I have to say that I have a mixed reaction to the expelling of MP Garth Turner from the Conservative caucus. There is no doubt that Mr. Turner is a relentless self-promoter but don't you have to be to be a successful politician? He has had a chip on his shoulder since he was not put into Cabinet though. My main concern is that the issue most linked to him - income splitting - may longer have a champion on The Hill.
My wife asked what I thought was a very intriguing question - was the expulsion linked to the recent leaks coming out the CPC? Take for instance the infamous strategy memo written by Doug Finley. The Conservatives claim that it was indeed a leak. Doug Finley also made a rare appearance at the Ontario Caucus meeting this morning resulting in Mr. Turner being shown the back corner in the new seating plan. This is just speculation on my part (inspired by my wife) so we'll have to see where this story goes from here.
Update: David Akin reports on the speculation that Mr. Turner could join the Green Party and become their first MP. That would be HUGE for the Greens. And would turn a personality clash into a major strategic blunder.
Update II: Thanks to those in the comments that made me dig a little deeper. I can see how Mr. Turner can switch parties without a by-election after reading this post.
...Everybody who makes up the government should be elected. They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government. Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people when, actually, it’s the other way around.
Comments (25)
I doubt that Turner would join the Greens. I haven’t heard much interest from him on that score.
No, I think we’ve just found this parliament’s John Nunziata, or Chuck Cadman. I predict he’ll run as an independent and win in the next election.
BTW, if I’m wrong, and Garth does join the Greens, it will be huge, but it won’t necessarily be recognized by the other members of parliament. Remember when those twelve Alliance members bolted the party to protest Stockwell Day’s leadership? They petitioned to be recognized as a separate voting bloc, but were denied despite holding the magic number of twelve seats. They joined up with the Progressive Conservatives to form the PC-DNC caucus, but I don’t think that had an appreciable impact on the PC’s budget or time during Question Period.
It may be that parliament only automatically recognizes a new party if they win seats in an election or by-election.
Posted by James Bow | October 18, 2006 6:32 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 18:32
Thanks James, I did not know that. My assumption was that Ms. May would get into the debates for sure but maybe not - more likely, but not for sure. And yes it is unlikely speculation at this point but is fun to think about.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 18, 2006 6:34 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 18:34
Is he gonna stick to his principles and ask for a by-election so he can join the Greens? Doubt it.
Posted by Mkb | October 18, 2006 7:25 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 19:25
Its amazing seeing all these Grit, Dipper, and Green closet Garth Turner fans speaking up now the he is not a part of the Tories anymore.
By all means let Garth Turner “empower” himself. In fact, there seems to be a growing sentiment telling Garth Turner to join the Greens and be their first MP. Interesting, especially in light of his recent attempt to recruit Elizabeth May. Hmm, maybe he’ll get a likewise job offer. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
By all means, let him try. But keep in mind that if he does, he should at least live up to his adamant convictions regarding floor crossers and resign his seat and run in a by-election. Just outright crossing now is going to make him look like a big hypocrite.
Posted by Ontario Lad | October 18, 2006 7:30 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 19:30
Although it’s a little different given that it’s not a floor crossing. It’s a boot.
Posted by James Bow | October 18, 2006 8:19 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 20:19
I missed that infamous stategy memo story. Can you give me a quick briefing?
Posted by Joanne C. | October 18, 2006 8:48 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 20:48
I like the new look, BTW!
Posted by Joanne C. | October 18, 2006 8:48 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 20:48
Doesn’t matter if he agrees to a by-election, he’s very popular in his riding and would almost certainly win. Correct me if I’m wrong but that area is kind of flip flop. They’ll stick with Garth.
Posted by Fergy | October 18, 2006 8:49 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 20:49
The internal party memo were Doug Finley outlined the CPC’s take on each of the Liberal leadership candidates and that they most first Michael Ignatieff.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 18, 2006 8:50 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 20:50
Oh that infamous memo! Right. But how does that implicate Garth?
Posted by Joanne C. | October 18, 2006 9:10 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 21:10
It is just speculation. Somebody in the party leaked the memo. Doug Finley wrote the memo. Doug Finley was at the meeting that dumped Garth Turner. Garth Turner was dumped for allegedly breaking caucus confedentiality.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 18, 2006 9:14 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 21:14
Ah hah. Thanks Greg. Very interesting.
Stephen has turned up some evidence on his latest post.
Posted by Joanne C. | October 18, 2006 9:22 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 21:22
Yes, I can just see the upper middle class riding which Garth represents voting in the next election to have a one issue fringe party represent their interests.
Garth will be in parliament until the next election. After that, he’s gone. In the meantime I’m sure all this attention is just what his sad narcassistic tendencies crave.
Garth acted like he was bigger than his party. In about a year and a half he’ll see how wrong he was (well we’ll see - as a classic narcissist he’ll assign the blame elsewhere).
Posted by Chester | October 18, 2006 10:03 PM
Posted on October 18, 2006 22:03
Garth: ”I pledged to remember that my job is not to serve the party or the prime minister, but rather the people who sent me here.”
Maybe Garth ‘leaked’ the Clean Air leg. to Lizzy.
Posted by wilson61 | October 19, 2006 12:08 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 00:08
Still, it’s ironic. The Conservatives boot Garth but keep Anders. Mind you, the reason is obvious: Garth blogs and Anders doesn’t. Could you imagine the hue and cry if Anders cut loose on a blog?
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 1:24 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 01:24
Idiotic commentary of the day goes to Ibbitson - recognizes that you can’t have meaningful debate in caucus if one guy is going to give public running commentary opposing stuff/spilling the beans,
then goes onto say how this looks bad on Harper.
In short: “You can’t blame Harper…….so I blame Harper”.
Posted by Chester | October 19, 2006 4:53 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 04:53
It’s not idiotic to say this. Yes, party discipline is important, but most Canadians don’t care about party discipline when it comes to their politics. They only see a maverick MP appearing to stand up for the people who elected him and against the political fat cats in the Prime Minister’s office. What happened to Turner is understandable, but the optics on this are terrible.
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 7:51 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 07:51
James:
You’d better think again in your assessment the Greens don’t have interest in Turner:
Elizabeth May quoted in today’s Toronto Star saying she is “absolutely ready” to make the invitation.
Thats under the title of “Greens woo ousted MP Turner”
Posted by Scott Tribe | October 19, 2006 10:39 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 10:39
Scott,
You misread my comment. I didn’t say that the Greens weren’t interested in Turner. I only said that I’d be very surprised if Turner was interested in the Greens.
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 10:47 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 10:47
According to CBC News Mr. Turner is also contemplating a switch the Liberals. In reality I think he is contemplating how he can keep his name in the news.
Posted by Greg Staples | October 19, 2006 10:48 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 10:48
I don’t know anything about Turner’s environmental credentials, which is why I have great doubts that he’s interested in talking with the Greens. Has he spoken about shifting the income tax burden onto a carbon tax?
I’m willing to be proven wrong. If he did join the Greens (and, leaving aside his earlier comments on party switching — although I have every confidence that he could resign, run in a by-election, and win), it would send a very clear signal that the blue Greens still have influence in the party.
Elizabeth May may have taken a few leftward steps after she won the leadership, and I had problems with how she handled her leadership campaign, but she can speak and she can organize. If she sets her sights on building a bridge between the red Greens and the blue Greens, I think she could do it.
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 10:54 AM
Posted on October 19, 2006 10:54
There is also rumblings that the culling could coincide with Bernard Lord contesting the seat in either a by-election or in the next General election.One of the posters was right, the people of that riding will not have their interests represented by a powerless member, neither independent nor a member of the Greens.
Posted by kursk | October 19, 2006 12:49 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 12:49
I’ve heard that argument before, and I find it silly. You’re saying that electors can only expect good service if they elect MPs that caucus with the governing party. You’re saying that those ridings that choose to vote NDP, Liberal and Bloc are disenfranching themselves. Well, that’s not true.
All MPs serve their electors, regardless of how they vote. They have a responsibility to take questions from the citizens in their riding, and they all have access to parliamentary channels to get those questions answered and action taken. For instance, I live in Elizabeth Witmer’s riding. I managed to get action out of the McGuinty overnment, even though I wrote to my Conservative MP.
Being an MP isn’t just about sitting in the House of Commons, clapping when their party leaders speak and asking questions. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The voters of several ridings since 1997 have decided that they were best served by an independent, and the reelection rate of those independent MPs isn’t bad. Garth Turner could succeed as an independent MP.
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 2:26 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 14:26
“You’re saying that electors can only expect good service if they elect MPs that caucus with the governing party…”
It’s not exactly a farfetched argument, though James, since Jean Chretien made the exact same statement to BC voters at least twice. Of course, what would he know about politics? ;)
Posted by DCardno | October 19, 2006 7:24 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 19:24
The thing is, you’re talking about the division of pork, not the bread and butter issues that MPs receive from the citizens of their ridings. And last time I checked, we weren’t that happy about pork barrelling either.
All that being said, Chretien was wrong to play the card then, and anybody else who does it is wrong to do so now. Parliamentarians are supposed to serve all Canadians, including and especially those who didn’t vote for them.
Posted by James Bow | October 19, 2006 9:45 PM
Posted on October 19, 2006 21:45