Okay, explain this to me. I get why the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway are so upset, and they have every right to demand Emerson's resignation. But why is Emerson the story that keeps on ticking, while Fortier's getting mentioned only as an afterthought, if at all?
Is crossing the floor really that much worse than having an unelected Minister of Public Works who can't be held accountable during Question Period? Really?
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Emerson vs. Fortier
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This could also be a question of milking a story for longer. Emerson is a higher profile target, and good for week one. But I would be surprised if we don't see lots of play on Fortier in the weeks to come, and then procede to dig out the other skeletons in the remainder of the cabinet.
Once Fortier starts making really big spending decisions at Public Works we'll see the media get interested in who he knows and what business dealings he's been involved in throughout his life. I'm sure there's a few skeletons in that closet.
I love the crossover (no pun intended) between these stories. That is, Fortier coming out and saying he thinks floor crossers should run in by-elections. Now, I agree, but how hilarious is it that an unelected cabinet minister questions the democratic legitimacy of one of his MP colleagues, while stating that HE will not run in a by-election should the opportunity arise, but will wait for the next election to run (we hope... 'cause if he changes his mind, he's there 'til he's 75... not that a politician would change his mind, eh Mr. Emerson?).
The whole thing is just surreal.
British Columbians are much more upset about this kind of thing -- we are the only province with recall legsislation, and it actually worked to get an MLA to resign. This kills Harper in BC -- he is looking like a Mulroney Tory. British Columbians won't forget. Emerson has a very small constituency in the couple hundred people in the Vancouver Board of Trade. None of those people live in Vancouver Kingsway.
There are signs all over Main Street with Emerson's face on them saying one word: Judas.
kurichina,
I think you misunderstand. For me, in the sentence fragment "having an unelected Minister of Public Works who can't be held accountable during Question Period," the emphasis isn't on "unelected," but on "Minister of Public Works" and "can't be held accountable during Question Period." The Senate thing is a shrug.
And as far as your characterization of Fair Vote Canada and the EEE debate goes, FVC (which didn't exist until late in 2000 anyway) has only ever been concerned with electoral reforms leading to proportional representation, and only in the House of Commons and its equivalents in the provinces.
All the previous commenters have valid points, and on top of all that, the Emerson case has a clear 'victim' with a human face - the voters of Vancouver Kingsway.
In the Fortier case the victims are indirect, Harper's integrity, passed over Con backbenchers etc.
Furthermore, there is lots of precedent for appointing Senators to represent certain areas - I don't agree with it - but it's been done before.
But while people have crossed the floor before, the Emerson crossing is unprecedented in its timing and motive.
It is my understanding that the people of Quebec are very pragmatic about elections and have not raised objections abouut the situation with regard to Fortier; so there is no pull for the media to continue to follow it.
This is not the case in regar to Emerson. The people of BC continue to raise the matter with the press and other media (open line programs).
Post a Comment