CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21
- Thread starter brihard
- Start date
- Status
S
stellarpanther
Guest
PuckChaser said:
They might be too busy remarking ballots
- Reaction score
- 4,689
- Points
- 1,160
Brihard said:
Yeah switched there, much easier to listen to.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
When Trump hears about this problem he is going to have a field day with it. Considering he's been saying there will be all kinds of problems with mail in ballot's, he'll use this as yet another reason of what can go wrong.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,711
- Points
- 1,040
It's good that there are so few questionable things Trump actually does that people have the time to obsess over things they make up.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
PuckChaser said:
You're probably right... On CBC right now, Andrew Coyne just called what's going on with the ballot's "amateur hour".
- Reaction score
- 27,396
- Points
- 1,090
From his farewell speech, Andrew Scheer would have been more at home in the Reform party. Writing off the PC side of the merger is what sandbagged the CPC and likely cost them (at the very least) a minority in 2019.
Hopefully his successor is able to draw the PC wing back, otherwise they'll have to get comfortable in Stornoway for a long time.
Hopefully his successor is able to draw the PC wing back, otherwise they'll have to get comfortable in Stornoway for a long time.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Brad Sallows said:
What?
stellarpanther said:
Perhaps a coloured pine cone system would work better...
At the end of the day a leader will still be chosen. Maybe at the end of tomorrow. Either way. Someone will be ready when parliament resumes. Unless it’s MacKay, who does not have a seat. But whatever.
- Reaction score
- 6,275
- Points
- 1,040
Remius said:
Or Dr. Lewis. No different then Jagmeet Singh winning the NDP leadership previously. I'm sure there were other party leaders who weren't MPs when they were elected by the party but can't think of any off the top of my head.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Remius said:
I'm embarrassed; I didn't realize MacKay hadn't won his riding and never really thought about it. I recall in the past asking a Conservative MP what would happen during an election if a particular Party won the election but the leader lost. The answer I received was that there is nothing that states the Party leader must have won their riding but it wouldn't look good and they would most likely have a quick leadership vote to find a new leader from those who did win. Wow...
- Reaction score
- 27,396
- Points
- 1,090
A few details:
1. Peter MacKay did not run in the 2015 or 2019 elections, so he naturally does not have a seat.
2. Past practice in most parties is to have a current MP in a safe seat resign to permit the leader to get into the House of Commons.
3. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the confidence of the House of Commons. No seat in the HoC = not the PM.
4. In the past, leaders had to have the confidence of their caucus; this has been replaced in most (if not all) federal parties by the leader having the confidence of their party membership. This significantly weakens the caucus and their ability to force change, and has reinforced the centralization of power in the PMO. Ironically, in many ways, the democratic ideal of universal suffrage to select leaders results in less accountable leadership.
1. Peter MacKay did not run in the 2015 or 2019 elections, so he naturally does not have a seat.
2. Past practice in most parties is to have a current MP in a safe seat resign to permit the leader to get into the House of Commons.
3. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with the confidence of the House of Commons. No seat in the HoC = not the PM.
4. In the past, leaders had to have the confidence of their caucus; this has been replaced in most (if not all) federal parties by the leader having the confidence of their party membership. This significantly weakens the caucus and their ability to force change, and has reinforced the centralization of power in the PMO. Ironically, in many ways, the democratic ideal of universal suffrage to select leaders results in less accountable leadership.
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,060
dapaterson said:
I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure we've had a few PM's that did not have a seat in the H0fC
From wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada#:~:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20along%20with,on%20behalf%20of%20the%20monarch.&text=However%2C%20in%20rare%20circumstances%20individuals,the%20position%20of%20prime%20minister.
While there is no legal requirement for prime ministers to be MPs themselves, for practical and political reasons the prime minister is expected to win a seat very promptly.[15] However, in rare circumstances individuals who are not sitting members of the House of Commons have been appointed to the position of prime minister. Two former prime ministers%u2014Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell%u2014served in the 1890s while members of the Senate.[16] Both, in their roles as Government Leader in the Senate, succeeded prime ministers who had died in office%u2014John A. Macdonald in 1891 and John Sparrow David Thompson in 1894. That convention has since evolved toward the appointment of an interim leader from the commons in such a scenario.
Prime ministers who are not MPs upon their appointment (or who lose their seats while in office) have since been expected to seek election to the House of Commons as soon as possible. For example, William Lyon Mackenzie King, after losing his seat in the 1925 federal election (that his party won), briefly "governed from the hallway" before winning a by-election a few weeks later. Similarly, John Turner replaced Pierre Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party in 1984 and subsequently was appointed prime minister while not holding a seat in the House of Commons; Turner won a riding in the next election but the Liberal Party was swept from power. Turner was the last prime minister to not occupy a House of Commons seat while in office as prime minister.
- Reaction score
- 27,396
- Points
- 1,090
suffolkowner said:
Nope. The PM must be a MP as they are the head of government.
https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/topics/structure/machinery-government/westminster-government.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system
EDIT: An MP is a Member of Parliament, which includes the Senate. But Senators have only been named PM under exceptional circumstances; it is normally a member of the House of Copmmons.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,742
- Points
- 1,160
S
stellarpanther
Guest
dapaterson said:
So assuming Mackay wins, what right does he have to sit in the HoC during question period if he is not an MP?
- Reaction score
- 4,689
- Points
- 1,160
Brihard said:
Yeah, running mail-in ballots as the only option during a pandemic with the largest voter turnout in party history was something they totally could plan for... a bunch of unpaid volunteers put envelopes wrong in a machine, poop happens. No one is going to care in 48 hours about any technical issues.
It's not like their online voting was hacked or anything....
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
dapaterson said:
I'm not even sure what this argument is trying to assert. The PM is the head of the executive branch of the government, and MPs belong to the legislative branch. They can easily be separate, they are in the US and it works great (better than our current system IMO). It's only by custom in our system that the PM is an MP.
- Status
Similar threads
