Behold, the maverickness

The Globe finds that several Conservative MPs are a mere 98% or 99% loyal to the party line. Upon being presented with the findings, Government Whip Gordon O’Connor salutes his side’s democratic nature.

“I guess in principle, we’re more democratic than the other parties, basically,” Mr. O’Connor said in an interview with the Globe and Mail. “I’m not going to get out there and toot our horn, but if you actually check in Parliament, we have the most freedom as backbenchers.”

The maverickiest maverick, James Bezan, broke with the majority of the Conservative caucus a remarkable… 1.42% of the time.

As the Globe notes at the bottom of its story, most of the “divisive votes” had to do with private members’ motions and bills proposed by opposition MPs (the exception being Stephen Woodworth’s motion on the legal definition of life).

Nick Taylor-Vaisey rains on Mr. O’Connor’s parade here and it’s also worth noting, again, that the Conservatives came to office with a commitment that all votes except those on budget bills would be free votes.




Browse

Behold, the maverickness

  1. Sure they are free… free to vote themselves out of caucus.

  2. As O’Connor’s analysis proves, the Cons never miss an opportunity to propagate their own mythology. But I guess that just makes them politicians.

  3. Funny how you neglect to point out that all the other parties’ MPs were *more* likely to vote the party line. But I guess that wouldn’t fit your pre-determined narrative…

    • Rather pathetic that Wherry neglects to include that bit of relevant information. Nothing like being a partisan media shill.

    • No it means he isn’t buying either the talking points that the Globe published as analysis, or the Minister’s fatuous claim that these marginal deviations signal some kind of respect for democracy by CPC, which has otherwise failed actual tests of democratic and parliamentary behaviour repeatedly.

      This includes: failing to provide documents, disrupting parliamentary committees, meeting in camera for no reason other than potential embarrassment, paying a polling company to lie to a sitting MP’s constituents, attacking and firing senior civil servants and commissioners for doing their jobs, convictions for exceeding election spending limits and covering it up with fake invoices, abusing the privacy rights of veterans who question the government’s judgment, going to court to prevent the Ashley Smith inquiry from seeing the videos, presiding over a hatchet job and hounding to death of their own appointee to Rights and Democracy … any of that sound democratic to you?

      • You could cherry pick from any government and make the same kind of non nonsensical claims. Not to mention some of what you parrot here are nothing more then unproven allegations. But fire away and fill your partisan booties.

        • You call a conviction in federal court “unproven allegations?” You call a finding by the speaker “unproven?” An admission by the Government House Leader isn’t enough to convince you that it’s a fact they paid a polling company to pretend that Irwin Cotler was resigning his seat? Just what constitutes a fact in your little corner of partisanship?

          • I did clearly state the some (not all ) of your claims were in reality allegations. Surely even you realize that.

    • I despise the Liberal and NDP (parties) at least as much as I despise the Conservatives, but let’s review Aaron’s post.

      It was in response to Gordon O’Connor claiming that the Cons were more democratic than the other parties as measured by backbencher freedom (to presumably vote against the party line).

      Aaron points out that this is essentially not true since backbenchers (as measured by their voting records) do not appear to have much freedom at all.

      Maybe the Liberal and NDP backbenchers have even less freedom but that was not the point of the post.

      And also, if your main argument is “hey I know we suck but we suck less than the other guys” you might want to look for a better argument.

  4. Funny how Wherry left this major part of the story out of his partisan narrative…

    “Yet a review of MP voting records during the first Harper majority government tells another story: Conservative MPs are far more likely than opposition MPs to break ranks with their own party”

    • So what you’re arguing is that the party is on the wrong side of things so often, even its own MPs disagree with it more often than any of the other parties?

      And you’re proud of that?

Sign in to comment.