|
Mordecai posted:Very true; I was going for simple analogies to how it is in practice, but this does bear frequent repeating to counter the feeling that it's always been this way. I think there are a lot of factors at work here but generally speaking the growth of television as the most important form of media during the second half of the 20th century seems to have made party leaders vastly more important to campaigning. When elections turn into referendums on the party leader (who turns into a sort of party mascot) it's probably hard to avoid the concentration of power in that leader's office. Conversely, the importance of sound bites for driving election coverage means that there's a strong imperative for party's to maintain message discipline. You want rank and file MPs to stay on script and not say anything that might cause an unexpected problem for you. So the result is that political parties want obedient MPs and tend to invest heavily in the party leader. The result is that regular MPs end up with less influence while the Prime Minister represents an almost irreplaceable sunk cost in terms of party resources. There are other factors of course. The danger of Quebec separating is often cited as another factor behind the growth of power in the PMO. In a situation where one of the country's wealthiest regions is at risk of leaving practically every domestic policy issue takes on national importance, with the result that for a couple decades virtually every issue had to be treated as having potentially existential ramifications for the country. But since we can see a similar trend toward more concentrated power around the world I'm inclined to think the primary causes are unlikely to be local to the Canadian context. So like I said, my own intuition is that this process is mostly caused by changes in the media.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Yeah it's a bit weird to compare to the US since the president actually has specific, constitutionally mandated powers and is an office that is elected separately from the house and senate. You can absolutely have a president from one party while the house and senate are both controlled by a majority from the other party. That situation is essentially impossible in Canadian politics (I suppose theoretically if enough members of the majority party defected and endorsed the leader of the opposition as PM it could, but that would be a pretty crazy and unprecedented situation, and really at that point the defectors would likely get kicked out of their own party if they hadn't already left so you couldn't even call that a "majority" anymore). The PM's power comes from the fact that their party has decided on their own to submit to his or her authority and the MPs have all agreed to vote according to the agenda set by the leader. If the majority party had a different governing ethos - i.e. all MPs are equally important and nobody owes their vote to anyone if they don't agree with the policy, then the position of PM is basically just a formality and the PMO would be much weaker. This can be done without needing any legislation, it's just that in the current state of politics, we don't really have any parties like that; certainly not any that actually have a realistic shot at taking a majority. This is also why it's very hard for a scandal to take down the PM. It has to be big enough to take down the whole party, since as long as they hold on to the majority, they can all agree that they still like the PM as leader and there's nothing anyone else can do about it. It's a bit different under a minority government, where the whole situation is a lot more tenuous, but we don't have one at the moment. To really "take down" a PM, the scandal has to be bad enough that the party itself feels that it might cost them their seats in the next election. This also means that timing is a huge factor on these things. A scandal that hits years before the next election is unlikely to make waves because everyone will forget by the time it comes to vote. One that's 2 months ahead of an election meanwhile can have a massive impact. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's more complicated than that. The Canadian Prime Minister may have fewer formal limits on his power but he can also be replaced at any time if he losses the support of his MPs. The current trend toward extremely centralized decision making within the PMO isn't built into the Canadian constitution and in theory the entire cabinet and not just the Prime Minister are supposed to make decisions. I think that's basically right, yeah. Electoral law gives party leaders a veto over candidacies, so speaking out against the leader is very risky, and on top of cabinet, the PM controls a very large number of jobs in the HoC. There are 180 LPC MPs in the House of Commons, and about a hundred of those have a job controlled by the PM/leader: 35 cabinet members (including JT), about 40 parliamentary secretaries (17k salary bump), ~25 committee chairs (12k). If you compare that to say, the UK, the Conservatives there have 300 seats, but the PM probably only controls about 75-100 jobs totals, and the difference between "most MPs have a job that depends on the PM" and "a supermajority of MPs are just MPs" is pretty large. I think this is especially pronounced in the LPC at the moment - after Trudeau became PM, he moved very briskly to consolidate power within the party and overhauled the party constitution to effectively abolish decision making authority in the party outside the leader's office, so it's not super clear what it means to be a Liberal without supporting the leader. e: This is worse is smaller provinces. I just checked out BC and the BCNDP has a 41 member caucus, and I think the premier controls close to 40 jobs between cabinet, parlsecs, committee chairs, whip and caucus chair. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
I had a friend that wasn't very well versed in politics who was complaining how Australia always seems to be changing Prime Ministers without holding a formal election. He connected the dots and realized the same thing could happen here and rejected the notion that we elect parties not leaders. That should tell you where the average Canadian is at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Jody Wilson-Raybold has decided to burn everything down and salt the earth. I don't care if it's through an actual moral core or a weird political ploy, it is so drat refreshing to have someone just speak plainly about this everydau background considerations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
It's looking real bad for Trudeau, I am delighted that someone is blowing the whistle on his corporate cocksucking bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
I hope everyone likes this testimony because it's going to get played 8 million times on TV from September to October, the Liberals are dumb as hell
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Can someone sum up this SNC-Lavalin stuff for me? I’m a Canadian and usually pay close attention to politics (and still do in my home province of Ontario) but have basically checked out of federal politics ever since Trump was elected. Just wanna know what the deal is and why it’s bad I guess? And what’s going on in the current parliamentary testifying session
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:Can someone sum up this SNC-Lavalin stuff for me? I’m a Canadian and usually pay close attention to politics (and still do in my home province of Ontario) but have basically checked out of federal politics ever since Trump was elected. tl;dr SNC-Lavalin was being prosecuted for paying bribes in Libya and defrauding Libyan companies back during the Gaddafi days. If convicted, beside a probable buttload of fines they would be barred from federal contracts for a decade and current federal contracts would be in jeopardy. The Prime Minister's Officr pressured JWR to drop the prosecution in favor of a deferred prosecution agreement. Probably because SNC is a dumb sacred cow company in Quebec like Bombardier, a ten year ban would seriously gently caress up their business, and cost a ton of votes in Quebec. A deferred prosecution as far as I understand would have other conditions ("Okay SNC you pinky swear not to bribe anyone for the next decade and we won't prosecute you"), possible fines, but critically no risk of the federal contract ban. JWR refused and was shuffled out of the Attorney General's spot as a result. Her current testimony basically confirms constant attempts of interference pressuring her to drop the prosecution from people like Gerald Butts prior to her being dropped as AG, which she 100% believes is entirely due to the SNC affair. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Liberals destroying themselves with infighting is as much a part of their brand as the colour red, the messiah complex around Trudeau kept that at bay for a while, but clearly those days are over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
SNC lobbied real hard to get Trudeau to do this too. There's a huge log of all the meetings between SNC lobbyists and basically everyone in the prime ministers office. There's also evidence that SNC lobbying is the whole reason the "deferred prosecution option" exists at all. It's been a concerted effort by them for over two years to avoid prosecution and Trudeau folded like a wet umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
While it's fun to cheer them being loving morons - the NDP are weak and this is just ushering in the Conservatives. So I am not sure there is much to be happy about right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:While it's fun to cheer them being loving morons - the NDP are weak and this is just ushering in the Conservatives. So I am not sure there is much to be happy about right now. We should just congratulate PM Scheer on his decisive victory now
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
where's bunnyofdoom, we need some bootlickers here to explain why jody wilson-raybold shouldnt be trusted
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Where's the guy that said it was politically expedient to protect SNC-Lavalin and that the Liberals were just being savvy
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
RBC posted:I am delighted that a man with the charisma and appearance of a potato could be our next prime minister
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
First Liberal reaction? https://twitter.com/MPCelina/status/1100874743048167424?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Why the hell did the Liberal establishment waive confidentiality and allow her to be called to the committee? There's no way the speculation could have been worse than JWR telling everyone what went down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Vintersorg posted:While it's fun to cheer them being loving morons - the NDP are weak and this is just ushering in the Conservatives. So I am not sure there is much to be happy about right now. Agreed. The fact this story is consuming our attention right now instead of any of the actual problems that materially threaten our well being or standard of living is nothing to be hyped about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Why the hell did the Liberal establishment waive confidentiality and allow her to be called to the committee? There's no way the speculation could have been worse than JWR telling everyone what went down. Helsing posted:I've found myself thinking more and more often of that time period we've collectively forgotten in-between Trudeau first becoming leader and the opening of the 2015 campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Agreed. The fact this story is consuming our attention right now instead of any of the actual problems that materially threaten our well being or standard of living is nothing to be hyped about. Having a prime minister cowtowing to a corrupt corporation is absolutely a threat to my well being and standard of living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
RBC posted:Having a prime minister cowtowing to a corrupt corporation is absolutely a threat to my well being and standard of living. Yeah but if we wanted to get serious about this issue we wouldn't be quibbling over what kind of lobbying is technically criminal because the actual problems we're facing are largely the by product of government-corporate relationships that are more or less entirely legal. The problem is capitalism, not corruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah but if we wanted to get serious about this issue we wouldn't be quibbling over what kind of lobbying is technically criminal because the actual problems we're facing are largely the by product of government-corporate relationships that are more or less entirely legal. Not a mutually exclusive problem. The liberal government is guilty of both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah but if we wanted to get serious about this issue we wouldn't be quibbling over what kind of lobbying is technically criminal because the actual problems we're facing are largely the by product of government-corporate relationships that are more or less entirely legal. One feeds the other which loops back around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
RBC posted:Not a mutually exclusive problem. The liberal government is guilty of both. Except they kind of are mutually exclusive approaches. If you join the current NDP leadership in viewing our problems as mostly being caused by the Liberals and Conservatives then you're going to more or less approach politics from the assumption that you need to do or say whatever it takes to win office and kick those two parties out. If you share the view of the old NDP / CCF (i.e. the party that left behind universal healthcare, in contrast to the modern NDP who is best remember for crafting a bumper sticker slogan about love beating hate) then you recognize the structural causes of our problems and will be willing to pursue a much more ambitious and difficult but potentially transformative agenda. You might pass up certain easy victories because you're focusing on achieving a more long term goal. I used to think the way you do and believed that both these goals could be pursued at once. Unfortunately many years of observing and participating in politics is leading me to conclude that it's not that simple. You can't just yoke centrists and radicals together and assume they'll work together well. The worldviews and the implications of those worldviews are very different not just in terms of long term strategy but also in terms of short term tactics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Do you guys really think a Mulcair lead government that was coming up on re-election this year and very dependent on Quebec would have acted differently toward SNC-Lavelin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The problem is capitalism, not corruption. That's the problem, this makes me like JT more than ever. The guy is a fanatical devotee to the church of gdp, between this and buying that pipeline. When you start to The Cheshire Cat posted:Ignore whatever they claim to believe in. Just watch what they actually do. it's like yeah, I don't care for the constant lefty pandering and it's 2019 but the capitalism is just so important to them, and me, that I'd happily take him over the conservative milk dud anyday. god bless you for everything you did bunnyofdoom and other liberal voters, i may finally join your ranks next election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Do you guys really think a Mulcair lead government that was coming up on re-election this year and very dependent on Quebec would have acted differently toward SNC-Lavelin? Who knows, the question is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Except they kind of are mutually exclusive approaches. Luckily I am one person and do not have enough ego to believe one person has any kind of impact on politics. I will gladly laugh as Justin Trudeau and his cronies are publicly outed as being corrupt assholes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
Notwithstanding the question of there is a legal basis JWR couldn't talk about these matters, I can't imagine the PMO knew what was coming when they waived privilege on this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:tl;dr SNC-Lavalin was being prosecuted for paying bribes in Libya and defrauding Libyan companies back during the Gaddafi days. If convicted, beside a probable buttload of fines they would be barred from federal contracts for a decade and current federal contracts would be in jeopardy. If this is true it's insanely dumb. Who would really care if SNC got hit with fines from the federal government for bribing dictators while creating jobs overseas? Companies like Bombardier, GM, etc., are on a different level when it comes to political risk because they are manufacturers and will move and set up shop in Mexico if they get too much heat from the government. I don't think SNC Lavalin getting hit with fines and a ban would result in huge job losses, even the construction contracts they have in Canada can get picked up by someone else. Their head office isn't going anywhere. This whole thing seems like a very Liberal own goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:Notwithstanding the question of there is a legal basis JWR couldn't talk about these matters, I can't imagine the PMO knew what was coming when they waived privilege on this. Probably not but they were damned if they prevented her from speaking too... Now it's just her word against theirs What's their damage control? "Well, that's just like her opinion, man."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Starks posted:If this is true it's insanely dumb. Who would really care if SNC got hit with fines from the federal government for bribing dictators while creating jobs overseas? Companies like Bombardier, GM, etc., are on a different level when it comes to political risk because they are manufacturers and will move and set up shop in Mexico if they get too much heat from the government. I don't think SNC Lavalin getting hit with fines and a ban would result in huge job losses, even the construction contracts they have in Canada can get picked up by someone else. Their head office isn't going anywhere. This whole thing seems like a very Liberal own goal. They went to the Liberals and said "Please drop the charges or we will put a lot of people in Quebec out of job" and the Liberals said "Please no, it's an election year"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Starks posted:If this is true it's insanely dumb. Who would really care if SNC got hit with fines from the federal government for bribing dictators while creating jobs overseas? Companies like Bombardier, GM, etc., are on a different level when it comes to political risk because they are manufacturers and will move and set up shop in Mexico if they get too much heat from the government. I don't think SNC Lavalin getting hit with fines and a ban would result in huge job losses, even the construction contracts they have in Canada can get picked up by someone else. Their head office isn't going anywhere. This whole thing seems like a very Liberal own goal. Its actually a lot easier for them, as a large multinational with no big manufacturing plants which they've sunk billions of dollars into, to close offices in Montreal and move to say London, UK where they already have huge offices. You'd see a significant amount of job losses in the engineering industry. Not that this is a great reason not to prosecute, but the idea that there wouldn't be significant Canadian job losses as a result of successful prosecution is just wrong. SNC employs >50k people, though I don't know how many are actually in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
I'm assuming some of you are also watching the livestream of this? It's just incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
dev286 posted:Probably not but they were damned if they prevented her from speaking too... Now it's just her word against theirs I think you'll find it's not "her opinion" but "'her' truth, not necessarily 'the' truth".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
gently caress you justin implement PR and gtfo
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
I'll never forgive Thomas mulcair, for sucking rear end and blowing the easiest election in canadian history, and Jack Layton, for dying
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Starks posted:If this is true it's insanely dumb. Who would really care if SNC got hit with fines from the federal government for bribing dictators while creating jobs overseas? Companies like Bombardier, GM, etc., are on a different level when it comes to political risk because they are manufacturers and will move and set up shop in Mexico if they get too much heat from the government. I don't think SNC Lavalin getting hit with fines and a ban would result in huge job losses, even the construction contracts they have in Canada can get picked up by someone else. Their head office isn't going anywhere. This whole thing seems like a very Liberal own goal. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/20/opinion/what-would-10-year-ban-federal-contracts-actually-mean-snc-lavalin Here's one take on it. There's a few other things at play like the fact that SNC took on a whole bunch of debt to make some recent big acquisitions, debt financed on counting on a bunch of future federal contracts (coincidently, their credit rating recently got downgraded thanks largely to the current criminal charges). Plus federal contracts includes contracts with partial federal funding which is a massive chunk of provincial infrastructure projects. Moreover, there's also the potential it could hurt their chances at bids in other countries that take a dim view to bribery (or at least have to appear to take a dim view to it), because all their competitors will just point to the fact they're banned from Canadian federal contracts. And yeah theoretically other Canadian companies could pick up the slack, but importantly to Quebec a lot of the other bidders would not be Quebec-based firms like SNC. Probably why one of the loudest voices pushing for a deal is the Bloc. Sure, it's hard to fully estimate the impact but I'd almost guarantee it would result in some job losses, and SNC employs a crapload of people. That being said, I say gently caress SNC. I hate kleptocratic dictators like Gaddafi and doubly hate companies that help them steal more money from their people like SNC did. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
TrueChaos posted:Its actually a lot easier for them, as a large multinational with no big manufacturing plants which they've sunk billions of dollars into, to close offices in Montreal and move to say London, UK where they already have huge offices. You'd see a significant amount of job losses in the engineering industry. Most of those people at their head office are engineers, technicians, and executives. It’s extremely difficult to replace those highly skilled workers in another country, especially a developed one. There’s a shortage of engineers in Canada and, coincidentally, the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2019 00:30
|
|