Some of the ramifications of this position have been ably criticized by Ian Welsh at Tilting at Windmills. While this position is not in itself dishonest, any party espousing it should discard its platform and campaign during elections directly on that. I do find it dishonest that Harper is pushing this effectively by stealth in this campaign. Indeed, on the gay rights issue it has very important ramifications.

This is the exact same mistake that the majority of political commentators who talk about how scary Stephen Harper allegedly is, because some of his MPs are loose cannons without the wit (at least, from a getting-elected point of view) to take a deep gulp of some nice frosty STFU during the campaign, and that thus a government led by Harper would roll back all sorts of things. Well, no, it ain't that simple: a Harper-led government would roll back all sorts of things if the House agreed in free votes on private members' bills, when they're not part of the party platform.

Layton's point during this campaign is that SSM is a rights issue, and that the NDP considers this a matter of principles. Democracy does not just mean voting; it also means the defense of rights. Harper's failure to elucidate a party principle on this is itself a statement not merely on SSM, but on any rights issue.

Furthermore, Harper has not elucidated whether he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to block SSM if the Supreme Court were to strike down a private member's bill on it. Naturally, as Ian Welsh's co-blogger points out, Harper may not have the power to do so. If so, this is a cop-out. If not, Harper is willing to abrogate any charter right on the altar of Free Votes... But we don't know. To me, this sort of intellectual dishonesty is at least as severe as any trivial Liberal corruption.

What's worse is the Reformatory self-censorship on the issue. If we are to entrust rights to the tender mercy of free votes, then as Ian Welsh pointed out, we should also be able to know what the MPs position on the matter is. They should speak openly and tell us about abortion and gay rights and all that and keep putting their feet in their mouths. This "clean" campaign is also dishonest for a leader with a Reform-populist philosophy. Unlike some, I don't consider it an unforgivable sin to be a social conservative.

Guess what — that's exactly the same stance that Paul Martin claims to have, except that he hasn't come out and acknowledged the inherent contradiction in his simultaneous dedication to free votes and private members' bills (part of that agenda to tackle the "democratic deficit" — remember that?) and his stated support for gay rights, abortion on demand, and the like. There are only two possibilities, either Martin'll let a private members' bill to (say) prevent gay marriage through, or he'll go back on his oh-so-vaunted commitment to greater power for backbench MPs (who, in the Liberal Party, are by no means necessarily socially progressive): which will it be, Mr. Martin, which will it be?

Readers (and you, Chris) know that I am no Martin fan. But Martin at the very least did make it clear that he would never use the Notwithstanding Clause on a matter of rights like this.

Beyond this, Chris provides some gems like this one:

(As an aside to Mr. Layton, if you want party discipline to control everything, as you seemed to suggest by your comments on "social progressivity" being a core part of the NDP, shouldn't we just get rid of the whole messy electing MPs thing and just vote for which party leader(s) we like best? At least that way, you'd know what you were getting, and we could save a whole lot of money on salaries and running Parliament, in order to pay for your agenda.)

Chris, there's a lot more to MPs than just voting on bills. And MPs can defy and face the consequences, cross the floor, and so on. But let me turn it around: what's the point in having political parties if their positions don't matter? When I vote, I am endorsing a position. And when that position is embodied in a party platform, it means strength in numbers. It means that MPs from other ridings in the same party will add their voice to that of my candidate on issues that matter to me. That is precisely why the NDP can't allow dissenters on some of these issues: because it is a principle for the NDP that these are matters of rights and not subject to majoritarian populism. It doesn't mean that there can be no free votes at any time; but on some points, some fairly strict solidarity is required.

And that's good for democracy. Proportional representation would be even better.

P.S. Your "command-and-control" jab is interesting. I'm not really sure how it applies to me. I'll let the "pay for your agenda" thing slide now; interesting that it is coming from a Reformatory supporter...