[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

It 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.

https://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.

[Josephus]

Interestingly, Ontario's Conservative government is considering calling an early election (one is not due till 2026).

The reason? Premier Ford is worried Poilievre will win an election in 2025; reducing transfer payments to the provinces, scrapping Trudeau's electric vehicle strategy and other slashing that could hurt people's perception of the Conservative Party  in Ontario

[viper37]

Stupid move.

[Grey Fox]

I think it's brilliant.

[crazy canuck]

Stupid move.

PP or Ford?

[Jacob]

Tactically it's probably smart by Ford. This way he can capitalize on anti-Trudeau sentiment before it starts waning.

[Barrister]

Tactically it's probably smart by Ford. This way he can capitalize on anti-Trudeau sentiment before it starts waning.

Probably true - but the big "but" is he has to sell why he's asking for a new election a year early.

That wound up biting David Peterson in the ass back a number of years ago.  Looking it up - Peterson's Liberals won a huge majority in 1987.  Seeing his opposition in seeming shambles he called an election in 1990 with Peterson still leading in the polls.  People were pissed, and wound up electing Bob Rae's NDP.

The last Ontario election was June 2, 2022 - so just shy of 2 years at this point.

[Jacob]

True enough.

[Sheilbh]

Probably true - but the big "but" is he has to sell why he's asking for a new election a year early.

Brenda from Bristol strikes again

I agree. I think people really, really do not like being made to engage with politics if, from their pov, there's no need.

[Jacob]

The NDP is the party of sensible government in BC.

The leader of the BC Conservatives wants to fight against vaccine mandates, censor books in schools, roll back policies to encourage building more housing, and claims there's no such thing as a climate crisis.

Here's what he is saying:

British Columbia's newly resurgent Conservative party envisions sweeping changes to schools, housing, climate and reconciliation with First Nations if it's elected to form government this fall for the first time in nearly a century.

The party, which has been climbing steadily in the polls and is now well ahead of the BC United, the current Opposition, would repeal the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in favour of pivoting to an approach of "economic reconciliation" by signing business deals with individual First Nations.

As well, the party would strike a committee to review all school textbooks and literature to ensure they are "neutral," party leader John Rustad said during a wide-ranging meeting with The Globe and Mail's editorial board in Vancouver earlier this month.

"It shouldn't be about indoctrination of anything, whether that's environmental or whether that's political or whether that's sexual," Mr. Rustad said, referencing his proposal to censor books deemed by his Conservative government to be inappropriate for students.

...

Mr. Rustad is a five-term MLA from the Nechako Lakes riding west of Prince George and, for four years, was the minister of Indigenous reconciliation in Christy Clark's Liberal government.

Mr. Rustad and Bruce Banman, of Abbotsford South, both sit as BC Conservatives in the legislature after being elected as members of BC United in 2020. Mr. Rustad was ejected from the BC United caucus in 2022 after his social-media posts cast doubt that people are directly responsible for the climate changing around the globe. Mr. Banman crossed the floor to join Mr. Rustad last September and has refused to say whether he agrees or disagrees with climate change.

...

At the meeting with The Globe, he said his party is not yet ready to unveil the planks of its election platform that will address these problems, but did say he wants to scrap most of the NDP's housing policies.

"It's more of the question 'Is there anything I'd like to keep?' Which is: probably not much," Mr. Rustad said.

He singled out the "authoritarian" way the province has selected 30 communities to produce a targeted number of new homes over the next five years, an effort the NDP says is spurring these cities to do more to confront their housing shortages.

"I don't believe that they should come in and override local government and local government decision-making," Mr. Rustad said.

Regarding health care, he said Conservatives would commit to maintaining the universal system paid for by the government, but would look to increase the number of private clinics providing services and procedures such as hip replacements. This privately provided care would be covered for patients by the public system, he said, an approach that Ontario and Alberta have embraced as a way to reduce wait times and one even B.C.'s NDP government is increasingly using as well.

Mr. Rustad said a group of medical professionals recently told him the closest analogue to B.C.'s healthcare system is that of a totalitarian dictatorship across the Pacific.

"I'm told that there's only one jurisdiction that even comes close to following what we do and that's North Korea – and it's not exactly a stellar model, from my perspective, of success in health care," said Mr. Rustad, who added that his government would immediately fire Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry over her support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Mr. Rustad refused to identify the group of medical professionals that provided this analysis.

On climate change, Mr. Rustad has been vocal about ending the province's carbon tax, which the BC Liberals created in 2008 as the first such levy in North America.

Mr. Rustad argues the science around human causes of climate change is "a theory and it's not proven," a position widely at odds with accepted science. But Mr. Rustad maintains there is no pressing need to legislate solutions.

"It's not even a crisis," he told The Globe.

These views prompted BC United Leader Kevin Falcon to kick Mr. Rustad out of caucus two summers ago on his birthday.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-bc-conservatives-envision-sweeping-changes-to-schools-housing-climate/

[Barrister]

Goddamit - Covid-19 just broke so many people.

And look, I see it the other way too - people who refuse to give up on Covid restrictions, who insist on wearing masks etc. well after the pandemic is over - but it is clearly more prevalent on the anti-vax right.

What's wrong with people - we faced a global pandemic.  The response to which sucked (but was necessary).  We can quibble about some of the responses (did we need bans on outdoor meetings) but overall they seemed necessary.  It also seems that with widespread vaccination there's nothing to be afraid of.

[viper37]

Stupid move.

PP or Ford?

Ford, for calling an election 2 years in advance when there's a law for fixed elections.

[viper37]

, who insist on wearing masks etc. well after the pandemic is over

Some people are immuno compromised and may need it.

Any way, that's their business.  There's no mask mandates.  And if you're sick from the flu, it's a wise thing anyway.

[Josephus]

I still wear masks in certain situations. I spend a lot of time with my mother now, after Dad's passing, and the last thing we need is for her to get COVID. Plus I've seen what it did to my younger brother, early in the pandemic, and he's still got long COVID symptoms. So yeah, count me in the "still careful" block.

[Sheilbh]

And look, I see it the other way too - people who refuse to give up on Covid restrictions, who insist on wearing masks etc. well after the pandemic is over - but it is clearly more prevalent on the anti-vax right.

This, much like the debate over schools, seems like a peculiarly North American thing. You just don't see it really in Europe as far as I can tell, much like schools re-opened a lot earlier across Europe and it wasn't really contentious.

I think it must be some sort of negative polarisation.

There is obviously an anti-vax element. Although recently there's been some outbreaks of measles in the UK, but they don't necessarily align with left-right as you'd expect the main outbreaks have been in London and Birmingham, particularly Hackney (London's Brooklyn) and, for really interesting reasons, areas with large Somali communities. It's something that really frustrated me and still annoys me that we focused too much on the anti-vax and not enough on the people who were not getting vaccinated which was overwhelmingly young people and minorities (I suspect more for material, comms and NHS database reasons than politics).