It's really been more of forth, without any back. Your only reason for it being "unethical" was the waste of time and money. I pointed out that the harm here is equivalent to not delaying the general election by four days. You said you didn't care about that. Is there some other harm being afflicted?
Canadian Conservative Party Leadership
- Thread starter EricTheGreat12
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The ethical problem is running for MLA without being willing to be an MLA.
I don't give a flying rat's fornication if what he really wanted was the premiership, because that's what's called in layman terms "Jim Prentice's freaking problem". The fundamental job of amy MP/MPP/MLA is representing the people of his or her riding. Prime minister, minister or backbencher, it doesn't matter, it's the essence of the job definition and an essential duty to the workings of a representative democracy.
As such, running for the job is an implicit and fundamental promise, even a commitment to representing these people if they entrust you with that duty. We're not talking a mere campaing promise here (which is a proposal, a plan, for what one might do if elected). We're talking the core commitment that is fundamental to our entire political system : that a candidate for representative, if elected, will represent his or her electors.
Prentice made that commitment, and chose to break it. Not for health reason, not for his family, not because he had other commitments that would have left him unable to do the job - because.
Breaking such a commitment without an excellent reason can only ever be unethical.
I don't give a flying rat's fornication if what he really wanted was the premiership, because that's what's called in layman terms "Jim Prentice's freaking problem". The fundamental job of amy MP/MPP/MLA is representing the people of his or her riding. Prime minister, minister or backbencher, it doesn't matter, it's the essence of the job definition and an essential duty to the workings of a representative democracy.
As such, running for the job is an implicit and fundamental promise, even a commitment to representing these people if they entrust you with that duty. We're not talking a mere campaing promise here (which is a proposal, a plan, for what one might do if elected). We're talking the core commitment that is fundamental to our entire political system : that a candidate for representative, if elected, will represent his or her electors.
Prentice made that commitment, and chose to break it. Not for health reason, not for his family, not because he had other commitments that would have left him unable to do the job - because.
Breaking such a commitment without an excellent reason can only ever be unethical.
Last edited:
If someone explicitly committed to that, sure. The implicit commitment is much weaker than you think it is.
"that a candidate for representative, if elected, will represent his or her electors." - as opposed to leaving the electors with no representation, which isn't the case.
Otherwise you should be excoriating Jack Layton for running for MP/PM while having no reasonable expectation of representing his electors.
"that a candidate for representative, if elected, will represent his or her electors." - as opposed to leaving the electors with no representation, which isn't the case.
Otherwise you should be excoriating Jack Layton for running for MP/PM while having no reasonable expectation of representing his electors.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
That implicit commitment is the fundamental basis of our system. It is a strong commitment, and it needs to be.
Re: Layton, there is some question of how bad he knew his health situation to be and when. If he went in knowing he was condemned, then that was, indeed, a poor ethical choice (and one that I have seen questioned in the media). Not as poor as Prentice's decision (going in with the intent to serve as long as he can, even knowing he might not be able to finish his term, versus going in with no intent to serve unless he gets to be PM), but poor all the same.
There is also, of course, the fact that Layton had been serving his riding for seven years by that point. His commitment to serving them cannot be questioned ; only whether he would be in a condition to do so. Still a poor decision (again, if he knew), but not reneging on his commitment.
If he believed he would be be able to serve, or if the timing of his learning left him little reaction time (remember, Harper called a snap election out of the blue), then no fault there.
Re: Layton, there is some question of how bad he knew his health situation to be and when. If he went in knowing he was condemned, then that was, indeed, a poor ethical choice (and one that I have seen questioned in the media). Not as poor as Prentice's decision (going in with the intent to serve as long as he can, even knowing he might not be able to finish his term, versus going in with no intent to serve unless he gets to be PM), but poor all the same.
There is also, of course, the fact that Layton had been serving his riding for seven years by that point. His commitment to serving them cannot be questioned ; only whether he would be in a condition to do so. Still a poor decision (again, if he knew), but not reneging on his commitment.
If he believed he would be be able to serve, or if the timing of his learning left him little reaction time (remember, Harper called a snap election out of the blue), then no fault there.
Last edited:
Only as much as any other job has an implicit commitment that you'll perform that job after being selected.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Other jobs are not the fundamental basis of our democratic system, and the entire society we've built around it.
These people are the people we depend on to form the very basis of how our political system work. We have not just the right, but the duty to demand a higher level of commitment from them than we demand from somebody applying to run the cash register in a convenience store.
The idea that we shouldn't is sickening.
These people are the people we depend on to form the very basis of how our political system work. We have not just the right, but the duty to demand a higher level of commitment from them than we demand from somebody applying to run the cash register in a convenience store.
The idea that we shouldn't is sickening.
I'd place politician jobs at about average in importance for society. They just need to not be completely incompetent or actively malicious. Jobs in science and technology, healthcare, education, cultural pursuits, journalism, etc. are all at least as important for maintaining a well-functioning society.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
And, in our society - Canadian society - who decides how healthcare is run? Education? Who largely funds cultural pursuits? And scientific and technological ones? Who do the journalists earn their importance by keeping honest?
The people who vote the laws and the budgets. Politicians.
Calling them of average importance is empty wishful thinking ; a fantasy. In the real world, parliament is the cornerstone on which a lot of society rests.
The people who vote the laws and the budgets. Politicians.
Calling them of average importance is empty wishful thinking ; a fantasy. In the real world, parliament is the cornerstone on which a lot of society rests.
Last edited:
Sure, but all politicians have to do is not mess that up.
Can't mess it up if you're busy resigning.
You could make a better argument for bankers, scientists, or school board trustees.
In the real world, it doesn't much matter who gets elected.
Can't mess it up if you're busy resigning.
You could make a better argument for bankers, scientists, or school board trustees.
In the real world, it doesn't much matter who gets elected.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
If you have one job and proceed not to do it (because you're busy resigning instead of voting on the budget, say), I'd say that's a pretty thorough case of messing up the job in the first place.
Ask the Americans what it's like when your government doesn't vote on a budget. The words "government shutdown" ring a bell? In my books, that's called messing up your job.
"It doesn't matter who gets elected" is the kind of immature cynicism that Reddit and the chans have raised to an art form. It's only loosely connected with reality, and is an epic case of self-fulfilling prophecy (yes, amazingly, if you start thinking it doesn't matter whether politicians are corrupt because they all are, politicians are more likely to be corrupt. And if you start thinking your vote can never matter, you won't vote and therefore it definitely won't matter). It's a failed fantasy of a political philosophy, the ramblings of people who never got out of their "woe is me, I am so misunderstood" phase.
Ask the Americans what it's like when your government doesn't vote on a budget. The words "government shutdown" ring a bell? In my books, that's called messing up your job.
"It doesn't matter who gets elected" is the kind of immature cynicism that Reddit and the chans have raised to an art form. It's only loosely connected with reality, and is an epic case of self-fulfilling prophecy (yes, amazingly, if you start thinking it doesn't matter whether politicians are corrupt because they all are, politicians are more likely to be corrupt. And if you start thinking your vote can never matter, you won't vote and therefore it definitely won't matter). It's a failed fantasy of a political philosophy, the ramblings of people who never got out of their "woe is me, I am so misunderstood" phase.
Last edited:
Come on, resigning is obviously not messing up a political job particularly badly. Any actually corrupt politician is worse than one who resigns and doesn't do anything.
You may have noticed that Canada doesn't have government shutdowns.
You can also note I didn't claim it doesn't matter who gets elected. I'm not familiar with "the chans". I suspect your time learning about politics there isn't particularly well spent.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
No ; Canada gets a vote of no confidence when politicians fail to pass a budget. So instead of the government shutting down we get a whole new election.
It matters very much.
Remember Alison Redford, the Alberta Premier whose "Sky Palace" project led to her resigning in disgrace (it was merely one of her more egregious examples of self-indulgent spending)?
She actually did initiate a couple of beneficial things during her time as Premier. She delivered on her campaign promises of building more schools and raising the AISH benefit.
If she hadn't been a Premier who kept those promises, there would have been a hell of a lot of AISH recipients who would have been left homeless when the rents skyrocketed.
Some Independent candidates actually do make it to the Legislature, and even Parliament. Some former party members who leave caucus (or get kicked out) do quite well as independents. John Nunziata and Chuck Cadman come to mind.
I think we even had one running here, back in the election of 1993. That was the first year I worked for Elections Canada on a federal election, and when informed that I would have to vote at the advance polls, I had about 3 hours to make up my mind, get to the polling station, and vote. We had 7 candidates that time around, and I finally narrowed it down to the NDP and one other (not Liberal).
I have to ask: In that list of choices, are you talking provincial or federal? I can't imagine the Reformacons not running in all the ridings.
No, it really doesn't, not for most people, most of the time.
I've never been particularly affected by any election at any level compared to how I would have been by the next choice.
It must be nice to just meander along, and not care. Not everyone has that luxury.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Provincial. The conservatives are essentially nonexistent in BC now. They don't even have a party leader and they only have 10 candidates in the current election.
To compare, the YPP has 10, Libertarians (!) have 30, Greens have 83, and the NDP and Liberals both have 87 each (the max). One candidate per ridership.
In a surprise announcement today, we have been informed that Rona Ambrose is resigning as MP and leaving federal politics.
Good riddance. Note that leaving federal politics doesn't mean she's ruling out provincial or municipal, or that she won't be back in 2019 if she sees the new leader floundering.
Go figure the unaccountable moderators on CBC.ca... my comments on her hair and the meatloaf chef she and Harper shared made it through. Pointing out that she had no science credentials when she was appointed Minister of the Environment was pinked.
