News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

viper37

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 25, 2024, 12:33:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 24, 2024, 05:25:07 PMIt does disenfranchise voters in the Speaker's constituency. They don't get a choice (Farage once ran against a Speaker and did very badly, even for him). On the other hand in terms of constituency casework I imagine any minister would take a case raised by the Speaker very seriously - and given they're always backbenchers that may be a benefit.

Also in the UK a soft tradition that it should kind of alternate, so it's not unusual for a Speaker to come from the opposition. So Michael Martin (Labour) and John Bercow (Tory) both came from the government parties, in different ways, but Betty Boothroyd and Lindsey Hoyle (both Labour) were elected while there's a Tory government. Since 2009, the Commons votes in a secret ballot (as with chairs of select committees), so while there are preferences from the party leadership they can't really whip.

Edit: And also worth saying Speakers basically carry on until they choose to step down (normally as an MP too). In theory the Commons elects one after each election, but in practice I think they've always re-elected the previous Speaker if they still want the job (which they kind of need to to get all the parties to not run against them). So change of government etc makes no difference.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2024, 05:09:28 PMhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/greg-fergus-speaker-conservatives-1.7211706

Interesting article.  It discusses how the Speaker in the Canadian House of Commons has come under increasing partisan attack.  You can read the article itself to decide how much of it is warranted or not (hint - it is at least partially warranted, but reasonable people can disagree about how much).

But anyways, the article suggests following the UK model - that the Speaker not only is not a member of the party caucus, but will then run as an independent during elections - and major parties will decline to run candidates against the speaker.

I like the idea that the speaker should be an independent figure.  The US model, where the speaker is just the leader of the majority party, seems terrible.

But not sure I like the proposed model either - it feels like it disenfranchises everyone in the speaker's riding.

Anyways - thoughts?

I wouldn't want to create new rules because of this inept Speaker.  Put me on the side that thinks this Speaker should step down.

Normally the Speaker takes their responsibilities seriously AND are able to help their constituents.

With most things it is not the rules regarding the role, it is the person who is in the role.
The last one was better at his role of speaker.  Too bad he invited that Ukrainian war veteran without making appropriate verification.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.