2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

[suffolkowner]

True. Fair enough.

Boy we need to do a real review of our system, how it works, what we want from it, and how we want it to function, when all of this is behind us...

impossible

 

[ArmyRick]

And yet they still managed to get him to step down.

MPs can just decide to turn on their leaders if they really wanted to without needing any party mechanism.

The system allows for it absent any party mechanisms (party mechanisms being their own thing).

The one weapon ALL MPs have is the confidence votes. If really frustrated MPs have hit their limit, they can vote against their own leader and party, risk and all. I am curious if Trudeau caught wind that his party was going to lynch mob him possibly or if he realized they would get slaughtered in the election?

 

[Lumber]

The one weapon ALL MPs have is the confidence votes. If really frustrated MPs have hit their limit, they can vote against their own leader and party, risk and all. I am curious if Trudeau caught wind that his party was going to lynch mob him possibly or if he realized they would get slaughtered in the election?

This is one thing I like about our parliamentary system vice the US republican system. If the government is doing a REALLY bad job, you don't have to wait a couple of years for the next election. Yes, there is impeachment, but the standard for that is MUCH higher than simply "loss of confidence".

 

[Good2Golf]

And yet they still managed to get him to step down.

MPs can just decide to turn on their leaders if they really wanted to without needing any party mechanism.

The system allows for it absent any party mechanisms (party mechanisms being their own thing).

In part, but there was a lot piling up against him, including the 20% and consistently growing ‘gap of public discontent’ between the CPC and LPC.

My point previously about the LPC constitutional revision that made it much harder to directly remove a leader, compared to any nights other federal parties remains.

Other means, such ArmyRick notes when an MP empowered by their constituents can vote against the Government’s confidence with moral integrity, exist, however, direct party effort to remove a leader does not exist for the LPC.

 

[suffolkowner]

In part, but there was a lot piling up against him, including the 20% and consistently growing ‘gap of public discontent’ between the CPC and LPC.

My point previously about the LPC constitutional revision that made it much harder to directly remove a leader, compared to any nights other federal parties remains.

Other means, such ArmyRick notes when an MP empowered by their constituents can vote against the Government’s confidence with moral integrity, exist, however, direct party effort to remove a leader does not exist for the LPC.

he/they can remain the leader just not the PM

 

[Remius]

In part, but there was a lot piling up against him, including the 20% and consistently growing ‘gap of public discontent’ between the CPC and LPC.

But still was forced out.

My point previously about the LPC constitutional revision that made it much harder to directly remove a leader, compared to any nights other federal parties remains.

I’m not disagreeing with this statement. My contention is that you said in your original response to Kilted that the leader was not answerable to its party members at all.

Other means, such ArmyRick notes when an MP empowered by their constituents can vote against the Government’s confidence with moral integrity, exist, however, direct party effort to remove a leader does not exist for the LPC.

Those are party issues though. The system though still allows for an easier removal of a leader which was the point Kilted was making in regards to his preference over other systems.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is one thing I like about our parliamentary system vice the US republican system. If the government is doing a REALLY bad job, you don't have to wait a couple of years for the next election. Yes, there is impeachment, but the standard for that is MUCH higher than simply "loss of confidence".

Technically you're right.

In practice not so much.

Because of our party system and unofficial adoption of party leader devotion above all MPs don't vote their conscience and constituents, they vote party.

Its like arguing Canadians don't elect PMs. Again technically youre right. Practically, en masse, people vote for the person in their riding from the party leader they like...

You could make an argument that our electoral system is fine, which I don't think it is, what we need to fix if our party system.

 

[Good2Golf]

I’m not disagreeing with this statement. My contention is that you said in your original response to Kilted that the leader was not answerable to its party members at all.

You’re half right. Kitked had two components (2Es…’eventually’ and ‘easier’) in his post, and I was not sufficiently accurate in my response, which was focused in my mind on the ‘easier’ part of Kilted’s post…for him I think he was referring easier to hold Trudeau accountable than Trump. My point was focused more on inside Canada, where the Liberals, without question, have the most leader-protectionistic policies in a party constitution. My comment was quite reasonably qualified, including (yet again) providing the link to the LPC constitution to which I was using as reference.

In your point above, that is not accurate. No where in any of my posts in this or other threads, have I ever used the phrase ‘at all’ in regards to the LPC leader’s answerability to the party membership.

 

[Remius]

You’re half right. Kitked had two components (2Es…’eventually’ and ‘easier’) in his post, and I was not sufficiently accurate in my response, which was focused in my mind on the ‘easier’ part of Kilted’s post…for him I think he was referring easier to hold Trudeau accountable than Trump. My point was focused more on inside Canada, where the Liberals, without question, have the most leader-protectionistic policies in a party constitution.

In your point above, that is not accurate. No where in any of my posts in this or other threads, have I ever used the phrase ‘at all’ in regards to the LPC leader’s answerability to the party membership.

Sorry. My bad as I reworded “that is not the case for the LPC” and assumed it was an absolute. Rereading I see you are referring to internal party systems rather than parliamentary.

 

[Good2Golf]

Sorry. My bad as I reworded “that is not the case for the LPC” and assumed it was an absolute. Rereading I see you are referring to internal party systems rather than parliamentary.

Time permitting, I try as best as possible to include the relevant parts of references for argumentation’s sake. I took a knee on this one and just posted the main LPC constitution link, vice screen shots of the relevant sections of that document (inconveniently set in Adobe as to disallow electronic quotation… )

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is one thing I like about our parliamentary system vice the US republican system. If the government is doing a REALLY bad job, you don't have to wait a couple of years for the next election. Yes, there is impeachment, but the standard for that is MUCH higher than simply "loss of confidence".

How many PMs have been ejected while their party holds a majority in Parliament? How many REALLY bad governments have been turfed by "you" while their party held the majority in Parliament? And what are the criteria for REALLY bad?

The practical standard for impeachment is whatever Congress says it is and can pass in the House. The practical standard for conviction is whatever 67 senators will pass. It can be over policy differences if that's what they want. REALLY bad job usually also boils down to policy differences.

We just all stood around and watched while an unelected person became PM, and thus controller of all the powers of the contemporary PMO, including powers delegated to unelected staff of the PMO. Sure, it's "the system"; it's been around a while; we know how it works. That doesn't mean it ought to be that way. It's manifestly undemocratic. How many of the people defending and rationalizing it are simultaneously upset at unelected persons and the power they wield in other governments and express dismay that anyone could allow themselves to be governed that way?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm glad that Trudeau is gone only if it means we get a bit of a horserace, as opposed to a coronation, type experience.

Meanwhile me, in BC, looking forward to yet another election being called before dinner in this time zone

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wouldn't a policy that would only allow a change of PM to happen while the house is sitting which then would automatically trigger a non- confidence vote be a way to work around this happening again?.

Sure would make 3rd parties in a minority Govt put money where mouth is.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Technically you're right.

In practice not so much.

Technically the past US administration could have removed the president using the 25A.

In practice, it didn't.

Processes are useless if they're not used when they ought to be. We have a poor constitutional framework and an unwillingness to fix it. The first purpose of a constitution for representative government is to put hard limits around what government can do, and the second purpose is to describe the structure of that government. All of it ought to be written down.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Technically the past US administration could have removed the president using the 25A.

In practice, it didn't.

Processes are useless if they're not used when they ought to be. We have a poor constitutional framework and an unwillingness to fix it. The first purpose of a constitution for representative government is to put hard limits around what government can do, and the second purpose is to describe the structure of that government. All of it ought to be written down.

I absolutely agree.

 

[Remius]

All I hear is sour grapes over the fact that Trudeau isn’t running and a more electable leader has been chosen.

We’ll have an election and people will get their say. All the nitpicking over process and procedures is background noise.

We have the system that we have. No one seems keen to change it either.

We have a system that deals with what happens when a PM steps down, dies etc. This is what is happening in real time. The system is doing what it is supposed to do.

 

[brihard]

Presuming an election is called soon, as soon as his name is actually on a ballot for a seat in a riding, that takes any wind out of the “he wasn’t elected!” sails; he’ll have anted up when, strictly speaking, he didn’t yet absolutely have to. If an election is called shortly he’ll have concretely demonstrated his respect for our expectation that he seek both a seat and a mandate. The Conservatives will need a better line of attack than that.

It would be fun to see a reported directly ask Poilievre “do you want him to call an election now?” He’s been calling loudly for one for most of a year and is strangely quiet on that these past couple weeks. Even if it’s not a ‘carbon tax election’ anymore, presumably he still feels confident he’ll win a chance at governing?

 

[RangerRay]

Not a fan of his, but this is not cool.

DisinfoAlert: Russian State Media Targets New Canadian Liberal Party Leader Mark Carney - DisinfoWatch

Sputnik, a Russian state media outlet, has published an article targeting Mark Carney, the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and incoming Prime Minister. The article frames...

disinfowatch.org

 

[Halifax Tar]

My issues with our electoral system are long standing and well documented on these forums.

Having said that, I see it as in the LPCs best interests to call that election yesterday to take full advantage of the existing momentum.

And I see it as best for the CPC to wait until Oct and give the LPC sea room for the LPC to FUBAR this, which they will; I predict.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Presuming an election is called soon, as soon as his name is actually on a ballot for a seat in a riding, that takes any wind out of the “he wasn’t elected!” sails; he’ll have anted up when, strictly speaking, he didn’t yet absolutely have to. If an election is called shortly he’ll have concretely demonstrated his respect for our expectation that he seek both a seat and a mandate. The Conservatives will need a better line of attack than that.

It would be fun to see a reported directly ask Poilievre “do you want him to call an election now?” He’s been calling loudly for one for most of a year and is strangely quiet on that these past couple weeks. Even if it’s not a ‘carbon tax election’ anymore, presumably he still feels confident he’ll win a chance at governing?

PP would be very hypocritical to not support an immediate election. He is definitely finding himself in a quandary I expect.