The Power of The Prime Minister

[lenwick]

The Prime Minister used to be described as "the first among equals" in the cabinet, or as "a moon among minor stars." This is no longer so. He or she is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The Prime Minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the Prime Minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed. Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong Prime Minister, having listened to everyone's opinion, may simply announce that his or her view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision.

[August1991]

The PM may decide who sits in Cabinet (with all the perks that gives) but the PM does not decide who sits in Parliament. A PM (or any party leader) without the support of caucus will not be PM (or leader) for long.

Mulroney, in the Secret Tapes book, makes this point several times. Margaret Thatcher resigned because she lost the support of her caucus.

[Leafless]

This type of behavior is nothing new with the Liberals.

Mr. Trudeau, Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin all have behaved as KINGS in dictating social policies and Liberal political agenda taking advantage of British system of government (that's why they don't really want Canada as a republic even though the Liberals have been trying to dissasociate the monarchy they are further ahead with parliamentry democracy and they are well aware of that fact).

[Canuck E Stan]

No Snoozin for Senator

In Canada we have a prime minister who gets to appoint every member of the Supreme Court, the Senate, the head of the Armed Forces, the national police force, the ethics commissioner, the head of every government agency and corporation and McKenna says the U.S. system is dysfunctional?

NDP's Broadbent unveils federal ethics plan

More reforms like these especially involving the PM's power would be very refreshing in this "one man rule" country. Let's see who really wants to cure the democratic deficeit when the vote on this bill comes forward.

[err]

Margaret Thatcher resigned because she lost the support of her caucus.

That's over-simplifying, August.... She didn't stand a prayer of being re-elected because of the havoc that her right-wing policies made of the lives of the British people and their econonomy.... In standing up for Thatcher, any member of her caucas was kissing their own political future good-bye.....

Could you imagine John Tory saying "I support the stuff that Mike Harris stood for"... he'd never get elected.... and neither would any other Tories in Ontario....

[g_bambino]

This type of behavior is nothing new with the Liberals.

Mr. Trudeau, Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin all have behaved as KINGS in dictating social policies and Liberal political agenda taking advantage of British system of government (that's why they don't really want Canada as a republic even though the Liberals have been trying to dissasociate the monarchy they are further ahead with parliamentry democracy and they are well aware of that fact).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It can't be denied that the PMO has gained far too much uncontested power over the past 30 or so years. You're also right that the Liberals don't want to make Canada a republic, but its obvious they don't want Canadians knowing that we're a kingdom either. I suspect that's because A) if they leave us all in this limbo of ignorance the majority of Canadians will go on believing the PM to be the undoubted grand president of Canada, as they do now, and they won't have to open the Constitution to undertake such a Herculean task as removing the Crown from the head of our governmental system. No, they want the ministerial privilege that comes from Canada being a Westminster parliamentary democracy, but without any monarch, GG, or president for that matter, to actually hold them accountable.

This country functioned for a century as a constitutional monarchy, until Trudeau's "reforms" in the 60s and 70s. As well, countries like New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Holland, Spain, Belgium, and many others are constitutional monarchies, but don't seem to have the "democratic deficit" that we suffer from. Maybe we should be looking to them to help us see where we went wrong over the past 3 decades.

[err]

This type of behavior is nothing new with the Liberals.

Mr. Trudeau, Jean Chretien and now Paul Martin all have behaved as KINGS in dictating social policies and Liberal political agenda taking advantage of British system of government (that's why they don't really want Canada as a republic even though the Liberals have been trying to dissasociate the monarchy they are further ahead with parliamentry democracy and they are well aware of that fact).

And Brian Mulroney didn't act as a king in the destruction of our social policies ???

[Leafless]

g_bambino

"Where we went wrong"

Ever since the Trudeau era emphasis has been on Quebec's interest with Quebec politicians driving that point home with the Liberals Rights and Freedoms Charter providing the necessary momentum.

This continual power clash between two different ideolgies continues to drain the countries financial resources and has crippled our political system and perhaps even contributed to making us dependent on immigration.

I think this countries future is in jeoprody and Canada's politicians are directly to blame for not having the fortitude to face the initial political deliema and failure to recognize that the Battle on the Plains of Abraham will continue indefinably as Quebec it appears will never be satisfied playing a secondary role.

[tml12]

g_bambino

"Where we went wrong"

Ever since the Trudeau era emphasis has been on Quebec's interest with Quebec politicians driving that point home with the Liberals Rights and Freedoms Charter providing  the necessary momentum.

This continual power clash between two different ideolgies continues to drain the countries financial resources and has crippled our political system and perhaps even contributed to making us dependent on immigration.

I think this countries future is in jeoprody and Canada's politicians are directly to blame for not having the fortitude to face the initial political deliema and failure to recognize that the Battle on the Plains of Abraham will continue indefinably as Quebec it appears will never be satisfied playing a secondary role.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make an interesting point. Do you realize that we cannot even discuss issues of language in this country any more? It seems politically we are polarized between Liberal-dominated east and Conservative-dominated west? Former U.S. president Lincoln said "a house divided cannot stand." Who dares say we are not a house divided, and who, better yet, proposes a solution to our dilemma???

[Leafless]

tml12

"It seems politically we are polarized between Liberal-dominated east and a Conservative dominated west."

This is true and politicians recognize the need for electoral reform but still hobble on with our broken down political system and no one seems to want to assume any responsibility for changes.

This type of political Liberal catering to Quebec essentially destroys federal authority and demonstrates weak leadership and has resulted in Western provinces seeking refuge among themselves, a result of lost federal confidence.

[Guest eureka]

The Conservatives have "caterd" more to Quebec than the Liberals by a big margin. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were the Mulroney party's doing. Both were to appease Quebec and were defeated by Liberal opposition.

All parties do "cater" to Quebec. The Liberals less than others.

[tml12]

The Conservatives have "caterd" more to Quebec than the Liberals by a big margin. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were the Mulroney party's doing. Both were to appease Quebec and were defeated by Liberal opposition.

All parties do "cater" to Quebec. The Liberals less than others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Keep in mind eureka that you are referring to a leader who was a Quebec MP from the old PC Party.

Do you really see PM Harper satisfying Quebec with his reform-dominated past???

[Guest eureka]

Actually, I do. Harper, and the old PC party, both were more attuned to what Quebec wants than to what is good for Canada. Ironically, it will not sell to the Sovereignists, though it will to the Nationalists.

Harper favours the emasculation of the Federal government and the creation of a federation of autonomous regions.

Clark had his "community of communities."

Quebec nationalists would be happy with either. The Sovereingists want even more. The odd thing is that Quebeckers don't understand this.

Also, bear in mind that it is not "what Quebec wants but what about half of Francophone Quebeckers want. They are not all bent on destroying Canada: and there are quite a number of English speaking Canadians there.

[tml12]

Actually, I do. Harper, and the old PC party, both were more attuned to what Quebec wants than to what is good for Canada. Ironically, it will not sell to the Sovereignists, though it will to the Nationalists.

Harper favours the emasculation of the Federal government and the creation of a federation of autonomous regions.

Clark had his "community of communities."

Quebec nationalists would be happy with either. The Sovereingists want even more. The odd thing is that Quebeckers don't understand this.

Also, bear in mind that it is not "what Quebec wants but what about half of Francophone Quebeckers want. They are not all bent on destroying Canada: and there are quite a number of English speaking Canadians there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make good points...but, if Harper were to become PM even in a majority government circumstance I still see him favouring the West over Quebec.

After all, his MPs would not be Quebecers. While he might try and address Quebec's status, I don't see him bending over to Quebec like successive Liberal governments.

Just my opinion...

[Guest eureka]

My point is that he does not have to favour Quebec. He simply has to further decentralize an already too decentralized country.

Then Quebec will have everything it wants. It will also then wish it had not.

[tml12]

My point is that he does not have to favour Quebec. He simply has to further decentralize an already too decentralized country.

Then Quebec will have everything it wants. It will also then wish it had not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you that Harper favours provincial rights...

BUT, when Harper has to favour one province over the other do you see him favouring an Eastern province over a Western one???

[Guest eureka]

No! He can't do that since he is a prisoner of his past and his support base.

[Leafless]

eureka

You said concerning Stephen Harper-"He simply has to decentralize an already too decentralized country. Then Quebec will have everthing it wants. It will also then wish it had not.'

That's the whole problem the liberals have created and encouraged regional federalism catering to Quebec encouraging other provinces to do the same. The Liberals are the cause of a politically weakened Canada by not properly enforcing the concept of federalism and by weak leadership.

This represents a weakened federalism and how Stephen Harper is suppose to rectify the situation with no seats in Quebec is ludicrous and this alone represents a dysfunctional political system.

The last I heard 53% of Quebecers are in favour of separation.

[fellowtraveller]

This type of political Liberal catering to Quebec essentially destroys federal authority and demonstrates weak leadership and has resulted in Western provinces seeking refuge among themselves, a result of lost federal confidence.

It's moved well beyond arguing about Quebec, the province is effectively lost to the rest of the country already. Thank you Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin.

Mr. Martin has demonstarted his complete willingness to do side deals with whomever will provide a political quid pro quo. This unfortunately is a genie that is very difficult indeed to get back in the bottle.

Any province, any time , any deal side deal- except Alberta who have nothing to offer the Liberals except a neverending fountain of cash. I suggest our 'federation' is in a perilous state, and it is getting worse.

The PMO -in the normal majority government - is effectively a dictatorship that controls every aspect of the country without significant input from MPs or anybody else.

Many of the apologists here are quite content with that . I'm not.

We are in dire need of leadership.

[tml12]

eureka

You said concerning Stephen Harper-"He simply has to decentralize an already too decentralized country. Then Quebec will have everthing it wants. It will also then wish it had not.'

That's the whole problem the liberals have created and encouraged regional federalism catering to Quebec encouraging other provinces to do the same. The Liberals are the cause of a politically weakened Canada by not properly enforcing the concept of federalism and by weak leadership.

This represents a weakened federalism and how Stephen Harper is suppose to rectify the situation with no seats in Quebec is ludicrous and this alone represents a dysfunctional political system.

The last I heard 53% of Quebecers are in favour of separation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have made an interesting point? Would a Harper government lack legitamacy in Quebec because his party doesn't have any seats here?

It seems to me (and I am not defending the Liberals) that the Bloc could use this as a way to say Quebec is not represented in Canada.