We'll Always Have Parrish

[bcholmes]

Prime Minister Paul Martin has kicked Carolyn Parrish out of the Liberal party. Almost certainly because she appeared on a CBC comedy show stomping on a George Bush doll, and talking at great length about how much she dislikes the current Liberal regime. For my part, I actually admire Parrish for refusing to be a good little quiet backbencher, given how much grief Martin has given MPs like her (and Copps, and others). I'm also less than thrilled with Sam Bulte for braying out the party line for the press; c'mon Sam, you know Martin is no friend of yours.

Martin probably gains brownie points with Bush just prior to Bush's planned visit on November 30th, but man, the government is really tenuous right now. In theory, Carolyn Parrish could bring down the government.

Paul Wells commented tonight on CBC that he believed that when the government falls, it will be by more than one vote, and it will be because Martin wants it to fall. Speaking of Wells, I loved his little conclusion to this whole affair:

And now we come to day's most richly entertaining lesson. No prime minister can tolerate a display of open contempt from somebody who is supposed to be a member of his team. The proper response to such behaviour is dismissal. Paul Martin reached that inevitable conclusion today.

Just as Jean Chrétien reached the same conclusion in June, 2002.

Comments

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

Yes, she is out of the party, effectively - though I haven't heard that her Party membership is cancelled.

So, yes, she sits as an Independent, and is no longer officially a member of the government. This means she has lost a lot of clout, in some ways, and gained a whole bunch more. Our hostess has shown some of the ways she gains; with the Parliament so finely balanced, she and the other Independent Member are now in a real Kingmaker position.

What she's lost is the chance to have time to put questions during Question Period, which is the usual way for non-government MPs to get their face in front of the cameras. Since time in the Question Period is more or less given only to parties with a certain threshold of seats (thus making them "official" parties), she is unlikely to ever get the chance to speak again in the House.

She is still her constituents' Member of Parliament, and will be unless turfed from the House (maybe by the Speaker? I don't know if there's even a mechanism for this), until the next election in her riding.

She is now, I would guess, unlikely to vote with the Liberals; she will be free to vote her conscience. Looking at her website, she seems to be...um...Liberal. I doubt (as some are suggesting) she'll cross the floor to the NDP. She has some centrist positions that would be unpopular in the NDP caucus, I think (check out her position on gay marriage).

I think she's a pain in the ass. I think she's also well within her rights as a Member of Parliament. And that Martin was right to chuck her out of the caucus, but only for her comments about his leadership and her admitted lack of loyalty to the party. Her comments about Bush, as far as I'm concerned, fall within Parliamentary Privilege and free speech.

Can't be bothered with kneejerk anti-Americanism myself. I know too many good ones.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

She is still her constituents' Member of Parliament, and will be unless turfed from the House (maybe by the Speaker? I don't know if there's even a mechanism for this), until the next election in her riding.

I don't believe there is. This was talked about a lot during the Jag Bhaduria hoopla.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Two other points:

1. Parliamentary Privilege usually only refers to things said by MPs during debate.

2. I think it's less accurate to say that she's anti-American than to say that she's anti-Bush.

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

Yah, I mentioned both PP and free speech because I know she's made comments both in- and outside the house.

Also, I believe (though I'll happily accept I could be wrong) that she said something about "American bastards" at some point.

[inefficient.livejournal.com]

Thank you both very much for aiding me in alleviating my ignorance. I also looked at the Wiki page for Westminster System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_System) and the AustralianPolitics.com (http://www.australianpolitics.com/democracy/terms/westminster-system.shtml) site to better understand it. I appreciate your willingness to explain.