Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkeon View Post
    Imagine electing someone who repeatedly black-faced. Now imagine if it was a politian you didn't politically allign with.

    We truly live in a society. The best one.
    He was a better option than Sheer.

    As the Beaverton said, we basically voted “ugh, fine, Trudeau again, I guess”.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  2. #42
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkeon View Post
    Imagine electing someone who repeatedly black-faced. Now imagine if it was a politian you didn't politically allign with.

    We truly live in a society. The best one.
    If Trudeau's conduct were bad enough, it could have prompted a nonconfidence vote and forced a (slightly earlier) election.

    It could have prompted (and still could) the Liberal Party to choose a new leader.

    Elections in Canada aren't nearly as focused on the leader as they are on the party, as represented by that leader. We don't vote for the Prime Minister. He gets voted on in his riding, and then selected from the list of MPs of the party(ies) forming government to be the PM. And they can revisit that decision at literally any time, without voter input.

    This election was less about support for Trudeau, and more than Sheer was such an abysmal void of a candidate that he didn't even present a reasonable alternative to Trudeau, with the last few months of bad press Trudeau's suffered. The Conservatives ran a complete shitshow of a campaign, and this is the result.

  3. #43
    The Lightbringer Frontenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If Trudeau's conduct were bad enough, it could have prompted a nonconfidence vote and forced a (slightly earlier) election.

    It could have prompted (and still could) the Liberal Party to choose a new leader.

    Elections in Canada aren't nearly as focused on the leader as they are on the party, as represented by that leader. We don't vote for the Prime Minister. He gets voted on in his riding, and then selected from the list of MPs of the party(ies) forming government to be the PM. And they can revisit that decision at literally any time, without voter input.

    This election was less about support for Trudeau, and more than Sheer was such an abysmal void of a candidate that he didn't even present a reasonable alternative to Trudeau, with the last few months of bad press Trudeau's suffered. The Conservatives ran a complete shitshow of a campaign, and this is the result.
    I suppose you are talking about a nonconfidence vote in the Liberal Party, not the House of Commons. Since it was a majority government, there was little chance such a vote would have succeeded.

    But let's be honest here. Even if the PM is elected in his own riding as a Member of Parliament, and that each elector can only vote for his MP in his riding, most of the time the electors wont care who exactly are the candidates are in their ridings and will vote for the Prime Minister in mind. In the electoral district of Shenannigan-Gimmick-Saint-Machin-les-Patentes (why are federal riding names so long!), Mrs Mathilda Krupshank may have put her X next to Mr Osmund Bladderstone (Lib), she was really thinking about Justin "le fils à Papa" Trudeau.

    Now it is true that Sheer has run a terrible campaign. But even so, I don't believe there was such a taste for change this election. More often than not, unless the government was in minority, electors will give two mandates to a party. In four years, most of the people who got fed up with Harper have not forgotten yet how it was under a Conservative government. The Tories need some more time in Purgatory. I mean, "in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". It was not time yet for "let's see who would make the best replacement for the government" like it was in 2015.

    Still, a minority government is a serious warning. Maybe Trudeau will do like Jean Charest in Québec in 2007. During the year and a half of his second term as Premier of a minority government, he almost did nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Nothing. The electors were so pleased that they rewarded him with a majority government... "Belle job, mon Jean! At least you didn't make things worse."
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

  4. #44
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Frontenac View Post
    I suppose you are talking about a nonconfidence vote in the Liberal Party, not the House of Commons. Since it was a majority government, there was little chance such a vote would have succeeded.
    No, the House.

    It's vanishingly unlikely to happen, but that's because there's basically no support for that kind of move in the first place.

    But let's be honest here. Even if the PM is elected in his own riding as a Member of Parliament, and that each elector can only vote for his MP in his riding, most of the time the electors wont care who exactly are the candidates are in their ridings and will vote for the Prime Minister in mind. In the electoral district of Shenannigan-Gimmick-Saint-Machin-les-Patentes (why are federal riding names so long!), Mrs Mathilda Krupshank may have put her X next to Mr Osmund Bladderstone (Lib), she was really thinking about Justin "le fils à Papa" Trudeau.
    Speak for yourself. I vote my local rep. A ton of people do. It's why incumbents often last so long, if they're known to be good representatives for their district, even if the political winds are changing.

    Now it is true that Sheer has run a terrible campaign. But even so, I don't believe there was such a taste for change this election. More often than not, unless the government was in minority, electors will give two mandates to a party. In four years, most of the people who got fed up with Harper have not forgotten yet how it was under a Conservative government. The Tories need some more time in Purgatory. I mean, "in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". It was not time yet for "let's see who would make the best replacement for the government" like it was in 2015.
    Which feeds back into the "nothing that happened was actually all that bad, and the only Canadians champing at the bit about it were diehard Conservative voters who wouldn't have voted for Trudeau for any reason whatsoever anyway" thing.

    Still, a minority government is a serious warning. Maybe Trudeau will do like Jean Charest in Québec in 2007. During the year and a half of his second term as Premier of a minority government, he almost did nothing. Nothing good, nothing bad. Nothing. The electors were so pleased that they rewarded him with a majority government... "Belle job, mon Jean! At least you didn't make things worse."
    It's not that strong a "warning". It means the Liberals will have to garner cooperation, but they only need a little more than a dozen votes from either the Bloc or the NDP to push something over the line, assuming all Liberal MPs are on board. And that kind of cooperation is standard practice. That there's two parties in such a position means that Liberals can pick and choose where they garner that support; they don't have to try and appeal to both.

  5. #45
    The Lightbringer Frontenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    No, the House.

    It's vanishingly unlikely to happen, but that's because there's basically no support for that kind of move in the first place.
    That's why I said it would happen during a party convention rather than in the House. True, the MPs could hold a vote of nonconfidence against their own party leader (and Prime Minister), but imagine the crisis it would create! Party lines are strong in our system, and I really doubt it could ever happen. You must wash your dirty clothes in the family, not in front of the whole town...

    Speak for yourself. I vote my local rep. A ton of people do. It's why incumbents often last so long, if they're known to be good representatives for their district, even if the political winds are changing.
    True. But they can fall. Look at Ralph Goodale, who lost after 22 years of loyal service. I doubt he has lost because he himself did a bad job or because Michael Kram is known to be personally so much better than him. And when no candidate is known, I doubt people are very interested in their resumes... The leaders remain the faces of their respective parties and have a huge influence on the electors choice.

    Which feeds back into the "nothing that happened was actually all that bad, and the only Canadians champing at the bit about it were diehard Conservative voters who wouldn't have voted for Trudeau for any reason whatsoever anyway" thing.
    Exactly. Sheer has been bad, but even if he had been good, he would have started with a disadvantage.

    It's not that strong a "warning". It means the Liberals will have to garner cooperation, but they only need a little more than a dozen votes from either the Bloc or the NDP to push something over the line, assuming all Liberal MPs are on board. And that kind of cooperation is standard practice. That there's two parties in such a position means that Liberals can pick and choose where they garner that support; they don't have to try and appeal to both.
    Of course not. But sooner or later, there will be a time when they wont be able to appeal to any of them, the government will fall and there will be an election. Usually between 18 months-2 years. So Trudeau will have to be cautious. And all MPs will be on board. Party lines are even more important in a minority government. It is not the time for petty squabbling. Same with NDP and the Bloc. The PLC does not need 12 votes. He will get the votes of 24 NDP MPs or 32 BQ MPs, or he will get none. If the Libs don't cooperate well with the opposition, he may very well lose the next elections. I'm pretty sure Trudeau would have prefered a majority government to do everything he wants. The Canadians basically said "We don't trust you enough, so we put you on a leash." If that's not a warning...
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

  6. #46
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Frontenac View Post
    The PLC does not need 12 votes. He will get the votes of 24 NDP MPs or 32 BQ MPs, or he will get none.
    Votes aren't on strict party lines nearly as much in Canada. There isn't really any "punishment" for a member who doesn't support a bill the rest of the party supports.

    That stuff gets hammered out before it goes up for votes, though, obviously. But that's a case of party members agreeing with the bill as presented, not them voting the party line.

    If the Libs don't cooperate well with the opposition, he may very well lose the next elections. I'm pretty sure Trudeau would have prefered a majority government to do everything he wants. The Canadians basically said "We don't trust you enough, so we put you on a leash." If that's not a warning...
    Minority governments are not "threats". And there's no way for Canadians to make it a threat, since we all voted in favor of a candidate. Imputing some hive mind outcome from the election is . . . silly.

  7. #47
    The Lightbringer Frontenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Votes aren't on strict party lines nearly as much in Canada. There isn't really any "punishment" for a member who doesn't support a bill the rest of the party supports.

    That stuff gets hammered out before it goes up for votes, though, obviously. But that's a case of party members agreeing with the bill as presented, not them voting the party line.
    What? I've seen MPs expelled from their caucus because they refused to follow the party line. You know there's a thing called a Whip, right? I suggest you look to see what it is... The party line is of paramount importance in the british parliamentary system, since governments stand or fall with it. Especially during minority governments. Only a few votes are allowed to be free.


    Minority governments are not "threats". And there's no way for Canadians to make it a threat, since we all voted in favor of a candidate. Imputing some hive mind outcome from the election is . . . silly.
    I'm not saying it's a threat, I'm saying it is a warning, a sign that the government must be cautious, or he could lose the next election. And of course there is no hive mind. The effect and message remains the same: the government does not have a strong support from the population and sits on an ejection seat.
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

  8. #48
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Frontenac View Post
    What? I've seen MPs expelled from their caucus because they refused to follow the party line. You know there's a thing called a Whip, right? I suggest you look to see what it is... The party line is of paramount importance in the british parliamentary system, since governments stand or fall with it. Especially during minority governments. Only a few votes are allowed to be free.
    You should check your sources. I can pretty much guarantee there were other reasons.

  9. #49
    I dont know of anyone who voted for their rep instead of for the pm

  10. #50
    The Lightbringer Frontenac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You should check your sources. I can pretty much guarantee there were other reasons.
    In 1996, John Nunziata has been expelled from the Liberal caucus because he had voted against the budget to protest over the breaking of Chrétien's promise to abolish the GST.

    A Member of Parliament is required by his party to follow the party line and vote with his party unless the vote is expressly stated to be free and that its result would not break the confidence of the House. When was the last time a MP voted against a bill from his own government?
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •