Will the government fall?

[kn]

Originally posted by RedHot25+May 19 2005, 07:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedHot25 @ May 19 2005, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@May 20 2005, 01:31 AM
Cadman votes in favor of his constiuents wishes.
For those crying about the results you'll probably get your wish and another vote down the road. Maybe even the big vote you're after and an election. I don't think the results will be any different, but perhaps. Get rid of Harper and stick in McKay for starters.

This is one thing that I don't get. And again, its just a question - not being mean, kind or anything else.

But isn't Cadman voting how he did exactly what the Conservatives propose?

Hear me on this. The Conservatives propose a) free votes; and b) listening to their constituents and voting on what their riding wants.

You can argue if the right question was proposed, but as stated earlier in this thread, you have to watch for bias. And, I think any question that was chosen to be asked would result in bias, people complaining, etc.

But anywho, didn't Cadman, in essence, do exactly what the Conservaitves (effectively his former party) themselves advocate for? Or am I missing something? [/b][/quote]
It's a tough call without a clear cut answer. What makes it difficult is the fact that Cadman's main issue was justice after the death of his son. From what I've heard, he blamed the Liberal party for it (Young Offender's Act) and joined Reform because of it. To see him now vote Liberal without having seen any meaningful change in his issue brings up speculation that it is more than simply listening to the electorate. It has been suggested that he is still bitter of Harper's decision not to override the party's constitution and appoint him as the CPC candidate over the person who had been chosen. But then, lots will be suggested in the aftermath.

MPs are not meant to be mere sheep, guided by constituency polls. Yet, we don't want them abandoning what they've presented at the local level either. Of course, balance along with accountability is the goal.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by kn@May 20 2005, 06:12 AM
Reform tried to bring integrity and democratic accountability to government and was laughed at for doing so. These ideals are cornerstones of western populism and part of the CA and incorporated into the CPC. Obviously they have failed to resonate with voters outside of the west.

That logic doesn't really hold. You could still be for integrity and democratic accountability and still have a problem with some of the other aspects of the Reform party or platform.

[kn]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 20 2005, 08:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 20 2005, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kn@May 20 2005, 06:12 AM
Reform tried to bring integrity and democratic accountability to government and was laughed at for doing so. These ideals are cornerstones of western populism and part of the CA and incorporated into the CPC. Obviously they have failed to resonate with voters outside of the west.

That logic doesn't really hold. You could still be for integrity and democratic accountability and still have a problem with some of the other aspects of the Reform party or platform. [/b][/quote]
I never said otherwise. Unless one is an ideologue, no one will agree 100% with any party's platform. I have problems with the CPC as well. What I'm saying is that integrity and democratic accountability, and other ideals of western populism such as direct democracy initiatives, have not cracked the Ontario-Manitoba border.

If holding elected representatives to ethical standards is a voter's paramount issue, I can't see that voter supporting the Liberal Party given their record over 12 years. NDP yes, but not Liberal.