Quote:
Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+May 17 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ May 17 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@May 17 2005, 09:09 AM
Did you read the article?
She said her concerns were exactly FOR her constituents, the definition of democratic representation. If she voted against the government then all the budget lines for city funding would be cancelled. Coming from Toronto she didn't want to see that. Also, she was increasingly unsupportive of the party's policies. That's democratic representation as well.
I for one am very glad. Not to see the conservatives screwed but to see the actual really good work of Parliament over the past 6 months not go to waste. When was the last time parliament was so progressive and deliberative? It would have been a shame to see all that work flushed down the toilet.
|
Allright, I'll give you that.
But if she is doing this for her constituents then why did she completely switch parties and take a cabinet position.
Seems to me she can best help her constituents in this case by becomming an independant. She doesn't screw over all the people in here riding who voted for a conservative, and she can still vote for the budget. She was bought. [/b][/quote]
First, I believe the people of Belinda's riding were voting for the person first and party second. The data to support this claim is that reform/conservative has been very weak in the Toronto area. Belinda, being a star candidate, most likely won her riding in spite of her party.
Second, if you were in her riding would you rather have some schmoe opposition party member, a now increasingly impotent independent position or a cabinet minister? Party affiliation aside, you'd want the minister, that's a no-brainer. Therefore she was acting in the interest of her constituents.