[JaredMilne]

I'm lucky enough to have Brent Rathgeber as my Member of Parliament. He recently blogged about what it's been like since he left the Conservative caucus. I won't post his entire entry here, but there is one passage I think is especially worth quoting:

$1:

My understanding of the role of the government backbencher simply does not conform to the hyper-partisan concept of team player. Holding government to account requires putting principle and constituents before party. This is irreconcilable with true partisan team playership , which values party above all else.

I fully agree with Mr. Rathgeber, particularly as this applies to the principle of responsible government. However, I'm also recalled of all the problems the early Reform movement had under Preston Manning, when some of its candidates and MPs made statements that made the party look bad and allowed its opponents and critics to paint the whole party as a collection of radical extremists, which they obviously were not. It's been said that Stephen Harper remembered this, and that's why he's so strict with message control now that he's running things.

That raises the question-when is message control a way of keeping candidates and party members from making "bozo eruptions" that can sink your chances of getting elected, and when does it become a suppression of worthwhile dissent and a neutering of the backbencher's responsibility to hold the party leadership (whether the Prime Minister/Premier and his or her Cabinet, or the party leaders in the case of an Opposition party) to account?

I really don't know myself, and I'd be interested in hearing others' theories.

[Xort]

If you want the support of being part of a political party then you must follow their rules. Which may include only having the party line to sell. Policy conventions are where a party member may push for a change.

If they want to claim the status as the voice of the people that elected them and are not bound by party rules then don't run under a party banner.

Chuck Cadman was replaced as the candidate for his riding by an organized effort of the East Indians to get one of their own in with the hopes that people would vote the party line rather than for the candidate. That backfired on them, when Chuck was elected as an independant.

If Rathgeber wants to be the man free from party rules he should have run as an independent. But as was his time in provincial politics what Brent Rathgeber wants is political power for Brent Rathgeber. For people that know him it was no surprise that he wasn't happy just being the MP. He wanted more and that wasn't going to happen.

That he was able to use the change to his private members' bill as his reason for leaving was just a stroke of good luck for him I guess.

[Thanos]

Considering that the only real results of the Reform era and of Reform thinking were that, thanks to the conservative schism of the time, Jean Chretien got four majority governments in a row and that the traitors of the Bloc Quebecois became the Official Opposition for a time, I'm hoping more conservatives aren't cut from the same cloth as Brent Rathgeber. Party discipline is a major feature of Parliamentary politics in Canada. Anyone who doesn't understand this, or who can't keep their mouths shut and just do their job, really shouldn't get involved with the party system. This isn't the US where a lone Rep can yap away to his heart's content without much consequence. MP's have to vote together or the government falls. It's a simple as that.

[Unsound]

Good points both of you. This is one of those issues where I have the fence posts jammed in a rather uncomfortable spot.

Brent is my MP as well, and as such I do support what his bill was trying to accomplish, and I do support his decision to leave caucus over it being watered down to the point of uselessness.

While I don't know him personally, my dad has had occasion to deal with him, and has nothing good to say about him as a person or even as a community member. I try to keep in mind that my dad has opinions about lawyers that trump even his feelings about politicians in general

As for the general question of what we should expect or demand from our MPs in regards to whether they toe the line or go their own way... it depends. I think it has to be judged on a case by case basis.

Obviously there does have to be some party discipline. The system doesn't really work otherwise. There's simply no way all members of a group as large as political party can agree on every issue. Compromising and going along with smaller things you disagree with in order to accomplish larger things is how society in general works. The conservatives would never have won power if they didn't learn to be a little professional and stick to a message. And that would've been a shame imo. Like them or not the CPC provided a viable alternative to a stale arrogant and corrupt Liberal party.

On the other side of this inconvieniently place fence is the fact that MPs are technically elected to represent the people of their riding and they need the freedom to that. And, if they have any self-respect at all, they need to be able to live with the compromises they make.

It's possible that Rathgeber is making a cynical politics based move here, but I like to think he's being principled. If only because I need to believe that still does happen once in a while. The reasons he's given are consistant with what has been and should be CPC policy, or at least philosophy, and are likely what the majority of voters thought they were getting when they voted for him. For that reason I don't see a need for him to run in a by-election. If he'd gone to another party, or done this a short time after the last election I would likely be in favour of a by-election. As it stands we'll find out in a few years if the people of my riding like the move or not.