[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

From outside I find it mad and anti-democratic. From here it looks like a party constitution taking priority over national parliamentary government. I don't quite get why Parliament needs to be suspended. Trudeau is remaining as PM until a new leader is elected, I don't see why Parliament needs to shut down for that.

Johnson's prorogation that caused a huge storm here and that the Supreme Court decided (unanimously) was unlawful was from mid-September to mid-October. FWIW I saw Lord Sumption (one of the Supreme Court judges on that case) talking about it and he did mention that Canada (and Western Australia) have traditions of "political prorogations" citing the Harper example but also said there'd been five "political prorogations" in Canada in the last century so I get that it is apparently normal in Canada - but I still think it's weird

Prorogations are definitely not "normal" - but they're not unheard of either.

I do think the 2008 example was a "valid" one.  Just weeks after an election campaign, the opposition parties all got together and announced a kind of coalition - with the intent of bringing down the newly elected government.  From the outside it seemed like an incredibly shakey proposition - but certainly one they could work.  Harper prorogued - and that coalition almost immediately broke apart.  I think it would have been much worse for the country to see a Liberal-led government (supported by the NDP and Bloc) which would have inevitably failed in short order.  If the coalition was more stable then they still would have defeated Harper right after Parliament was prorogued.

In other cases - it's generally been an attempt to put pause on a political scandal.  That's generally not been successful, as the story doesn't just go away.

Here though - as you say it's an attempt to buy time for a leadership campaign.  That doesn't sit right.  The time period is already quite lengthy, and presumably they'll be seeking even more time.

Worth noting that in 2008 the GG made a point of consulting with constitutional experts and not just immediately granted the request to prorogue.  There's been no such announcement or delay today.

[mongers]

So he's toast, what's his next likely move?

The Canadian equivalent of the celebrity jungle program, 3 months of mixed company in Malthus's wilderness cottage?

 

[Valmy]

I miss Malthus 

[Barrister]

So he's toast, what's his next likely move?

Liberals, or Trudeau himself?

First of all - remember it's not impossible that Trudeau is still leader for the next election campaign.  He hasn't resigned yet.  If the opposition parties force an election in March he may still be the leader.  There's no less a precedent for this than his own father in 1980 - announced he'd resign, surprise election before a new leader was selected, Trudeau Sr. runs in the campaign (and wins!).

Liberals - try to bluff and hold on to power until a new leader is selected, then hope that new leader has the moxie to pull out a win.

Trudeau - I'm sure he can still make a small fortune on the international speaking circuit.  He also has some family money so I'm sure he'll be fine.

[Oexmelin]

From outside I find it mad and anti-democratic. From here it looks like a party constitution taking priority over national parliamentary government. I don't quite get why Parliament needs to be suspended. Trudeau is remaining as PM until a new leader is elected, I don't see why Parliament needs to shut down for that.

Yep. I found it despicable in 2008, still do today. I find it discouraging that it's become the new normal and nobody bats an eye - including in the commentariat.

[HVC]

I miss Malthus 

He lurks once in a while

[Barrister]

From outside I find it mad and anti-democratic. From here it looks like a party constitution taking priority over national parliamentary government. I don't quite get why Parliament needs to be suspended. Trudeau is remaining as PM until a new leader is elected, I don't see why Parliament needs to shut down for that.

Yep. I found it despicable in 2008, still do today. I find it discouraging that it's become the new normal and nobody bats an eye - including in the commentariat.

So this is why I don't find it despicable.

We have a minority government.  Opposition parties have all announced an intention to vote no confidence, which would lead to an election.

I am not offended at the idea the government of the day can call a short pause to see if an election can be avoided.  If it can - well then that's probably a good thing.  Remember Harper ruled for another 3 years after the 2008-2009 proroguement. 

If an election can't be avoided - well it's only a few weeks.


Where I'm more offended this time around - this is not a short delay.  It's two and a half months.  And even then the best case Liberal scenario is to pass some kind of financial statement then just wait around for the Liberals to select a new leader for another few months.  Possibly they even prorogue again.

[crazy canuck]

It's certainly not unheard of for a new leader to turn the fortunes of an unpopular leader around - it just isn't always the most likely.

I'm trying to think of examples:

Federally there's not much hope.  John Turner was slaughtered after replacing Pierre Trudeau.  In turn, Kim Campbell's PC Party was all-but wiped out after replacing Mulroney.  Jean Chretien was relatively popular when Paul Martin took over, so not at all analogous.  Harper ran and lost, rather than resign at the last minute.

There's more hope provincially though.  Christy Clark managed to save an unpopular Liberal government after taking over from Gordon Campbell, but in that same province Rita Johnston couldn't save the unpopular BC SoCred government.

In Alberta you can argue that Allison Redford saved the PC government after the unpopular Ed Stelmach, but it was unusual since the main opposition was also from the right.

No examples I can think of from Saskatchewan.

In Manitoba you had the recent example of Heather Stefanson, who succeeded Brian Pallister but went down to defeat.

In Ontario Kathleen Wynne succeeded an unpopular Dalton McGuinty and was able to win another election, but Ernie Eves couldn't do the same for Mike Harris.

In Quebec... I don't think Bouchard was that unpopular when he left, so that means Bernard Landry doesn't count.  Daniel Johnson was unable to save the provincial Liberals.


Are there lessons we can learn?  The new leaders that succeeded all had a fair bit of time to operate.  Clark and Wynne all had almost 2 years to work with (Redford had less).  It's also interesting how many are women.

But also interesting that even in the cases of Redford, Wynne and Clark - they may have won the next election, but their parties all went down to defeat in the next one.

Rita is a good example of not having enough time to change the election outcome.  Vanderzalm was forced out and by the time she took over, it was too late.

But one of the differences with what is happening now is that the Socred party as a whole was very unpopular not just the leader.  That is why they didn't even bother rebuilding after their electoral defeat and the Socred membership just migrated over to the provincial liberals.

Another good example from British Columbia is when NDP leader Harcourt became unpopular, he stepped down and a then young Glen Clark stepped in to the leadership position to win a resounding victory.

As I look through all the examples of where a new leader was able to turn the tide, it was a situation which the new leader was very different from the old leader.

If the liberal select Christia Freeland, I don't think they have a chance in making the case that they are any different.

If the liberals select an outsider, then I think they have a better chance.  Conservatives have spent a lot of time and money trying to characterize Carney as just another Trudeau.  I don't think they'll be able to succeed with that approach.  There is a world of difference between somebody with the real world experience of Carney and somebody whose only experience was being a high school drama teacher.

For that matter, there is a world of difference between somebody who has been a politician, all of their adult life, and somebody with the experience of Carney.

But I don't think the liberals will have the wisdom to select an outsider.

[Barrister]

If the liberals select an outsider, then I think they have a better chance.  Conservatives have spent a lot of time and money trying to characterize Carney as just another Trudeau.  I don't think they'll be able to succeed with that approach.  There is a world of difference between somebody with the real world experience of Carney and somebody whose only experience was being a high school drama teacher.

For that matter, there is a world of difference between somebody who has been a politician, all of their adult life, and somebody with the experience of Carney.

But I don't think the liberals will have the wisdom to select an outsider.

You will note that the "high school drama teacher" managed to remain in power for a decade, and won three elections.

Voters aren't looking at resumes.  Voting is based much more on vibes and emotions.

I really don't think Carny can present himself as an "outsider".  Outsider to the existing Liberal caucus, maybe.  But he's been on the inner corridors of power for decades.  Let's go through his resume:

-educated at Harvard and Oxford
-investment banker with Goldman Sachs
-senior ADM, Department of Finance
-Governor Bank of Canada
-Governor Bank of England
-most recently vice Chairman of $600 billion dollar Brookfield Asset Management

In comparison, Poilievre's resume is way less impressive.  He has a BA from U of Calgary and has worked in politics his whole life.  But he's not been on the inside of power in anyway like Carney has.

If voters are looking for an "outsider", I think Poilievre is the clear choice.  (Singh, by the way, really should drop the Rolex and Maserati).


By the way - Justin Trudeau was also able to project himself as an outsider - despite being a former PM's son.  He had also spent much of his life doing other things (including drama teacher), and he did carry himself quite differently from either Harper or Ignatieff.

[crazy canuck]

If the liberals select an outsider, then I think they have a better chance.  Conservatives have spent a lot of time and money trying to characterize Carney as just another Trudeau.  I don't think they'll be able to succeed with that approach.  There is a world of difference between somebody with the real world experience of Carney and somebody whose only experience was being a high school drama teacher.

For that matter, there is a world of difference between somebody who has been a politician, all of their adult life, and somebody with the experience of Carney.

But I don't think the liberals will have the wisdom to select an outsider.

You will note that the "high school drama teacher" managed to remain in power for a decade, and won three elections.

Voters aren't looking at resumes.  Voting is based much more on vibes and emotions.

I really don't think Carny can present himself as an "outsider".  Outsider to the existing Liberal caucus, maybe.  But he's been on the inner corridors of power for decades.  Let's go through his resume:

-educated at Harvard and Oxford
-investment banker with Goldman Sachs
-senior ADM, Department of Finance
-Governor Bank of Canada
-Governor Bank of England
-most recently vice Chairman of $600 billion dollar Brookfield Asset Management

In comparison, Poilievre's resume is way less impressive.  He has a BA from U of Calgary and has worked in politics his whole life.  But he's not been on the inside of power in anyway like Carney has.

If voters are looking for an "outsider", I think Poilievre is the clear choice.  (Singh, by the way, really should drop the Rolex and Maserati).


By the way - Justin Trudeau was also able to project himself as an outsider - despite being a former PM's son.  He had also spent much of his life doing other things (including drama teacher), and he did carry himself quite differently from either Harper or Ignatieff.

What is the importance of noting that a former drama teacher was able to win three elections against a conservative party that was adrift for all those years?

[Barrister]

What is the importance of noting that a former drama teacher was able to win three elections against a conservative party that was adrift for all those years?

That voters aren't really looking at politicians resumes?  Not a really novel point, but it was mine.

I would disagree that the Conservatives were adrift.  People had gotten tired of Harper.  Scheer and O'Toole were fine, but voters had not yet grown tired of Trudeau so voters kept him around.

[Josephus]

He can always try his hand at boxing

[Grey Fox]

Carney is not an outsider.

PP is such an insider that the Federal government is paying his mortgage every month.

[crazy canuck]

What is the importance of noting that a former drama teacher was able to win three elections against a conservative party that was adrift for all those years?

That voters aren't really looking at politicians resumes?  Not a really novel point, but it was mine.

I would disagree that the Conservatives were adrift.  People had gotten tired of Harper.  Scheer and O'Toole were fine, but voters had not yet grown tired of Trudeau so voters kept him around.

Every election I have ever seen the candidates provide the voters a brochure which sets out their background with an emphasis on the reasons why the voters should elect them. I'm not sure what happens in the writings where you have been involved, but I would be very surprised if the same thing doesn't occur there.

You might like to think that voters aren't going to take into account the fact that the current leader of the conservative party has never done anything with his life other than be a politician, but I've have an inkling that that's actually going to be an election issue if the liberals manage to Select a leader that actually has a little bit of real world experience.

[crazy canuck]

Carney is not an outsider.

PP is such an insider that the Federal government is paying his mortgage every month.

I agree that Carney made his argument that he is an outsider more difficult by becoming an economic advisor to the current government.

If I was advising PP, my advice to him would be to dump the childish nicknames and make that argument.