Gibt es einen falschen Weg, eine parlamentarische Mehrheit zu erreichen?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-carney-floor-crossing-majority-analysis-9.7021158
Gibt es einen falschen Weg, eine parlamentarische Mehrheit zu erreichen?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-carney-floor-crossing-majority-analysis-9.7021158
10 Kommentare
>Poilievre says Carney is trying to ‚manipulate‘ his way to a majority government
PP is such a dork. And not even in the adorable way.
No there isn’t. It’s legitimate and part of how our system works. Is PP doesn’t like it he can put up a bill changing it.
I think floor crossings are very cynical and underhanded most of the time – especially when you’re doing it mere months after you won election under the banner and platform of the party you’re now leaving – but given how much power political parties and unelected staffers have over MPs already floor crossings are one of the few ways MPs can properly assert the autonomy they’re supposed to have under our parliamentary system.
Poilievre complaining about Mark Carney manipulating his way to a majority is laughable. It’s whiny and loser-ish.
The liberals have made a stark shift to the right. There’s bound to be viewpoint overlap with a number of Conservative senators. If they see what Carney’s doing and support it, it might be in their interest to cross the floor and help achieve a majority government.
As a liberal I’m totally stoked Carney will probably get a majority, if you have a problem with that take it up with PP who’s incompetence has lost him 3 MPs so far, no NDPers or bloc members have defected.
Also PP voted against a bill banning floor crossings.
I don’t see how this is all that different then if a minority government just worked with some additional individual MPs to pass legislation and support on confidence votes. This is how a minority parliament is supposed to work anyways, they just went one better to give the government more stability.
If they get a majority through floor crossings it’s highly unlikely to be a more than a narrow or bare majority. A Liberal MP could leave for career or personal reasons or sit as an independent if they don’t like the direction of the government. The ones that crossed the floor don’t exactly have the character of died in the wool Liberal party men, and could easily cross again. It’s not like we’d be going from a collaborative minority government to the Kim dynasty.
Floor crossings have been happening since there have been political parties. Winston Churchill left the Conservatives in 1904 for the Liberals, and then returned to the Conservatives in 1924. He made a long career of politics and didn’t suffer from switching. So I’m not sure why people are making such a big deal about it, because it’s been happening in parliamentary systems since the mid 1800’s. Perhaps it’s a slow news cycle, forcing folks to dredge up old gripes for distraction.
I think there would be a general dissatisfaction if the Liberals get a majority from floor crossings, but nobody will care by the time 2029 rolls around. 4 years is a long time in politics, especially with Trump down south.
It would certainly be interesting because gaining a majority via floor crossings doesn’t change the makeup of parliamentary committees (they’re struck at the beginning of parliament).
So the LPC would have a majority in the House but not in committees where the chair comes from the Government side (which is all but 3 of them).
We might legitimately get a constitutional crisis if, say, the House sends a programming motion to a committee and the committee attempts to defy the motion or just straight up refuses to give quorum.
Might be kind of fun to see what happens.
Somebody please remind Pierre that he applauded when David Emerson walked into Parliament as a conservative, even though he had been reelected as a liberal.
He was the most senior Paul Martin government cabinet minister in British Columbia and campaigned on the Paul Martin platform in my riding.
Less than 24 hours after the votes were counted, he was engaged in secret negotiations with Steven Harper, and his team to join the conservative cabinet. Parliament had been dissolved, of course for the election and there wasn’t a floor to cross even, yet.
Cabinet solidarity required that Emerson fully support the Paul Martin platform and government. Switching sides meant he had to disavow everything. He talked about during the election, and support the conservative platform.
In that electoral area, there had not been a conservative elected since the 1950s.
It was the most egregious devaluation of our votes in Canadian history. And, we made him pay. The protests carried on for months, and he never again ran for office.
Are the two defections from the conservative bench the same as Emerson? No. They did not switch sides only hours after voters hit the polls. They have had many months to evaluate their party and their leader and their direction and come to a conclusion.
The leader of the official opposition saw no problem when David Emerson crossed the floor. Someone should remind him of that.