Joe Rogan and Pierre Poilievre interview

[GR66]

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

I don't get the obsession with pushing parties to the top of the political pyramid.

Ideally political parties should just be a loose affiliation of individual members that work together toward similar political objectives, not an organization that constrains its members to voting as a single block on a whole range of issues.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You might be on to something.

We could also have MP's run as citizens not associated to any party. They tell us their views and beliefs and we pick them based on that. Then once elected they pick the party they feel most aligns with their views.

Like a Harry Potter sorting hat of sorts.

We could, but it would very difficult to prevent some sort of “nudge nudge wink wink” party but not a party from forming. Humans are humans.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

When a candidates name is on the sign with PARTY affiliation plus they are on the web site and recognized as a candidate, come on, FALSE ADVERTISING.

Your arguing semantics and going long ways to try and shape your argument.

But it is not false advertising. That concept does not exist in politics. I am not being glib or trolling you.

At the moment of the election the candidate is running under the banner of X party, which gives a voter (I suppose) a broad idea of what the candidates stand for. 10 mins after the election? All bets are off. Honestly.

There is both good and bad in that system. I lean towards de-emphasizing party control and party affiliation and focussing on a candidates ideas and character. I view the ability for an MP to cross the floor in either direction as an asset which allows Parliamentarians to react in an agile manner to changing circumstances. But, that I freely admit that is my bias and others may not share it.

 

[ArmyRick]

The party is just as important as the person. Thats the reality. The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats. Yes there is good and bad in the system.

Saying people vote for the person not the party is incorrect. I would say it is subjective. Every voter makes their selection based on their own criteria. David Colletto of Colletto polling made it very clear recently, in his research that their is a large number of Canadians who don't even know who their MP is, it is that they selected the name next to the party.

There is what theoretically should be, and how it is.

Bottom line, is Gladu's riding (and I am sure the same with the others), is many in her riding are furious.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The party is just as important as the person. Thats the reality. The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats. Yes there is good and bad in the system.

Saying people vote for the person not the party is incorrect. I would say it is subjective. Every voter makes their selection based on their own criteria. David Colletto of Colletto polling made it very clear recently, in his research that their is a large number of Canadians who don't even know who their MP is, it is that they selected the name next to the party.

There is what theoretically should be, and how it is.

Bottom line, is Gladu's riding (and I am sure the same with the others), is many in her riding are furious.

I actually find very little to disagree with you, here.

 

[ArmyRick]

I actually find very little to disagree with you, here.

At the end of the day, if any of them run again, their ridings will approve/disapprove of their actions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

At the end of the day, if any of them run again, their ridings will approve/disapprove of their actions.

Completely agree.

 

[brihard]

The Prime Minister comes from the party with the most seats.

That’s not a given. The PM comes from the party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Generally that’s the party with the most seats but it doesn’t have to be.

Imagine an election that resulted in:

• 155 CPC
• 152 LPC
• 20 NDP
• 15 BQ
• 1 GPC

The CPC form a rickety minority government, survive their first budget, but the next year the budget vote fails. The CPC leader requests the GG dissolve Parliament and call an election, but immediately thereafter the leaders of the LPC and NDP tell the GG they have a supply and confidence agreement, and the LPC will have the 172 votes necessary to demonstrate confidence. The GG could (and should) absolutely let the LPC leader do so. The LPC leader would become PM and would be allowed to form a ministry and government so long as they maintain that confidence. While unlikely and rare, this would absolutely be valid and legitimate in our system.

 

[ArmyRick]

That’s not a given. The PM comes from the party that commands the confidence of the House of Commons. Generally that’s the party with the most seats but it doesn’t have to be.

Imagine an election that resulted in:

• 155 CPC
• 152 LPC
• 20 NDP
• 15 BQ
• 1 GPC

The CPC form a rickety minority government, survive their first budget, but the next year the budget vote fails. The CPC leader requests the GG dissolve Parliament and call an election, but immediately thereafter the leaders of the LPC and NDP tell the GG they have a supply and confidence agreement, and the LPC will have the 172 votes necessary to demonstrate confidence. The GG could (and should) absolutely let the LPC leader do so. The LPC leader would become PM and would be allowed to form a ministry and government so long as they maintain that confidence. While unlikely and rare, this would absolutely be valid and legitimate in our system.

in that case, the two parties essentially become one party. Rewind to 2008. This case has never gone to full test.

 

[brihard]

in that case, the two parties essentially become one party. Rewind to 2008. This case has never gone to full test.

No they don’t, no more so than they were one party a year and a half ago under the LPC minority with NDP supply and confidence. It would be exactly that just coming from a different start point.

 

[ArmyRick]

No they don’t, no more so than they were one party a year and a half ago under the LPC minority with NDP supply and confidence. It would be exactly that just coming from a different start point.

What I could dig up on coalition governments (google AI, take with a grain of doubt)
Yes, a coalition government can legally form in the Canadian Parliament, though it is extremely rare at the federal level. It requires two or more parties to agree to form a government together, sharing Cabinet seats to hold a majority in the House of Commons. While possible, parties usually prefer informal agreements to a formal coalition.

• Definition & Structure: A formal coalition requires members from different parties to sit in Cabinet together, allowing them to command the majority support needed to govern.
• Legitimacy: Coalition governments are legally valid within Canada’s parliamentary democracy, although rarely seen in federal politics.
• Historical Context: The only formal federal coalition was the 1917 Union Government led by Sir Robert Borden.
• 2008–09 Case: In 2008, the Liberal Party and NDP planned a coalition supported by the Bloc Québécois to challenge a Conservative government, but it did not come to fruition.
• Minority vs. Coalition: Many federal governments are minority governments—where the governing party has the most seats but not a majority—relying on agreements with other parties rather than sharing power in a formal coalition

Although frequently considered as a possibility during minority situations, a formal, multi-party Cabinet coalition has not existed in federal politics in over a century.

Now my thoughts. That is a rare beast indeed. Just imagine any 2 parties actually cooperating enough to achieve this? As stated, very rare.

The Justin-Jagmeet Pact was not actually a coalition government although it essentially created the same effect. In the end, look at what voters said to Jagmeet for essentially propping up the Liberals (yes there are a multitude of reasons of why but the biggest I see is this combined with scary orange man bad)

You look at the four party leaders (I assume a best case scenario for Avi and the NDP), it would be pretty fragile coalition if any two of them cooperated.

And it would still not require anyone to leave their party.

 

[suffolkowner]

No they don’t, no more so than they were one party a year and a half ago under the LPC minority with NDP supply and confidence. It would be exactly that just coming from a different start point.

Im sure there would be lots of confusion which ever way the GG chose, witness King-Byng, Australia 1975

 

[ArmyRick]

Who are we kidding? This Liberal party is practically a coalition, pretty soon it will be like a 1/3 conservatives if these floor crossings keep happening.

 

[suffolkowner]

Who are we kidding? This Liberal party is practically a coalition, pretty soon it will be like a 1/3 conservatives if these floor crossings keep happening.

Carney wont need them after Monday so if anymore CPC's cross then they must really be fed up with Pierre

 

[brihard]

Carney wont need them after Monday so if anymore CPC's cross then they must really be fed up with Pierre

Or they may feel that LPC will offer them more opportunity to make a difference for the next three years.

 

[DBNSG]

Carney wont need them after Monday so if anymore CPC's cross then they must really be fed up with Pierre

I would argue Carney will need as many Conservatives as he can get since he IS a Conservative that has wrenched the Steering wheel of the Liberal Bus from the socialist coalition that Trudeau and Singh ran.

What Liberal PM would deliver and actually spend 8.74 Billion in EXTRA Defence funds in any Fiscal year?
What Liberal P.M. would buy 65,402 AR -15 derived Assault Rifles?
What Liberal P.M. would reduce a womens issue Departmental budget from over 486 Million to under 80?

What the addition of recent Conservatives allows Carney to do is send Wilcox, Guibault, Joly, and other left leaning Trudeau
ministers away. Anywhere. The Blue Liberal/Progressive Conservatives in the Country are very much liking what Carney is doing
as he is an Adult with more real World executive experience than most of the World. The man is meeting the time.
The time is calling for a business like attitude and the retirement of the last 50 Year Trudeau family social Justice experiment.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We elect our MPs as the representatives of our ridings. The peoples representative.

We elected those MPs by choosing the one that best represents our values. Party affiliation is on the ballot.

The people are picking that person. If the peoples selection's values change to the point then need to change their party affiliation away from that that got them elected then they should leave the HoC and run in a by election, and reconfirm they still have the support of the people.

 

[brihard]

What I could dig up on coalition governments (google AI, take with a grain of doubt)
Yes, a coalition government can legally form in the Canadian Parliament, though it is extremely rare at the federal level. It requires two or more parties to agree to form a government together, sharing Cabinet seats to hold a majority in the House of Commons. While possible, parties usually prefer informal agreements to a formal coalition.

• Definition & Structure: A formal coalition requires members from different parties to sit in Cabinet together, allowing them to command the majority support needed to govern.
• Legitimacy: Coalition governments are legally valid within Canada’s parliamentary democracy, although rarely seen in federal politics.
• Historical Context: The only formal federal coalition was the 1917 Union Government led by Sir Robert Borden.
• 2008–09 Case: In 2008, the Liberal Party and NDP planned a coalition supported by the Bloc Québécois to challenge a Conservative government, but it did not come to fruition.
• Minority vs. Coalition: Many federal governments are minority governments—where the governing party has the most seats but not a majority—relying on agreements with other parties rather than sharing power in a formal coalition

Although frequently considered as a possibility during minority situations, a formal, multi-party Cabinet coalition has not existed in federal politics in over a century.

Now my thoughts. That is a rare beast indeed. Just imagine any 2 parties actually cooperating enough to achieve this? As stated, very rare.

The Justin-Jagmeet Pact was not actually a coalition government although it essentially created the same effect. In the end, look at what voters said to Jagmeet for essentially propping up the Liberals (yes there are a multitude of reasons of why but the biggest I see is this combined with scary orange man bad)

You look at the four party leaders (I assume a best case scenario for Avi and the NDP), it would be pretty fragile coalition if any two of them cooperated.

And it would still not require anyone to leave their party.

Yeah, but I wasn't talking about a coalition. What I described doesn't require that; merely that the leader of one of the parties convince the GG they can maintain confidence in the house in lieu of going ot an election when the other guy loses same.

Yes, a coalition obviously would be a way to do that, but a simple supply and confidence agreement like we've seen in the pat would suffice as well. Naturally the now-opposition and all the Twitter pundits would absolutely lose their minds screaming about it being an 'unelected coalition', like they did with the LPC/NDP S&C agreement, but a coalition is generally distinguished by both (all) members having some representation in cabinet.

Anyway- the situation I describe would require a particular set of circumstances starting with a weak minority outnumbered by two or more other parties that could cooperate and have the 50%+1 seats necessary to pull it off. So, rare to have that opportunity. But if it happened? Totally legit.

 

[ArmyRick]

Or they may feel that LPC will offer them more opportunity to make a difference for the next three years.

Is this a similar argument to Jagmeet's "positioning himself as kingmaker and getting what he wanted out of the government"? In the end, look at the cost his party paid for his abandoning his values. The cost to be part of the government may be quite high for both individual MPs and possibly the Liberal Party.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is this a similar argument to Jagmeet's "positioning himself as kingmaker and getting what he wanted out of the government"? In the end, look at the cost his party paid for his abandoning his values. The cost to be part of the government may be quite high for both individual MPs and possibly the Liberal Party.

Indeed.

We are back to the voter, ultimately, rewarding or punishing behaviours.

Jagmeet and the NDP took all of the risk and got none of the reward for propping up the Trudeau version of the Liberals. The NDP core voters obviously saw it as a betrayal of their values and stayed away from them in droves last election. And it did not attract voters from the Liberal or CPC camps.

I personally think Jagmeet was woefully naive.