[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

It's time to do end this and have an election.

Send a letter to your local BQ MP.

[Neil]

It's time to do end this and have an election.

Send a letter to your local BQ MP.

Doesn't matter.  The NDP won't support it under any circumstances. 

[Barrister]

In the old days, this would be an unsurvivable loss for the PM and he'd have to resign.  Obviously in modern Westminster systems, the party leader is usually the only MP that has any kind of power with the public and I would expect that he'll muddle through until his upcoming electoral massacre next year. 

I think it'd be pretty fatal in other Westminster systems. Certainly very challenging in the UK or Australia.

But reading and joining in in this thread it feels like Canada's kind of got the worst traits of a Westminster system (strict party discipline/whip) and the worst traits of a US Presidential system (people not being easily replaced/forced out when they're failing)

I think that's probably true.  Leader of the Party is decided by party membership, not cabinet/caucus, so there really is no mechanism to force out Trudeau before the next election.  The only mechanism is a "leadership endorsement" vote - which only happens after an election loss.

But there is some merit to that, because we have seen reasonably successful and popular leaders being forced out over internal political in-fighting.  We saw Martin force Trudeau out of power, and while Martin then won power in his own right in 2004, it was only in a minority government, and he then lost entirely in 2006.

Perhaps similarly in Alberta we saw Premier Kenney forced out by a leadership vote within his own party almost entirely over Covid-issues, and we now have Premier Smith who is very much beholden to the radical right in her own party.

[Barrister]

It's time to do end this and have an election.

Send a letter to your local BQ MP.

Doesn't matter.  The NDP won't support it under any circumstances. 

If Singh had any guts he'd take this opportunity to knife Trudeau in the back and try to make the NDP the official opposition in the next election, supplanting the Liberals.

Too many NDP supporters though really have no philosophical opposition to the Liberal Party though, and like the NDP as being nothing more than a group to push the Liberals further left.

[Neil]

In the old days, this would be an unsurvivable loss for the PM and he'd have to resign.  Obviously in modern Westminster systems, the party leader is usually the only MP that has any kind of power with the public and I would expect that he'll muddle through until his upcoming electoral massacre next year. 

I think it'd be pretty fatal in other Westminster systems. Certainly very challenging in the UK or Australia.

But reading and joining in in this thread it feels like Canada's kind of got the worst traits of a Westminster system (strict party discipline/whip) and the worst traits of a US Presidential system (people not being easily replaced/forced out when they're failing)

I think that the example of the British Tories is exactly the sort of reason why the Canadian parties tend to stick stubbornly behind their leader.  It's generally proven better for individuals to try and stick behind the failing leader than to try and replace him.  Consider Sunak, who probably could have been PM in five years time, except now he has to hang the albatross of being a loser around his neck. 

So Trudeau will hang on in Canada, but Freeland, Carney and Joly at the very least are already positioning themselves for the next Liberal leadership race. 

[Neil]

I think that's probably true.  Leader of the Party is decided by party membership, not cabinet/caucus, so there really is no mechanism to force out Trudeau before the next election.  The only mechanism is a "leadership endorsement" vote - which only happens after an election loss.

But there is some merit to that, because we have seen reasonably successful and popular leaders being forced out over internal political in-fighting.  We saw Martin force Trudeau out of power, and while Martin then won power in his own right in 2004, it was only in a minority government, and he then lost entirely in 2006.

Perhaps similarly in Alberta we saw Premier Kenney forced out by a leadership vote within his own party almost entirely over Covid-issues, and we now have Premier Smith who is very much beholden to the radical right in her own party.

Martin is a good example of somebody who seized power and ended up finding his party's rule fatally compromised. 

And yeah, we just saw the leadership review in a non-election year exerting extreme influence in Alberta politics.  Premier Smith is running a MAGA legislative agenda on behalf of the party, and ignoring the major issues that her government is going to face (there's going to be provincewide teachers and nurses strikes next year) are going to make the next election a bit fraught for her.  She's starting to lose ground in Calgary, and she can't afford to lose both metropolises. 

[Sheilbh]

I think that's probably true.  Leader of the Party is decided by party membership, not cabinet/caucus, so there really is no mechanism to force out Trudeau before the next election.  The only mechanism is a "leadership endorsement" vote - which only happens after an election loss.

But there is some merit to that, because we have seen reasonably successful and popular leaders being forced out over internal political in-fighting.  We saw Martin force Trudeau out of power, and while Martin then won power in his own right in 2004, it was only in a minority government, and he then lost entirely in 2006.

Yeah and I think there is merit in that - especially given that party in-fighting can unleash things that are very difficult to put back in the bottle. See the Tories, or either of Australia's main parties (though the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd spills stick out) - or the post-Sturgeon leadership fight in the SNP which got very, very personal and nasty.

On the other hand they're not presidents, they don't have a direct mandate from the people and there are times when either they cling on too long, lose their touch or are just patently unfit to lead - and need removing.

It's like all flexibility - too much is chaotic, but it is helpful to keep some wiggle room.

Perhaps similarly in Alberta we saw Premier Kenney forced out by a leadership vote within his own party almost entirely over Covid-issues, and we now have Premier Smith who is very much beholden to the radical right in her own party.

That's interesting because on this the perception here is that's the problem with giving party activists a say. They tend to be more radical not just than the general public but than the parliamentary party (who normally have to appeal to actual voters, not just a party selectorate).

The party membership is seen broadly as more of the issue there - which also foist Corbyn (twice) and Truss on parliamentary parties who voted against them.

[Barrister]

I think that the example of the British Tories is exactly the sort of reason why the Canadian parties tend to stick stubbornly behind their leader.  It's generally proven better for individuals to try and stick behind the failing leader than to try and replace him.  Consider Sunak, who probably could have been PM in five years time, except now he has to hang the albatross of being a loser around his neck. 

So Trudeau will hang on in Canada, but Freeland, Carney and Joly at the very least are already positioning themselves for the next Liberal leadership race. 

There's no way to read Freeland's letter except as the opening bid in a leadership race.

Trudeau is apparently pushing Carney to join cabinet, but if you're Carney you have to wonder whether that would be a good step for him or not (assuming he has leadership ambitions).

I know about Joly, of course, but I really don't have any sense of her as a leader or what she'd stand for.  If nothing else though she's from Quebec which never hurts in Liberal Party politics.

[Barrister]

It's like all flexibility - too much is chaotic, but it is helpful to keep some wiggle room.

It's probably impossible to hit a perfect balance.  You certainly do want a mechanism to get rid of ineffectual leaders.  Corbyn was certainly an example of that.  Trudeau - part of me feels like he probably has earned the right to go when he choses, but it certainly does look like he's driving the Liberal Party off a cliff.

I'm also reminded of former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.  (the CA is the forerunner to the modern Conservative Party).  He won the leadership only to see Chretien call a snap election.  Day quickly seemed out of is depth, both during the election campaign and subsequently as opposition leader.  Despite a large chunk of his caucus literally quitting due to his leadership he hung on for quite awhile.  He did ultimately resign, but it didn't seem like there was much of a mechanism to force him out.

Perhaps similarly in Alberta we saw Premier Kenney forced out by a leadership vote within his own party almost entirely over Covid-issues, and we now have Premier Smith who is very much beholden to the radical right in her own party.

That's interesting because on this the perception here is that's the problem with giving party activists a say. They tend to be more radical not just than the general public but than the parliamentary party (who normally have to appeal to actual voters, not just a party selectorate).

The party membership is seen broadly as more of the issue there - which also foist Corbyn (twice) and Truss on parliamentary parties who voted against them.

What we're seeing in Alberta is pressure groups like Take Back Alberta and the 1905 Committee very explicitly pushing to get people signed up as UCP members in order to go to conventions and push a very particular policy agenda within the party (and to threaten Danielle Smith's leadership if she doesn't follow through).

It's a risky game they play because the NDP has certainly grown in strength.  It's as if they think the 2015 election was a fluke due to a divided right wing, since otherwise Alberta has been reliably electing right-wing governments since at least the great depression, and maybe earlier (I don't know how to characterize the United Farmers governments of the 1920s), but I think that's a dangerous assumption.

[viper37]

Freeland posts her resignation letter to X/Twitter.  It's pretty savage for such things.  It talks about "costly political gimmicks" and "keeping our powder dry".

Also worth noting she was supposed to release the government's "fall" economic update TODAY.

https://x.com/cafreeland/status/1868659332285702167

it does sound more savage in English than in French.  "Keeping our powder dry", "political gimmicks"...  It's not that the chosen words/expressions don't correspond (they do), but either she chose more politically loaded word in English or someone helped her tone down the political rethoric for the French version.

In either version, she is clearly marking her distance with Trudeau though.

[crazy canuck]

On the other hand they're not presidents, they don't have a direct mandate from the people and there are times when either they cling on too long, lose their touch or are just patently unfit to lead - and need removing.

This is where the Canadian Parliamentary system went badly wrong. All of the party leaders now have exceptional powers under their party constitutions, including the fact that it is the membership of the party who decides who is leader.  So you can have a situation, which currently exists in Canada, that the majority of caucus wants to remove the leader, but is powerless to do so because the leader still has support of the general membership of the party.

The only thing that can happen now under our system is the utter destruction of the governing party in a general election, which has happened a couple of times in the last 40 years.

[crazy canuck]

Freeland posts her resignation letter to X/Twitter.  It's pretty savage for such things.  It talks about "costly political gimmicks" and "keeping our powder dry".

Also worth noting she was supposed to release the government's "fall" economic update TODAY.

https://x.com/cafreeland/status/1868659332285702167

it does sound more savage in English than in French.  "Keeping our powder dry", "political gimmicks"...  It's not that the chosen words/expressions don't correspond (they do), but either she chose more politically loaded word in English or someone helped her tone down the political rethoric for the French version.

In either version, she is clearly marking her distance with Trudeau though.

She had a choice to make. Either go quietly or take a stand and make a bid for the leadership after Trudeau gets destroyed in the next election.  This was an easy call for her to make.  And it is another illustration of how inept Trudeau is that he did not see it coming.  It seems clear he simply expected her to go quietly when he informed her on Friday she was going to be removed from finance.

[Sheilbh]

It's probably impossible to hit a perfect balance.  You certainly do want a mechanism to get rid of ineffectual leaders.  Corbyn was certainly an example of that.  Trudeau - part of me feels like he probably has earned the right to go when he choses, but it certainly does look like he's driving the Liberal Party off a cliff.

I'm also reminded of former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day.  (the CA is the forerunner to the modern Conservative Party).  He won the leadership only to see Chretien call a snap election.  Day quickly seemed out of is depth, both during the election campaign and subsequently as opposition leader.  Despite a large chunk of his caucus literally quitting due to his leadership he hung on for quite awhile.  He did ultimately resign, but it didn't seem like there was much of a mechanism to force him out.

I think it is impossible. You might get a Paul Keating or a John Major who can rejuvenate an otherwise exhausted government - a bit like a VP successfully taking over. On the other hand it could be a Martin or Brown - too tired, too well-known, not able to be new and associated with the leadership spill. Or, God forbid, you might end up with Truss I think you can predict Truss would be bad (but maybe not as bad as she was) - but between, say, Keating, Major, Brown and Martin - I think that's pretty tough to work out who would be able to pull it off and who wouldn't. It's always a gamble.

What we're seeing in Alberta is pressure groups like Take Back Alberta and the 1905 Committee very explicitly pushing to get people signed up as UCP members in order to go to conventions and push a very particular policy agenda within the party (and to threaten Danielle Smith's leadership if she doesn't follow through).

This is really interesting because there was basically an similar but slightly thing with Corbyn here.

In an attempt to improve engagement in politics Ed Miliband expanded the selectorate for Labour Party leaderships - in particular you could sign up for £3 as an "associate member" and get a vote. There were mass drives from the various assorted campaigning groups of the hard left, and some concerns around entryism, following that to back Corbyn. It probably didn't matter given how strong Corbyn's support was. But at the same time there were groups set up to support Corbyn and his project as a sort of extra-parliamentary left (for example, Momentum which was founded by a hard left veteran campaigner). It served a dual purpose of defending Corbyn - representing the membership - from challenge by MPs and also as a tool to sort of bludgeon the parliamentary party into submission. They were less effective at it than Starmer's team from the Labour right (who've been ruthless) but there was basically an attempt to build a left power-base that was semi-detached to the party.

It failed but interesting in similarities and diferences.

It's something I wonder about more generally - from a UK perspective but I think in democratic societies more generally a lot was built around the party and mass membership/participation organisations, which I think are in structural decline. And I think you sort of see that in politics - I've mentioned but I'm struck at how personalist politics can be (and not just on one side or another - I think it goes for, say, Trump, as well as Macron, as well as Melenchon or Corbyn). And that reflects media - it reminds me of fandoms and parasocial relationships v mass broadcast media - but I don't know how easily it sits with democratic institutions in the long run. (And I'm an old school lefty so my solution to everything is a deus ex machina of the masses re-emerging as a political force with no idea of how, plausibly, we'll get there )

It's a risky game they play because the NDP has certainly grown in strength.  It's as if they think the 2015 election was a fluke due to a divided right wing, since otherwise Alberta has been reliably electing right-wing governments since at least the great depression, and maybe earlier (I don't know how to characterize the United Farmers governments of the 1920s), but I think that's a dangerous assumption.

Yeah. No idea - prairie populist? Always wonder if that tradition is dead or just dormant.

[crazy canuck]

Singh has now said Trudeau must resign

[Barrister]

It's something I wonder about more generally - from a UK perspective but I think in democratic societies more generally a lot was built around the party and mass membership/participation organisations, which I think are in structural decline. And I think you sort of see that in politics - I've mentioned but I'm struck at how personalist politics can be (and not just on one side or another - I think it goes for, say, Trump, as well as Macron, as well as Melenchon or Corbyn). And that reflects media - it reminds me of fandoms and parasocial relationships v mass broadcast media - but I don't know how easily it sits with democratic institutions in the long run. (And I'm an old school lefty so my solution to everything is a deus ex machina of the masses re-emerging as a political force with no idea of how, plausibly, we'll get there )

I really think that's true.

If you go back a generation or two - people belonged to stuff.  Whether it was the Masons, or the Labour Party, or the local curling club - you joined an organization and it was part of who were you.

Now we've much more taken a consumer approach.  It's not that you're a member of something - but that you'll patronize the groups that you like with your money.

Back when I first joined the Reform Party, that was the model they kind of took.  You were a party member.  In particular for leadership elections - you had to be a member at least 90 days in order to vote for a leader.  The specific idea was to prevent "instant members" who only wanted to vote for leader.  But that model has not lasted - instead parties (and not just Reform/Conservative) would much prefer the quick hit of memberships (and the associated names/phone numbers to hit up for fundraising) over the idea of a dedicated membership base.

It was even more so back in the day.  Political parties had the ladies auxiliary, the youth wing, the party newspaper - it was a whole lifestyle you were signing up for.