A Deeply Fractured US

[TacticalTea]

G2G you are hitting the problem in Canada right on the head there.

We have broken some of the checks and balances of the Westminster system in Canada

The all powerful PMO

I have yet to understand how it got that way and why our system continues to be so drastically different, in practice, from the UK's.

 

[RangerRay]

I have yet to understand how it got that way and why our system continues to be so drastically different, in practice, from the UK's.

Trudeau Sr. started the process. Every PM has added to it. Allowing all party members to elect the leader has allowed the leader to tell his/her caucus that he/she has a “mandate” from the membership that override the concerns of caucus. Add to this that leaders are chosen by special interests or cults that flood the membership at leader elections. These members usually do not have the long term interest in the party at heart; just their pet projects and/or the personality they worship.

This is what happens when we have weak parties.

 

[Spencer100]

I have yet to understand how it got that way and why our system continues to be so drastically different, in practice, from the UK's.

Parties and media focusing everything on the leader in the campaigns. It's like they are jamming a Oresident style system into the Westminister system
Party rules that have the leader sign off all the candidates to run. Then in government everything is controlled by the PMO. Young staffers telling elected cabinet minister what to do. Or even in some cases just right around the minister to the Asst minister. Both parties are too blame. Conservatives in the last government for message control is a good example. Harper with a very hostile media wanted maximum control over messaging.

 

[RangerRay]

This could also apply to Canadian politics now, but since it’s about American politics, I’ll plop this here.

In short, the author is discussing how unhealthy it is for partisans to ignore the idiocy from their own side, and how that gets the perpetual outrage machine going.

"OMG Stop Freaking Out!!!" is a Bad Response to Right-Wing Freak-Outs

If you can't say something principled, don't say anything at all

imightbewrong.substack.com

Many liberals are familiar with the anti-anti-Trump phenomenon. This is the dynamic in which Republicans who think that Trump is an embarrassment and a liability focus exclusively on Trump’s opponents on the left. Anti-anti Trumpers have been known to deride “Trump derangement syndrome”, the undeniably real tendency of some on the left to overreact to Trump’s also-undeniable unsuitability for office. Focusing myopically on Trump’s critics allows anti-anti-Trumpers to keep their partisan allegiances aligned; they remain on the right, punching left. It also minimizes the risk of driving Trumpists out of the Republican coalition. But it comes at the cost of ignoring the rank idiocy emanating from their side.

The left’s “OMG stop freaking out!!!” impulse seems to be the mirror image of the anti-anti-Trump phenomenon. We have some extremely embarrassing people on our side, but we don’t want to talk about them, and we don’t want to risk driving them out of our coalition. So, instead of saying “Yes, thing x is stupid, but the overreaction is also stupid, and we should try to focus on what’s important,” we skip the first part and talk exclusively about Tucker Carlson. It’s an incomplete narrative engineered for political purposes.

 

[FJAG]

This could also apply to Canadian politics now, but since it’s about American politics, I’ll plop this here.

In short, the author is discussing how unhealthy it is for partisans to ignore the idiocy from their own side, and how that gets the perpetual outrage machine going.

"OMG Stop Freaking Out!!!" is a Bad Response to Right-Wing Freak-Outs

If you can't say something principled, don't say anything at all

imightbewrong.substack.com

Regretfully, when the prime objective of party politics is to take or remain in power at all costs, then keeping the idiotic elements of your party on side is a necessity or one risks losing power.

Too bad for all of us who are sick and tired of the stupidity that drifts into the middle from both ends of the spectrum.

 

[RangerRay]

Regretfully, when the prime objective of party politics is to take or remain in power at all costs, then keeping the idiotic elements of your party on side is a necessity or one risks losing power.

Too bad for all of us who are sick and tired of the stupidity that drifts into the middle from both ends of the spectrum.

Except the idiots used to sit at the back of the bus making fart noises. Now they’re driving the bus.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problems started when the people at the top stopped paying sufficient attention to the middle and bottom. Pretty straightforward lesson of history: when people are under pressure, they'll turn to extremists. Stupid of the elites to foul things up so badly. If the idiots are driving the bus now but weren't always driving the bus, it means something else must have put them in the seat.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This all still sounds exactly like the UK Parliament in practice.

 

[RangerRay]

This all still sounds exactly like the UK Parliament in practice.

Except there, as in most other Westminster democracies, caucus can easily dump numpty leaders when they become a drag on the party. Here, leaders are able to hold on to power much longer because of their nominating powers, the power accumulated in their offices, and the notion that they have the a “mandate” from their dunderhead membership.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Except there, as in most other Westminster democracies, caucus can easily dump numpty leaders when they become a drag on the party. Here, leaders are able to hold on to power much longer because of their nominating powers, the power accumulated in their offices, and the notion that they have the a “mandate” from their dunderhead membership.

I think the libs could oust his holiness pretty fast if there was a will to do so, but why would they? Most are now two term MPs with a fat pension awaiting them. They're riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels, best not send it off the tracks till it reaches the next station.

 

[RangerRay]

I think the libs could oust his holiness pretty fast if there was a will to do so, but why would they? Most are now two term MPs with a fat pension awaiting them. They're riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels, best not send it off the tracks till it reaches the next station.

There’s another incentive for caucus to not rock the boat, although hypothetically, that should incentivize many caucus members to dump bad leaders so they can get re-elected to get that pension. And those who are eligible for full pension presumably wouldn’t care if they were voted out or not; they’re on the gravy train. I don’t know .

I am not familiar with MP pension plans in other Westminster democracies to speculate how much that would incentivize them to dump sitting PMs.

 

[dapaterson]

There’s another incentive for caucus to not rock the boat, although hypothetically, that should incentivize many caucus members to dump bad leaders so they can get re-elected to get that pension. And those who are eligible for full pension presumably wouldn’t care if they were voted out or not; they’re on the gravy train. I don’t know .

I am not familiar with MP pension plans in other Westminster democracies to speculate how much that would incentivize them to dump sitting PMs.

"Full Pension" is a misnomer - MP pensions are tied to years of service. Qualifying at the six year mark does not get a full pension and, since the last set of amendments, MPs can't draw until age 65... where a CAF member joining at 17 can begin drawing a pension as early as age 42.

MPs also contribute over 21% of their pay to their pension...

Frequently asked questions: Members of Parliament Pension Plan - Canada.ca

Report on the Administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

www.canada.ca

 

[Navy_Pete]

Except there, as in most other Westminster democracies, caucus can easily dump numpty leaders when they become a drag on the party. Here, leaders are able to hold on to power much longer because of their nominating powers, the power accumulated in their offices, and the notion that they have the a “mandate” from their dunderhead membership.

Did you miss all the churn in the UK? They are on leader 3 at the moment in the last six months, and it was from resigning due to caucus pressure despite all being nominated by the PM for plum positions.

We could do the same thing, but can't remember the last time we had caucus revolt, mostly because it seems to coincide with election defeats.

 

[RangerRay]

What’s happening in the UK proves my point. In Canada, things would have to be really bad for caucus to chuck their leader after such a short time. If Liz Truss were PM in Canada, there is no way caucus would have chucked her before the next election with a majority government. She could crush dissent with not signing nomination papers and waving her “mandate” from the membership at large in their faces.

 

[Navy_Pete]

What’s happening in the UK proves my point. In Canada, things would have to be really bad for caucus to chuck their leader after such a short time. If Liz Truss were PM in Canada, there is no way caucus would have chucked her before the next election with a majority government. She could crush dissent with not signing nomination papers and waving her “mandate” from the membership at large in their faces.

They have the same ability to do all of that in the UK, and also an extra carrot of appointing cronies to the peerage (see BoJo's parting list).

The Westminster system has cronyism built in as a feature, as that's how the UK has run for centuries.

Bojo was making them unelectable, and Truss did the same in shorter time. The Cons stuck by them out of self interest for their positions, until they were more worried about losing their seats than the short term benefits of sucking up to the PM.

Trudeau keeps winning elections. If it looked like they were going to crater I'm sure the Lib caucus would force the leader out as well.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting move by a Democratic Governor

Shapiro slashes number of government jobs requiring college degree

He ordered a review of the remaining 8 percent of state government jobs that currently require a four-year degree.

www.wtae.com

 

[Journeyman]

FOX NEWS

TUCKER CARLSON TAKES BREAK FROM M&M’S MELTDOWN TO SUGGEST US INVADE CANADA​

Tucker Carlson on Thursday called for the U.S. to invade Canada and remove Prime Minister Trudeau

“I’m completely in favor of a Bay of Pigs operation to liberate that country,” Carlson said. “Why should we stand back and let our biggest trading partner ... why should we let it become Cuba? Like, why don’t we liberate it? We’re spending all this money to liberate Ukraine from the Russians. Why are we not sending an armed force north to liberate Canada from Trudeau? And I mean it.”

I'll just leave this here.

[A Google search of "fox news tucker carlson invade canada" will give you +/- 1.9 million responses]

 

[Remius]

I'll just leave this here.

[A Google search of "fox news tucker carlson invade canada" will give you +/- 1.9 million responses]

Remember that he actually used a legal defence that no reasonable person should take anything he says seriously.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'll just leave this here.

[A Google search of "fox news tucker carlson invade canada" will give you +/- 1.9 million responses]

How far a stretch is it? The US has refused to sell Chevies to Cuba since 1958 because they don't like Justin's dad and his friends.

 

[dimsum]

I'll just leave this here.

[A Google search of "fox news tucker carlson invade canada" will give you +/- 1.9 million responses]

I don't know if the famously-failed "Bay of Pigs" invasion is really the template they want to go with.