Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Halifax Tar]

and very few of them EVER vote against the party but in line with their constituents wishes. I would prefer more free votes and not whipped ones

Wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up first.

That's akin to people who say we vote for individuals not party members, and that's not federal problem its a provincial one when the Feds run on the topic. Its just not based in reality, regardless of what rules say.

 

[brihard]

Wish in one hand, shit in the other and see which fills up first.

That's akin to people who say we vote for individuals not party members, and that's not federal problem its a provincial one when the Feds run on the topic. Its just not based in reality, regardless of what rules say.

Pretending the rules by which things actually happen aren’t reality is an odd take.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Pretending the rules by which things actually happen aren’t reality is an odd take.

Rules are only such if they are enforced and followed.

How do you propose we do that, in the current context of this conversation?

 

[brihard]

Rules are only such if they are enforced and followed.

How do you propose we do that, in the current context of this conversation?

Which actual rules that actually exist do you contend are not being followed?

We elect MPs in accordance with all the law on the matter. That’s the actual rules.

The GG appoints a ministry on the advice of the person who can demonstrate the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Although this is a matter of convention and not statute, it’s part of the understood rule set.

If the government loses confidence of the House, the PM asks the GG to dissolve Parliament and we go to an election. Also convention, also part of the rule set.

The construction of a party caucus is also a conventional, not statutory matter. The right of an individual MP to quit one caucus and, separately but relatedly, to be invited to join another is also within that conventional rule set.

The rules are being followed. That’s not the issue. A poor grasp of basic civics by a lot of Canadians is admittedly part of the issue. You simply want the rules to change from what they are to something else, but you’ve failed to consider the constitutionality of that change or the second and third order political effects.

 

[Jarnhamar]

to consider the constitutionality of that change or the second and third order political effects.

What would those be?

 

[brihard]

What would those be?

The things I’ve said in my various replies over the last couple days, among others.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The things I’ve said in my various replies over the last couple days, among others.

I got some rereading to do

 

[Halifax Tar]

The things I’ve said in my various replies over the last couple days, among others.

Which are ?

 

[brihard]

Which are ?

I don’t see a need to repeat myself again. You can go back and read them again or not, as you see fit.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which actual rules that actually exist do you contend are not being followed?

We elect MPs in accordance with all the law on the matter. That’s the actual rules.

The GG appoints a ministry on the advice of the person who can demonstrate the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Although this is a matter of convention and not statute, it’s part of the understood rule set.

If the government loses confidence of the House, the PM asks the GG to dissolve Parliament and we go to an election. Also convention, also part of the rule set.

The construction of a party caucus is also a conventional, not statutory matter. The right of an individual MP to quit one caucus and, separately but relatedly, to be invited to join another is also within that conventional rule set.

The rules are being followed. That’s not the issue. A poor grasp of basic civics by a lot of Canadians is admittedly part of the issue. You simply want the rules to change from what they are to something else, but you’ve failed to consider the constitutionality of that change or the second and third order political effects.

I believe our system is being maliciously complied to with 338 people forgetting the represent the rest of the 40 million Canadian. They are there govern for our greater volume not themselves. Canadians elect an individual under a party banner and send them as representation.

I feel as strongly that PP should have stepped down after the election this year, or at least had to rerun for party leadership. Do what is best for Canada not your political aspirations. And I don't see what PP did or MPs crossing the floor doing as what is best for Canada. Wanna know what's best for Canada ? Let Canada decide.

I want my HoC always putting Canada and their constituents first.

Don't forget I am also the guy who would get rid of the monarchy, adopt Prop Rep, and make the senate elected positions as well.

 

[HavokFour]

Another one from Brian Lilley, something is definitely afoot.

LILLEY: Pierre Poilievre under pressure as Conservative caucus cracks​

Archive

 

[Halifax Tar]

Another one from Brian Lilley, something is definitely afoot.

LILLEY: Pierre Poilievre under pressure as Conservative caucus cracks

Pierre Poilievre faces leadership pressure as MPs defect and caucus unity frays ahead of a key Conservative review. Read more.

torontosun.com

Archive

His hubris will cost the CPC, and Canada dearly.

 

[dapaterson]

I believe our system is being maliciously complied to with 338 people forgetting the represent the rest of the 40 million Canadian. They are there govern for our greater volume not themselves. Canadians elect an individual under a party banner and send them as representation.

I feel as strongly that PP should have stepped down after the election this year, or at least had to rerun for party leadership. Do what is best for Canada not your political aspirations. And I don't see what PP did or MPs crossing the floor doing as what is best for Canada. Wanna know what's best for Canada ? Let Canada decide.

I want my HoC always putting Canada and their constituents first.

Don't forget I am also the guy who would get rid of the monarchy, adopt Prop Rep, and make the senate elected positions as well.

Commenting on the bolded parts: What level of party discipline should there be, then? If I am a member of the Canadian Circus Party, and the Canadian Rodeo Party proposes something counter to the Circus platform that I believe is in the best interests of Canada, are you saying I should not be allowed to vote against my party? Should I be forced to resign and run again as an independent?


(As we know this would only be an issue for the Circus Party, since the Rodeo Party "don't give a fuck".)

 

[brihard]

Commenting on the bolded parts: What level of party discipline should there be, then? If I am a member of the Canadian Circus Party, and the Canadian Rodeo Party proposes something counter to the Circus platform that I believe is in the best interests of Canada, are you saying I should not be allowed to vote against my party? Should I be forced to resign and run again as an independent?


(As we know this would only be an issue for the Circus Party, since the Rodeo Party "don't give a fuck".)

It would also leave open the question of what happens when a substantial portion of a party splits off, or alternatively if two parties merge.

A useful litmus test for any proposed change of rules is to look at the proposed rules in very detailed way and ask “what would have happened to Jody Wilson-Raybould under this rule?”

It’s academic anyway, we won’t (and I argue cannot) see this legislated, but especially when you’re frigging with the conventions underlying our democracy you have to really, really torture test any potential tweaks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Commenting on the bolded parts: What level of party discipline should there be, then? If I am a member of the Canadian Circus Party, and the Canadian Rodeo Party proposes something counter to the Circus platform that I believe is in the best interests of Canada, are you saying I should not be allowed to vote against my party? Should I be forced to resign and run again as an independent?


(As we know this would only be an issue for the Circus Party, since the Rodeo Party "don't give a fuck".)

Canada/Constituents, Party, Self.

Do MPs currently vote how they feel is best ? Or are the whipped into voting the way the party says ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

A useful litmus test for any proposed change of rules is to look at the proposed rules in very detailed way and ask “what would have happened to Jody Wilson-Raybould under this rule?”

Do you think what JT and LPC did to JWR was the correct thing ?

 

[brihard]

Do you think what JT and LPC did to JWR was the correct thing ?

No. They trampled on the long recognized distinction between the political capacity as Minister of Justice, and the independent prosecutorial oversight of the Attorney General. They played politics with a capacity she held that is not supposed to be political. Once she pushed back on that, one side or the other was going to fall politically. She got done dirty.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No. They trampled on the long recognized distinction between the political capacity as Minister of Justice, and the independent prosecutorial oversight of the Attorney General. They played politics with a capacity she held that is not supposed to be political. Once she pushed back on that, one side or the other was going to fall politically. She got done dirty.

Agree, her leadership put her in a terrible position and treated her terribly.

 

[ArmyRick]

Another one from Brian Lilley, something is definitely afoot.

LILLEY: Pierre Poilievre under pressure as Conservative caucus cracks​

Archive

Before you wet yourself with excitement at Pierre's ouster prematurely. From the article

"In reality, Poilievre has two leadership reviews underway. There is the one in January, where party members vote and in that one, he’s expected to do well. But thanks to the Conservatives adopting the Reform Act, he is under constant review with his MPs."

"Some readers may laugh at the idea that there would be an election in the coming year, and the Conservatives could win it. But if the last year has taught us anything, Pierre Poilievre in particular, you never know how the year ahead will unfold."

No one saying its roses for Pierre and the CPC, but its not the horror show some are hoping for either.

He either makes it through the leadership review or he does not. If he does not, we pick a new leader and then like I said it before and I will say it again, the character assassination starts on whoever succeeds Pierre.

The CPC is the ONLY party with a leadership review process (you know that whole democratic thing that Liberals and NDP hate).

Hey wait, what this? From google AI (which is prone to errors) "Stephen Harper did face a leadership review by party delegates in March 2005, which he survived.", this after losing an election to Prime Minister Martin?

Mmmmm and google AI (again could be wrong) "The Conservative Party lost the 2004 Canadian federal election primarily because the new party was perceived as too socially conservative and out of step with mainstream Canadian values, which allowed the Liberal Party to recover momentum despite the "sponsorship scandal".

Ahhh, but this is time it is totally different, right?

Another thing I said last year and it holds true this year, this is the wild west of Canadian Politics, no one knows what is happening next. Not me, and no one else here.

 

[brihard]

The CPC is the ONLY party with a leadership review process (you know that whole democratic thing that Liberals and NDP hate).

This is not true. Under 47.a of the Liberal Party of Canada constitution, following any election in which the LPC do not form government, they will hold a leadership endorsement vote to determine if the current leader will continue on.

Under 3.a.v of the New Democratic Party of Canada constitution, at every convention they hold a secret ballot to determine if they’ll hold a leadership vote.

Your snarkiness on this one is not supported by the facts.