I take no position on the decision made. But I find this description of how the decision was made a little odd:
The motion came as a “surprise” to the national caucus this morning, but Jaffer said it was not “unexpected” and the caucus was unanimous in supporting the “democratic” decision of its Ontario arm. The Prime Ministers Office insisted it played no role in the decision.So if you are leader of a party or the caucus of the party, you take no role in substantively making a decision, relying on the "local arm" to play out the democratic function. I have to ask the good and thoughtful Mr. Taylor, Canada's nicest ToryTM about the rule used in this instance. Note that Mr. Taylor has already posted excellent and - one might be drawn to suggest - almost insider information.
Comments
Flea - October 18, 2006 9:15 PM
It is frankly not credible for the PMO to claim it played no part in this decision let alone that it found the decision surprising. If this were the case we would be meant to believe a minority government had no notion its minority was about to shrink by a member.
So the real question to me is: Why does the PMO think lying about this situation is less damaging than whatever the truth might be?
Alan - October 18, 2006 9:27 PM
Would that be truth or truthiness?
Douglas - October 18, 2006 11:18 PM
If you read Garth's blog, he's been hanging with the leader of the Green Party. Wouldn't it sweeten the minority parliament, and the next election, if he became a sitting member for them?
Alan - October 18, 2006 11:27 PM
The new Deb Grey! Just what we need - that fifth party we've been missing in the House. I miss the Democratic Representative days when there were six. That was great.
gorthos - October 19, 2006 12:54 AM
I will note, that when I posted a humourous pro-Garth article a while ago on my blog (previous blog) the PMO was a prominent visitor that day, twice.
Flea - October 19, 2006 2:32 AM
O Democratic Representative party, why hast thou forsaken us in our moment of need?