Davies von der NDP sagt, dass Idlouts Entscheidung, sich den Liberalen anzuschließen, das „heilige Vertrauen“ der Wahlurne außer Kraft setzt
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-davies-floor-crossing-ndp-lori-idlout-9.7124371
Davies von der NDP sagt, dass Idlouts Entscheidung, sich den Liberalen anzuschließen, das „heilige Vertrauen“ der Wahlurne außer Kraft setzt
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-davies-floor-crossing-ndp-lori-idlout-9.7124371
42 Kommentare
He’s right. But MPs must be allowed to change parties because we vote for them, not the party or party leader, and it’s self-defeating that the NDP don’t accept floor crossers. They’re creating a different and limiting set of rules for themselves based on a principle that nobody else follows because that principle runs counter to how our system works.
Floor crossers *do* betray voters, though. We literally vote for the MP, but in spirit we vote for the PM, and floor crossers ought to honour the spirit in which we vote. In most cases, we vote for them because of party affiliation, not because of who they are. But it’s understandable that they don’t offer to step down and run in a byelection as a member of their new party because in many cases it would be self-defeating.
Divorced man upset his wife left him for someone better.
And I say this as someone with an NDP membership.
[deleted]
Look is it true De Facto people vote for parties not the actual MP? Sure.
But an MP should have the right and I’d say *obligation* to do what they believe is best for their constituents regardless of party line. Especially in a FPTP election where an MP can win in a plurality of votes. They’re the representative of *all* their constituents after all.
If an MP changed parties in all but name by ignoring the whip would people be moaning?
Hes right. I dont say that about the NDP often.
Unlike the Tories and Liberals, the NDP actually has a record and principles to stand on here. It does not accept floor crossers, and requires people who try to resign and run as an NDP candidate in a by election
Only thing I agree with him. There should another election if this happens.
Thought experiment: if an MP doesn’t officially change parties, but votes against party discipline and is kicked out of the party, should that also trigger a by-election? What if they aren’t kicked out of the party, but continue to vote their conscience? Do we need a referendum on every vote, or do we let the representative do their job and represent the riding as they see fit?
If we’re going to strictly mandate party discipline, then why even have MPs? Why not just let the party leaders work amongst themselves?
Politicians change plans and even lie. Unless it breaks a standing rule or law, the remediation process is to leave it to the voters to decide whether they’ll continue to support the candidate.
I said it when Conservatives did it, and I’ll say it for New Democrats: if they feel that it serves their constituants, then crossing the floor is fair game. Given her specific riding and its needs, I think it’s a reasonable decision to make, though it would have been classier for the Liberal party to extend an invite to her as a member of the NDP.
I’m a life-long NDP voter, and I’m fine with this.
What’s the problem? The previous leader pledged his party’s undying support to an unpopular Liberal PM. The NDP ran a suicide campaign against the Tories in the federal election and handed them government on a platter. At this point calling them seperate parties is a formality.
Not all floor-crossings are equal. Crossing to the party in power, especially if it might substantively alter the balance of power, feels scummy for a reason. It isn’t a moral stand, it’s pure politics.
Agreed, the election wasn’t even a year ago I highly doubt all of these MP’s just now had a change of heart
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I really wouldn’t care if my MP crossed the floor, regardless of if I voted for them or not. I really only care that they provide effective local representation.
It’s completely legal, and one could debate the ethics of it, but it’s been [common practice in Canada since before Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_politicians_who_have_crossed_the_floor). It’s been legislatively banned provincially once, but the ban was repealed by a subsequent government. The NBP have (*very* rarely) profited from this themselves, so it’s difficult to accept their criticisms.
Ultimately, we would need provincial and federal legislation to make this stop, I would support that legislation. But it’s tough for me to criticize it otherwise, as it’s currently the people’s will to allow this to happen.
The NDP is a party that believes in needing to run a by-election to cross the floor. Idlout went against the principles of her own party and ones she must have held for years to be apart of that party.
The only sacred trust an MP should have is with their constituents. Everything I’ve read says this move was what Nunavut constituents broadly desired (correct me if I’m wrong). And in this scenario I don’t think it’s fair to use any variation of the „But they voted for the party“ argument because they didn’t vote for the leaderless party without official status that’s conducting a leadership race with rules that emphasise the very reasons they lost so much ground.
If anything this is the one floor crossing that demonstrates how this can be a valuable facet of our parliamentary system for voters.
Also I strongly prefer breaking the party whips and pushing the scales back toward local representation over changing the system to make MP’s an even more homogenous party branded blob.
The „we vote for MPs, not party“ argument is just so dishonest. While technically true, most voters obviously make their decision based off of party, and more specifically, who the leaders of the parties are. We have evidence of this: over 100 Liberal MPs were set to lose their seats until Mark Carney came along. Why would a random candidate in Nepean matter if people voted based off of the individual candidates?
Edit: grammar
sacred trust?
She won by 40 votes. Second place were the liberals. Together they shared 70+% of the vote and share about the same amount of policy. Ruining the sacred trust of voters would be to floor cross to an entirely different part with completely different agendas.
What this sounds like is the NDP is a massive failure currently and this helps to fight against the conservative party who is lead by an absolute trump dick suck.
Would be nice to see flooring crossing put to a vote to the people if it should remain legal or if it should be stopped and banned.
We need our democracy to catch up to 2026 and be more like Switzerland. Their democracy is the ideal democracy! IMO
What a joke being a Canadian is becoming
What a *squandered* opportunity. Hasn’t he learned anything from Carney? ‚Don’t look like a loser‘ Wish her well and reaffirm your party’s stance on requiring MPs to run in a by-election under the NDP banner. Especially being a new face to the party, it’s a bad look.
So is floor crossing bad again since it’s the NDP doing it and not the Conservatives this time?
Somehow the one party that never complains about a floor cross is the party benefited by it.
Funny, that.
What are the odds they have their majority before the by-elections?
The NDP should reintroduce the bill to ban floor crossing then. Perhaps they’ll get enough support to get it passed?
The NDP can save some money because it can fit its entire caucus in one Uber when travelling to meetings.
Too bad there is no sacred trust of the ballot box.
In fact, the ballot box, often as not, doesn’t even reflect the will of the voters. It just reflects the plurality of voters.
Which is bunk.
You get the whole office with less than 50% of the vote.
Then you get parties with 100% of the power with 39.6% of the vote.
That’s supposed to be sacred?
Get bent.
It’s extremely scummy if the liberals get their majority via floor crossers, who are essentially erasing the votes of their constituents (who voted **against** the liberals in all cases)
Hey Don, I voted for the NDP to keep the Cons out, or I would have voted Liberal. How is that for your „sacred trust“?
What these discussions constantly prove is that 90% of Canadians have no idea how the political system in Canada works, or even how to vote „properly“. I suspect this is likely the case for most large democratic countries at this point in human history.
If my MP could get our riding some pork by defecting I’m all in favour. This sanctity of the poltical parties is a joke. Political parties are an abomination not “sacred”
Any updates on the family criminal charges?
don davies was pretty strong on cbc today in his responses to michelle elliot, worth a listen if you can find it online. she was reading off some absurd questions like:
„aren’t you using language like a conservative?“
„the votes were close, why should it matter?“
„but now they can get more money, isn’t that a good thing?“
was getting fox news vibes!
They should have to fight MMA rules the Party representative in their riding that they are crossing over to. Iiiiittts TIME!!! 5 rounds in the UFC for the Liberal seat in the riding…fighting in the left corner…
He is so full of crap. It has been part of the parliamentary system since we have had a parliament. It is not the Liberals’ fault because you are so angry. Ever since you lost all those seats in the last election, your party has just been miserable. No wonder people don’t want to stay. You sound just like PP
Hot take. Abolish parties everyone runs as an independent. Then you have to actual look up and MPs platform and the house will be made up of people who actively have to discuss issues and solve problems to pass policy.
If it were reversed for either other side and it was a liberal joining the NDP or the Conservatives, I know for a fact they’d have no problem with it. It’s only when it affects them negatively
There’s no sacred trust, as Davies calls it. It’s a social contract. We vote to elect someone to represent us. If we don’t like what they do in office, they lose the next election. Party politics, party discipline, and floor crossing is all part of the game.
Don Davies is useless
Floor crossing sucks, don’t disagree with that, just want to put that upfront here. But floor crossing is a part of the Parliamentary system and has been dating back to the 1800s. It’s unlikely to change anytime soon either. It always is a case that the party who gains from it is happy, regardless if they’re on the govt or opposition benches. It’s probably been stated before already either in this thread or others, but I think the reason why the anger seems more fervent than it was in previous ones is because of the majority aspect.
Pretty sure if the Liberals had won only 160 seats in the last election and three or four crossers crossed, it would be criticized but to a different extent as it still would mean 8 more seats needed for a majority that unlikely would be seen. Last time I think I saw that many politicians cross the floor was in 2014 in Alberta (Wildrose). But because four floor crossings have happened with a lot fewer seats needed, plus the three by-elections that two are likely to stay Liberal, it comes off far more abhorrent because it’s going to as many have noted, „hand“ a majority to the Liberals. Do I think anything will change on floor-crossers in the future, still probably no but who knows.
I could understand the ideological jump from conservative to liberal.
Carney is a right of center politician, and Poillievre is far right of center.
If you as an MP are closer to center, joining the liberals makes sense.
Idlout, however, is a very progressive candidate. She is far left of center, so joining Carney doesn’t make sense — until you realize that her constituents *asked* her to join the liberal party. The idea is that she will have a larger voice for her constituents as part of the LPC than she would as part of the NDP, who doesnt even have party status.
I think she actually is doing what she thinks is best for her constituents, as much as I hate when *anyone* has a majority government.
Canadians do not vote for Party’s, we vote for MPs, regardless of how people talk about voting.