Kennedy it will be with great enthusiasm, while if Rae it will be through great reluctance.
UPDATE:
I saw Garth Turner on Politics with Don Newman. Listening to his statements, I have every suspicion it was more over ideology than breaking caucus confidentiality. I warned moderates that Harper was no moderate and had little tolerance for them. This just seems to re-affirm this. The biggest surprise for me is with an election likely in the Spring, it seems the Tories are more than happy to alienate all the swing voters they need not only to get a majority, but just to stay in power. Hopefully in 50 years when I look back, Harper will be a footnote in history.
1. The party has little tolerance for dissent within its ranks. People generally don't like trained seals and want MPs to represent their constituents, so this will show the party is not a grassroots one, but a top down one.
2. The party is an extreme one with little tolerance for moderates. Garth Turner was a staunch fiscal conservative, but a social moderate and was willing to take on social conservatives. This will just prove the party is controlled by social conservatives and why even more fiscal conservatives will turn away from it.
Either way, unless the Tories re-admit him to caucus before the election, they will likely lose the riding of Halton. As for what the Ontario caucus was thinking, I have no idea, but they obviously have weak political antennaes. Although unlikely to happen, I hope Garth Turner crosses the floor and joins the Liberals. But should he choose to run as an Independent, I would happily endorse him since we need more not less MPs like him. He could also decide to run provincially for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives who have greater tolerance for dissent and have a moderate leader under John Tory who has managed to rid the party of the more right wing members (who are now mostly involved in federal politics). In sum I as a Liberal see this as a good thing in the short-term, however as someone who is centre-right and still a Progressive Conservative at heart, I worry that my hopes of one day having a Progressive Conservative party again may be fading. With some advocating the Liberals move to the left and the Conservatives bent on sticking to the Reform/Alliance ideology, many centre-right voters like myself may have to hold their noses up in future elections and vote for who we think is the least worse. At least for me, I will be going Liberal next election, although if it is Dion or Kennedy it will be with great enthusiasm, while if Rae it will be through great reluctance.
UPDATE:
I saw Garth Turner on Politics with Don Newman. Listening to his statements, I have every suspicion it was more over ideology than breaking caucus confidentiality. I warned moderates that Harper was no moderate and had little tolerance for them. This just seems to re-affirm this. The biggest surprise for me is with an election likely in the Spring, it seems the Tories are more than happy to alienate all the swing voters they need not only to get a majority, but just to stay in power. Hopefully in 50 years when I look back, Harper will be a footnote in history.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 11:20 AM
7 Comments:
While I have a high tolerance for dissent within a political party, and disagree strongly with the move, I am more pragmatic in my viewing of this is, rather, not based on the ideological bend of the Conservatives, but the way party discipline works in this country. Any one MP who is perceived of too critical of his/her own party is turfed. Turner is not the first. David Kilgour in 1990, John Nunziata in 1996, Carolyn Parrish in 2004, and Bev Desjarlais in 2005 are all examples of the party turfing an MP perceived as being too critical of the party. This is not a Conservative issue, but a Canadian politics issue in general.
It should also be noted that in 3 of those 4 cases, the MP was turfed based on a single-issue (Kilgour over the GST, Nunziata also over the GST, and Desjarlais over SSM). Turner's criticisms have been higher in quantity and quality. Not to justify the Ontario Caucus' actions in this scenario; however, I felt it necessary to note MPs have been ejected from their respective party's caucuses for a lot less.
What does this all mean? Well, it essentially means that this country has a severe party discipline problem to which no political party is immune. It seems if any MP in any party speaks their mind in a way that deviates too far from the party line, he or she is booted from the caucus. I would ultimately wish that party discipline is loosened (especially on backbenchers; I understand the need of cabinet solidarity in most cases, but backbenchers are of pretty low-standing within the party, thus such ideals do not apply), however, it seems quite engrained in our political system, and it is quite hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
My hope is that the Tories do the right thing and eventually re-admit Garth Turner. The use of the word "suspended" implies he might be re-admitted, but I am unsure. If not during this parliamentary session, then I at least hope they will allow him to run under the Tory banner next election. They should heed the lessons of the past, as Chuck Cadman won in a landslide after becoming an Independent, and Desjarlais created enough NDP vote-splitting to give the Liberals the riding.
As for Turner, your theory that he will cross the floor is impossible. He has said he is, and will remain, a Conservative, whether or not he is affiliated with the party. Thus, it sounds like, come next election, he will either be an Independent or a Conservative, but not a Liberal.
David Kilgour in 1990, John Nunziata in 1996, Carolyn Parrish in 2004, and Bev Desjarlais in 2005 are all examples of the party turfing an MP perceived as being too critical of the party. This is not a Conservative issue, but a Canadian politics issue in general.
In the case of David Kilgour and John Nunziata, they both voted against money bills which are confidence measures, so that is to be expected. Had Garth Turner voted against the budget or softwood lumber deal, that would be reasonable. Carolyn Parrish had done repeated incidences to provoke it and even said she had no loyalty to the party. Bev Desjarlais wasn't turfed from the party, she lost her riding nomination, which has happened to both Liberals and Tories. What happened to her is more akin to what happened to Chuck Cadman or Sheila Copps.
What does this all mean? Well, it essentially means that this country has a severe party discipline problem to which no political party is immune. It seems if any MP in any party speaks their mind in a way that deviates too far from the party line, he or she is booted from the caucus. I would ultimately wish that party discipline is loosened (especially on backbenchers; I understand the need of cabinet solidarity in most cases, but backbenchers are of pretty low-standing within the party, thus such ideals do not apply), however, it seems quite engrained in our political system, and it is quite hard to teach an old dog new tricks.
I fully agree here. Our system does need an overhaul. Even though I am generally critical of the American system, the one thing I do like is the fact they have far less party discipline than here. People such as Lincoln Chaffee would have been turfed long-time ago if the US operated under the party discipline we do.
My hope is that the Tories do the right thing and eventually re-admit Garth Turner. The use of the word "suspended" implies he might be re-admitted, but I am unsure. If not during this parliamentary session, then I at least hope they will allow him to run under the Tory banner next election. They should heed the lessons of the past, as Chuck Cadman won in a landslide after becoming an Independent, and Desjarlais created enough NDP vote-splitting to give the Liberals the riding.
He certainly could win as an independent. Also considering how popular Turner was with their constituents, they were pretty much assured on winning this riding with him as the candidate, whereas now if he runs as an Independent their chances of winning it are very low.
As for Turner, your theory that he will cross the floor is impossible. He has said he is, and will remain, a Conservative, whether or not he is affiliated with the party. Thus, it sounds like, come next election, he will either be an Independent or a Conservative, but not a Liberal
That is only my wish, I know it won't happen.
So are you in Toronto now Miles?
Woosang - No I am still in Vancouver. I leave this Friday, although I was there this past weekend to look for a place to stay. Since I am driving there, I will not be blogging for five days and even once in Toronto I probably won't blog much until I settle in.
Ah I see. Well, again all the best luck to you in Toronto! I know we will keep in touch.
BCT,
James Rajotte has said that the explusion is permanent.
Garth is now musing about possibly forming "alliances" either with the Green or Liberal parties.
What royally pisses me off about this sorry affair is that the Conservatives are the party that 66% of voters did not support -- it is not the other way around! How can the party expect voters to give them the benefit of the doubt on this? This only confirms people's worst expectations. If I live to be 100 I will never understand how the Prime Minister can be so blind to the patently obvious political consequences in the next election.
As a former Ontarian, you know full well what will be the compounded effect of the government's positions on this and a variety of other issues in the next election. It is really mind boggling to realize that Harper has so little political judgment. But in the end, the Prime Minister will single handedly have determined the electoral course of this government. Harper could have stopped this. He chose not to and will reap the political consequences.
PST - I fully agree, but I am not surprised. Harper has always been a control freak. He is still stuck in his National Citizens' Coalition mode. Being the head of a lobby group is a very different job than being prime-minister. Clearly Harper isn't up for the job.
Post a Comment
<< Home