Well that was totally unexpected - Macleans.ca
 

Well that was totally unexpected


 

Gordon Landon is apparently no longer the Conservative candidate for Markham-Unionville.


 

Well that was totally unexpected

  1. Darn that Facebook.

  2. What was it? Facebook photos?

  3. Darn that Facebook. Has no one any respect for a man's privacy?

  4. Spending time with his family while he seeks new challenges.

  5. Not qualified to be a nodding sheeple. That doesn't look good on the resume.

    • No, I think it would make an excellent bullet point on a resume!

  6. Another "honest" Tory gets turfed – and media won't bother to talk about it I'll bet.

  7. The banner was too big for him to carry on a windy day.

  8. Are Conservatives not allowed to have the candidates they elected in the riding? For shame.

  9. "…so it's hard for me to bow to a lot of structure and having everything approved by Ottawa," said Landon."

    Probably saved him a lot of heartbreak, getting out now.

  10. Landon: too open and honest about the backroom machinations for the conservative caucus.

    Seriously, what was he smoking?

    And while I'm on that — FREE MARC EMERY!

  11. Too many free thinkers in the party means you can't win in Ontario.

  12. The Harper Government's backroom machinations are like Fight Club.

    Poor Landon forgot the first rule.

    • You don't talk about the homosexual subtext?

      • Must. Not. Make. Baird. Joke.

  13. What's a little disheartening as a liberal is that none of these characters [ there must be other disaffected cons in there somewhere?] seem to ever consider crossing the floor. I know there may be philisophical differences, but it's evident that the libs are not exactly radiating a 'winners' aura right now, and hav'n't been for quite some time.

    • He didn't have a seat, so he couldn't cross the floor; he's just a candidate. Also, Landon completely accepted that's the way the money rolls — he wasn't trying to correct anything, just explain it. Liberals don't need that guy, believe me.

      • Oh…guess i should actually read all the background before commenting.

        • Oh, why bother? The rest of us just go for it!

  14. Tell my this couldn't work, but I wonder if it would be possible to start a party of independents? I know it's something of an oxymoron, but I bet there's a lot of potential candidates who are turned off by the authority and structure of the existing parties. They could band together as a party for the purpose of mutual support, potential parliamentary clout, and funding, but beyond that provide a collective where individual MPs are autonomous.

    EDIT at 9:47a.m.: One pragmatic hurdle to this would be rules allowing parties to only field one candidate per riding. You'd need to have the ability to have multiple independents run in a single district, I should think.

    • The rules for independent MP candidates would need to be changed. At present party-affiliated candidates have a huge advantage over independents. What we need are parties who're old-fashioned enough to acknowledge that an MP represents his or her constituents *first*. Didn't someone promise free votes in the House in his platform way back when?

      • I think we've talked about this here before, maybe a year ago.

        But if we had a party called the Independent Party, whose only party platform is not to have a Whip, what would need to be changed? To Sean's point about only one candidate per riding, what is to stop candidates from running as independent candidates, and if one gets in he could then join the Independent Party? Yes, funding for the election the first time around wouldn't be there, I see that, but it isn't as if the Independent Party could ever hope to advertise like the other Federal parties.

        I wonder what would happen if the Independent Party got enough members to become Loyal Opposition? How would they choose a leader? I think it would be a great experiment, if nothing else.

        • Nunavaut provides an example of a leader being chosen outside of formal party structure, so it can be done.

          Good suggestion about formal party membership after being elected – it would allow multiple independents to run in single ridings. My vision of such a party includes some limited national advertising – simply to encourage voters to consider their independent candidates.

          The hardest part about such a 'party' would be the ability of members to accept divergent views. One would have to philosophically accept the presence of a pro-slavery member (for a crazyish example) alongside a Hamilton separatist advocate (that sounds less crazy to me, which probably makes me very crazy indeed.) One hopes such a party would equally be home to moderate representatives who simply have their ridings' and the nation's interests at the core of their motivations.

        • Canada already has an Independent Party, Jenn_ , so you will need to think of a new name but I don't believe the party org is anything like your thought experiment.

          http://www.independentpartycanada.com/

          I would like to see a little independence from MPs who are supposed to be representing our interests. I thought good example was a few months back with Lib nfld MPs were allowed to vote against measures they perceived hindered their province and the world did not end. The British parties regularly have MPs voting against their leader's wishes and nothing much happens to them. I understand why Cabinet members need to stick together but I think it is ridiculous how short a leash regular MPs are on.

          http://www.independentpartycanada.com/

        • Canada already has an Independent Party, Jenn_ , so you will need to think of a new name but I don't believe the party org is anything like your thought experiment.

          <a href="http://www.independentpartycanada.com/” target=”_blank”>http://www.independentpartycanada.com/

          I would like to see a little independence from MPs who are supposed to be representing our interests. I thought good example was a few months back with Lib nfld MPs were allowed to vote against measures they perceived hindered their province and the world did not end. The British parties regularly have MPs voting against their leader's wishes and nothing much happens to them. I understand why Cabinet members need to stick together but I think it is ridiculous how short a leash regular MPs are on.

          • Good Lord! Shudder. Thanks for letting me know the name was taken, Joylon. You are quite right, that wasn't what I meant at all.

      • Politicians give us what we want in order to stay in power. Or at least, they give the people who they think matter what they want. If enough Canadians (who count, naturally) stood up and demanded that their representatives represent them first, or if we stopped voting along partisan lines and instead voted on who we truly thought would stand up for our community and its goals, what would happen?

        • I think it might be unrealistic to expect too much out of free votes from party MPs.

          There's something to be said for 'leaving with the one that brung ya', for starters. Also, it gets a bit tricky in that if I vote for a Conservative member, I may realistically expect that individual to vote along party lines.

          I suppose if there a groundswell of candidates from all parties who made it clear that despite running under the banner of a given party, they would vote riding interests first and foremost, things might change.

          • Joylon did give a good example of that, though, Sean. The Liberal MPs in NL. However, the water does become muddy when those votes make the difference between something passing or not, and when the numbers mean abstaining isn't an option. In the normal course of events you would expect the candidate to vote based on party lines, but then only if the party doesn't swing wildly from one position to the exact opposite within days. I'm sure we can all think of examples of this behaviour by all three national parties over the last nine months or so.