- Reaction score
- 4,722
- Points
- 1,160
With our system of going into caretaker mode 3 months before and at least 3 months post election cycle, we might as well close down the CAF. Nothing will ever get purchased.
2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,742
- Points
- 1,040
Kind of hard to reconcile "we need to marginalize those people and shut them up" with "we need to change the system so they can have MPs".
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Points
- 1,040
Personally I think the solution is to have more direct democracy like the Swiss. FPTP for the parliamentarians (so it tends to keep the extremes out of the law writers), with direct voting on issues. It works exceptionally well for them, no reason it couldn't effectively work for us. It wouldn't matter as much who is in charge, as the people would always have the final say.
- Reaction score
- 6,285
- Points
- 1,040
Democracy is ugly; if Nazis get elected in proportional representation it's because a portion of people voted for Nazis. It would at least be more honest than dog whistles at the same group to get them onside; polite racism is still racism. (Just speaking in generalities, not saying anything about PP or the CPCs).
You don't need a permanent coalition to get things done though; I'm sure there are probably enough MPs that would be onside from something like delaying carbon tax increases they could get that accepted by either a majority of all parties, or by partnering with the BQ and others to get a private members bill through.
That requires more finesse then pounding on a podium though and saying 'You suck!'. Politics should be more than sniping at each other for future votes.
Anyway, PP has a mandate from his party, and should be able to take advantage of the minority goverment to push things through anyway if he wants to try. If he has some kind of simple, concrete thing they can do now, now's the time to suggest it and try working with others outside his party.
- Reaction score
- 6,285
- Points
- 1,040
Somewhat topical; Swedish election results are waiting on final tally, but the 8 parties seem to be split into 2 bloqs, with the right wing including the Swedish Democrats who descended who started out as a nationalist, white supremacist party in the mid 80s, and still has some pretty directly anti-immigrant/refugee positions.
Swedish rightwing on verge of narrow election win but waits on final tally
Swedish rightwing on verge of narrow election win but waits on final tally
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,886
- Points
- 1,260
I remember that. People who I thought were apolitical or centre-left were absolutely furious at Dionne and Layton.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,394
- Points
- 1,260
Turmoil is putting it lightly.
Would make for interesting times on these forums.
Knowledge of how our government works or not; to have won the popular and seat count only to have that pulled out after the fact and not expecting people not be wildly upset about that is simply not understanding the human experience or the temperature outside of Ottawa.
I can't see this having a net positive effect on the whole of the country.
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 1,060
All the above may be true and make sense but what is also true is the PM must have the confidence of the HoC and MPs can and should vote down legislation they disagree with.
It would make for interesting times
It would make for interesting times
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Constitutionally - in the important parts of the Constitution, not the largely irrelevant bits of bureaucratic drivel and housekeeping that were published in 1867 and 1982 - the King MUST ALWAYS have counsel. That counsel is provided, by custom - which has greater strength in law than anything written down, anywhere - by the King's Privy Council in each of his realms. The Committee of the Privy Council - the body which actually speaks to the King (or the GG) - is chaired by the prime minister. The prime minister holds that office at the King's pleasure and the "King's pleasure" is, in most matters, decided by his Parliament.
Short form: there MUST ALWAYS be a government and that government MUST ALWAYS have the confidence of the House of Commons.
When an election is held the government does, indeed, go into "caretaker" mode. It is the duty of the "caretaker" prime minister to advise (tell) the King (or GG), shortly after the election, who should be the next prime minister - who, in other words, the King/GG should call upon to form a government. The person who should form the next government need not be the person whose party can secure the confidence of the House of Commons by winning votes. A party needs 170 seats to guarantee it can win a vote in the House.
Consider, for example, that there is a Canadian general election in 2022 - we vote in late November. The results are:
BQ: 33
Cons: 121
Greens: 4
Liberals: 114
NDP: 57
Independents: 9
Now, I'm the serving Liberal prime minister who, by any fair reasoning, just lost the election to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. I have a Constitutional duty (not a right, a DUTY) to advise the GG. I know that neither Poilievre nor myself will ever form a government that depends on BQ support. The BQ wants to break Canada apart. The Conservatives could govern IF they had the support of the NDP - but the NDP grew in power, mainly at the expense of my Liberals, on a decidedly progressive/anti-Conservative platform so I think that's unlikely. I, on the other hand, can govern, comfortably, IF I have the support of the NDP - they'll demand seats in my cabinet, but that's OK with me - and the Greens. The GG has two obvious choices:
As a responsible prime minister I think I should go with option 2. The GG should, usually, accept my advice on this matter but she does have "reserved powers" and these include deciding, for herself, when there are debatable Constitutional choices.
What would you do?
Short form: there MUST ALWAYS be a government and that government MUST ALWAYS have the confidence of the House of Commons.
When an election is held the government does, indeed, go into "caretaker" mode. It is the duty of the "caretaker" prime minister to advise (tell) the King (or GG), shortly after the election, who should be the next prime minister - who, in other words, the King/GG should call upon to form a government. The person who should form the next government need not be the person whose party can secure the confidence of the House of Commons by winning votes. A party needs 170 seats to guarantee it can win a vote in the House.
Consider, for example, that there is a Canadian general election in 2022 - we vote in late November. The results are:
BQ: 33
Cons: 121
Greens: 4
Liberals: 114
NDP: 57
Independents: 9
Now, I'm the serving Liberal prime minister who, by any fair reasoning, just lost the election to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. I have a Constitutional duty (not a right, a DUTY) to advise the GG. I know that neither Poilievre nor myself will ever form a government that depends on BQ support. The BQ wants to break Canada apart. The Conservatives could govern IF they had the support of the NDP - but the NDP grew in power, mainly at the expense of my Liberals, on a decidedly progressive/anti-Conservative platform so I think that's unlikely. I, on the other hand, can govern, comfortably, IF I have the support of the NDP - they'll demand seats in my cabinet, but that's OK with me - and the Greens. The GG has two obvious choices:
1. ask M Poilievre too form her government because he has there most seats and won the largest share of the popular vote - that will result in a fairly rapid failure to secure the confidence of the House and we'll be back to the polls in the early sporing of 2023; or
2. ask me to form a government which will, quite possibly, results in political stability for four years.
As a responsible prime minister I think I should go with option 2. The GG should, usually, accept my advice on this matter but she does have "reserved powers" and these include deciding, for herself, when there are debatable Constitutional choices.
What would you do?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,394
- Points
- 1,260
The problem with your post is that your not taking into account the human factor.
If JT and JS did do this the possible net result for country scares me. I'm amounts to the Laurentians and the east telling the rest the country we decide what's best no matter the electoral result.
I think we would be better off going with option 1. My biases admitted.
I also think an election wouldn't come that fast. The population hates elections and campaigns. The Liberals would probably have a leadership crisis to deal with as well.
If minority Con government is toppled too fast I see that not going well for those in opposition.
If the Libs and NDP want for a coalition they have to campaign on that from the outset of the electoral campaign. Otherwise the divisiveness it will create will be palpable and I fear what else.
- Reaction score
- 2,481
- Points
- 1,190
I see your logic, however, the CPC was able to maintain a minority government for 5 years from 2006-2011, so, they can make it work.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,194
- Points
- 990
A lot, both the palatability/electoral rightness of a coalition and the viability of the reciprocal/usurped minority would come down to the specifics.
Under EC's scenario an LPC/NDP coalition would outseat the CPC 171 to 121, with voter share ~55 to 35. That coalition arguably better represents the electoral will of Canadians, and certainly represents a more effective ability to govern
In 2006 it was 132 to 124, 47% to 36%. The same arguments do not hold true.
Edit- but I do agree with @Halifax Tar that regardless of what I think of the rational rightness, it would be incredibly destabilizing for the country. With that on one side, and the prospect of a vicious campaign and a CPC PM with burned bridges and no ideological desire to work across the aisle on the other, I don't see a good outcome for the country from a non-majority CPC win, and I don't see the majority happening. I hate where Canadian politics stand relative to this time last year.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,742
- Points
- 1,040
If the people don't like the outcome and the GG's choice, they can give a spanking at the next election. That's basically what happened after 2008.
TacticalTea
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,485
- Points
- 1,160
Don't miss the stability factor. As EC stated, the incumbent PM advises. Incumbent PM would maintain power, just as incumbent PM did in 2008.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,779
- Points
- 1,160
Yes, they can make it work, however let's not forget the December 2008 prorogation of Parliament (6 weeks after the election) that avoided the next day non-confidence vote already agreed to by the "coalition" of opposition parties. Following on from the same constitutional custom that EC references in his scenario, Harper "advised" the Governor General who accepted his advice. Those nearly two months gave him the breathing room during which the Liberal party questioned its leadership and with the budget (changed enough from the "economic update" previously presented) providing concessions to the opposition parties, they were able to remain in government.
- Reaction score
- 1,680
- Points
- 1,060
The Liberals and NDP under the Harper government lacked the courage, commitment and cash to stand on principle. The same could follow a PP minority government or they could vote it down. Lots of possibilities
- Reaction score
- 8,305
- Points
- 1,160
On politics and politicians... UK ones at least.
TOM HARRIS13 September 2022 • 2:54pm
As the nation mourns and prepares to say a final farewell to Queen Elizabeth II next Monday, it’s striking that our politicians are, for once, providing a positive example of behaviour. Once fierce opponents are filmed and photographed together, sharing memories and jokes, seemingly enjoying each other’s company. And we, the public, nod approvingly. This, after all, is what Her Majesty would have wanted: for politicians to bury their differences, if only for a short time, and to consider more high-minded issues than political advantage and electoral prospects.
We all know that normal service will be resumed at some stage. Some might say that it’s like a giant confidence trick which everyone is privy to. The truth, however, may be even more shocking. Consider this: what if the Queen’s death and preparations for her funeral were not forcing natural enemies to behave in public, but were allowing our political leaders the rare opportunity genuinely to enjoy each other’s company?
MPs, after all, work together in a big room that’s not quite big enough to allow all 650 of them to get a seat on busy days. That makes for an intimate working space. These are people who eat, sleep and breathe politics: in other words, they’re pretty weird individuals. And the thing about weirdos is that they want to spend time with other people who share their own obsessions. And if those people don’t happen to share the same political affiliation, well, perhaps that matters less than the fact that they can name every single prime minister, chronologically, in the last 120 years.
Cross-party friendships are always surprising to outside observers, though within Westminster’s walls they are so common that they are rarely commented upon. True, the tea room, where most of the House of Commons gossip is shared, is strictly split up into party areas. But those demarcations are informal and there is much interchange and banter, including the sharing of tables by MPs of different parties.
The fact is that many MPs will feel more comfortable sitting in the smoking room after a late night vote, having a drink and sharing a joke with colleagues from the opposite party, than they will having a beer after a meeting of their local party. After all, outside those fraught occasions when constituency mergers and boundary changes are in prospect, an MP will see no rival when he gazes around the chamber of the Commons. Everyone there, by definition, already has a seat and is too concerned with holding onto theirs to cast envious eyes on their own.
It’s a shame that friendships between MPs of opposition parties is the love that dare not speak its name. Only when tragedy rears its head do we catch a glimpse of those relationships. In a touching tribute to John Smith just a day after the Labour leader’s unexpected death in 1994, John Major told of late night drinks in his study with his political rival, meetings which started off with drink singular and then progressed to the plural pretty quickly.
As an MP I would frequently join colleagues from different parties to sample Soho’s various karaoke bars. We enjoyed John Whittingdale’s extraordinary rendition of Bat Out of Hell and Therese Coffey’s energetic power ballads, alongside performances from Labour’s Kevin Brennan and Rachel Reeves. These events were not unusual in themselves; what was unusual was how quickly, the day after, everyone once again sworn political enemies.
Ironic, then, that it is the speeches and barbs of the Commons and TV studio debates, not the joyful, slightly inebriated singing, that are the more performative. Constituents expect it. The first rule of Karaoke Club is that no one talks about Karaoke Club, not just because MPs can’t be seen to be enjoying themselves during the week instead of keeping their heads down in the Commons library, but also because it just wouldn’t do to be seen to be friends with the other side.
So in these times of national bereavement, politicians don’t alter their feelings towards their opponents, they simply don’t make the effort to hide them any more. But soon the masks will come back on, the rehearsed and well-practised vehemence will be on show again, and everything will be back to normal. Every political disagreement will be mutated into an offence against everything that is good and decent in the world, and the motives of fellow MPs will be impugned.
Personally, I prefer it when we settle our differences with a sing-off. But maybe that’s just me.
www.telegraph.co.uk
During national mourning, we realise that rival politicians were friends all along
MPs don’t alter their feelings towards their opponents, they simply don’t make the effort to hide their genuine friendships any moreTOM HARRIS13 September 2022 • 2:54pm
As the nation mourns and prepares to say a final farewell to Queen Elizabeth II next Monday, it’s striking that our politicians are, for once, providing a positive example of behaviour. Once fierce opponents are filmed and photographed together, sharing memories and jokes, seemingly enjoying each other’s company. And we, the public, nod approvingly. This, after all, is what Her Majesty would have wanted: for politicians to bury their differences, if only for a short time, and to consider more high-minded issues than political advantage and electoral prospects.
We all know that normal service will be resumed at some stage. Some might say that it’s like a giant confidence trick which everyone is privy to. The truth, however, may be even more shocking. Consider this: what if the Queen’s death and preparations for her funeral were not forcing natural enemies to behave in public, but were allowing our political leaders the rare opportunity genuinely to enjoy each other’s company?
MPs, after all, work together in a big room that’s not quite big enough to allow all 650 of them to get a seat on busy days. That makes for an intimate working space. These are people who eat, sleep and breathe politics: in other words, they’re pretty weird individuals. And the thing about weirdos is that they want to spend time with other people who share their own obsessions. And if those people don’t happen to share the same political affiliation, well, perhaps that matters less than the fact that they can name every single prime minister, chronologically, in the last 120 years.
Cross-party friendships are always surprising to outside observers, though within Westminster’s walls they are so common that they are rarely commented upon. True, the tea room, where most of the House of Commons gossip is shared, is strictly split up into party areas. But those demarcations are informal and there is much interchange and banter, including the sharing of tables by MPs of different parties.
The fact is that many MPs will feel more comfortable sitting in the smoking room after a late night vote, having a drink and sharing a joke with colleagues from the opposite party, than they will having a beer after a meeting of their local party. After all, outside those fraught occasions when constituency mergers and boundary changes are in prospect, an MP will see no rival when he gazes around the chamber of the Commons. Everyone there, by definition, already has a seat and is too concerned with holding onto theirs to cast envious eyes on their own.
It’s a shame that friendships between MPs of opposition parties is the love that dare not speak its name. Only when tragedy rears its head do we catch a glimpse of those relationships. In a touching tribute to John Smith just a day after the Labour leader’s unexpected death in 1994, John Major told of late night drinks in his study with his political rival, meetings which started off with drink singular and then progressed to the plural pretty quickly.
As an MP I would frequently join colleagues from different parties to sample Soho’s various karaoke bars. We enjoyed John Whittingdale’s extraordinary rendition of Bat Out of Hell and Therese Coffey’s energetic power ballads, alongside performances from Labour’s Kevin Brennan and Rachel Reeves. These events were not unusual in themselves; what was unusual was how quickly, the day after, everyone once again sworn political enemies.
Ironic, then, that it is the speeches and barbs of the Commons and TV studio debates, not the joyful, slightly inebriated singing, that are the more performative. Constituents expect it. The first rule of Karaoke Club is that no one talks about Karaoke Club, not just because MPs can’t be seen to be enjoying themselves during the week instead of keeping their heads down in the Commons library, but also because it just wouldn’t do to be seen to be friends with the other side.
So in these times of national bereavement, politicians don’t alter their feelings towards their opponents, they simply don’t make the effort to hide them any more. But soon the masks will come back on, the rehearsed and well-practised vehemence will be on show again, and everything will be back to normal. Every political disagreement will be mutated into an offence against everything that is good and decent in the world, and the motives of fellow MPs will be impugned.
Personally, I prefer it when we settle our differences with a sing-off. But maybe that’s just me.
During national mourning, we realise that rival politicians were friends all along
MPs don’t alter their feelings towards their opponents, they simply don’t make the effort to hide their genuine friendships any more
www.telegraph.co.uk
- Reaction score
- 22,100
- Points
- 1,360
Poilièvre gets one gimme, because Trudeau completely and arrogantly wasted 2/3 BILLION DOLLARS of the good citizens’ money on an aspirational blunder of largesse and self-grandeur. If there is a vote of non-confidence in 2023 and PM Poilièvre must return to Her Excellency to recommend the dissolution of Government, then it’s a fair dinkem do-over and Her Excellency can then feel comfortable in entertaining a grouping that in total, represent the de facto plurality of Canadian wishes.
Similar threads
