Office of the Prime Minister

[Queenmandy85]

I have lived under a number of Canadian Prime Ministers. None of them have been popular. Some, like Prime Ministers Harper and Trudeau were actively disliked. Prime ministers Diefenbaker and Mulroney, inspite of having the largest majorities in history, were very unpopular. Mike Pearson lead the most scandal ridden government sice the Customs scandal of 1925-6.

Why do we have this position if nobody likes the incumbent? No matter who they recommend for the Governor Generalship, the Senate, the Supreme Court or an investigation into foreign interference in elections, accusations of partisanship and cronyism abound.

I propose that when the incumbent retires or, after the next federal election, a Prime Minister not be appointed. We appoint a ministry but no first minister. Myata would be pleased at the savings. MP's would be free to serve their constituants without the bother of toxic ambition to get into 24 Sussex. In fact, we could let that wreck go and not put any more money into it. Appointments to the Court and the Senate can be given to eminent persons regardless of political affiliations.

There is no Constitutional requirement to have a PM. No amendments are needed. The advantages are great. The disadvantages...I cannot think of any.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

A radical idea:  not having a bully telling fellow MP's how to vote.

It's true, there is no constitutional requirement for an PM.  The PM and their role is written nowhere in our constitution.  Much of our constitution is unwritten and followed by convention.

The thing is the PM serves as the executive, which means they make day-to-day decisions similar to a President, like military decisions that need to be made quickly and no time for a vote or debate.

In the US system the POTUS is not a member of the legislature, they don't get a vote in Congress, they serve as the executive.

[TreeBeard]

I think Canada needs the PM, but Parliament should actively curtail the powers wielded by the PMO.  

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The PM and their role is written nowhere in our constitution. 

You may want to read it again.  

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I have lived under a number of Canadian Prime Ministers. None of them have been popular. Some, like Prime Ministers Harper and Trudeau were actively disliked. Prime ministers Diefenbaker and Mulroney, inspite of having the largest majorities in history, were very unpopular. Mike Pearson lead the most scandal ridden government sice the Customs scandal of 1925-6.

Why do we have this position if nobody likes the incumbent? No matter who they recommend for the Governor Generalship, the Senate, the Supreme Court or an investigation into foreign interference in elections, accusations of partisanship and cronyism abound.

I propose that when the incumbent retires or, after the next federal election, a Prime Minister not be appointed. We appoint a ministry but no first minister. Myata would be pleased at the savings. MP's would be free to serve their constituants without the bother of toxic ambition to get into 24 Sussex. In fact, we could let that wreck go and not put any more money into it. Appointments to the Court and the Senate can be given to eminent persons regardless of political affiliations.

There is no Constitutional requirement to have a PM. No amendments are needed. The advantages are great. The disadvantages...I cannot think of any.

the role of Prime Minister in Canada is not to be popular

the role of the Prime Minister is to hold the Confederation together

despite the Confederation being in conflict with itself

thus why all Canadian Prime Ministers are unpopular

I will concede to having succumb to Trudeaumania as a boy

as he was larger than life and so formidable

Brian Mulroney one of greatest orators in Canadian history, the Great Statesman

Paul Martin was a Blue Liberal I could do business with

Stephen Harper was my favourite in the end, the one who most reflects my values

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A radical idea:  not having a bully telling fellow MP's how to vote.

It's true, there is no constitutional requirement for an PM.  The PM and their role is written nowhere in our constitution.  Much of our constitution is unwritten and followed by convention.

The thing is the PM serves as the executive, which means they make day-to-day decisions similar to a President, like military decisions that need to be made quickly and no time for a vote or debate.

In the US system the POTUS is not a member of the legislature, they don't get a vote in Congress, they serve as the executive.

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant.

 

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I think Canada needs the PM, but Parliament should actively curtail the powers wielded by the PMO

Why do we need a PM?  Nobody seems to like or respect whomever in in that role. It's existance tempts challengers to spent time fighting their way up the ladder rather an devoting their energies to doing what we elect them to do. For those who crave the extra prestige, there is still the cabinet positions, but their appointments will be based more on merit than partisan politics.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A radical idea:  not having a bully telling fellow MP's how to vote.

That is not the PMs job, nor what he actually does. That's the Party Whip.
The Party itself 'tells' the PM what to do. The PM's job is to do that as best they can.

You can get rid of the name, but the leader of the party that wins the most seats will still do the same job the same way so the idea is pointless. Still end up picking a cabinet, and relying on them for advice and direction.

If you don't believe that, look at other Parliamentary democracies like the UK and Australia where the Party in Parliament removed a PM several times. It just hasn't happened here yet.

[Queenmandy85]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

That is not the PMs job, nor what he actually does. That's the Party Whip.
The Party itself 'tells' the PM what to do. The PM's job is to do that as best they can.

You can get rid of the name, but the leader of the party that wins the most seats will still do the same job the same way so the idea is pointless. Still end up picking a cabinet, and relying on them for advice and direction.

If you don't believe that, look at other Parliamentary democracies like the UK and Australia where the Party in Parliament removed a PM several times. It just hasn't happened here yet.

First, that would depend on what leverage a party leader would have and whether they were appointed to cabinet. Would there be any point in having party leaders? MP's could spend more time serving their ridings and less time on politics.

They would have to demostrate merit to be in cabinet, not their position in Parliament. The composition of cabinet, besides merit, would still need to represent regions etc. but not necessarily party affiliation. The requirement that each minister would have to have the confidence of Parliament. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The Cabinet makes the day to day decisions. We already have the Governor General who would oversee the Cabinet deliberations and make those decisions that require urgent attention. The PM is redundant.

It is necessary to have one voice to set policy and direction.  the cabinets may make day to day decisions but that's all guided by a unified vision for the gov't (or should be). Its a little like saying why do we need a general when the majors do all the real work.

The PM also does the appointing and that would be hard to do for the public.

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

Why do we need a PM?  Nobody seems to like or respect whomever in in that role.

THe PM is like the coach of the canucks - he's hired to get fired some day   

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It's existance tempts challengers to spent time fighting their way up the ladder rather an devoting their energies to doing what we elect them to do. For those who crave the extra prestige, there is still the cabinet positions, but their appointments will be based more on merit than partisan politics.

It gets worse without a pm.  Without a pm and the party whip then mp's are focused on their own brand and exposure.  Nothing gets passed without it benefiting them, they'll look to grandstand and improve their own name, their fate is no longer tied ot the party.

You'd get what we see in the US house and senate but a little less orderly.

THe benefit of having one person in charge is that it keeps the others in line and there's one agreed upon vision and things get done.

Harper wasn't popular but he lead us through a dark fiscal time expertly, That wouldn't have happend without a leader.

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It is necessary to have one voice to set policy and direction.  the cabinets may make day to day decisions but that's all guided by a unified vision for the gov't (or should be).

You've never watched the speech from the throne? That is where the policy and direction of the Government is set.

[Queenmandy85]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It gets worse without a pm.  Without a pm and the party whip then mp's are focused on their own brand and exposure.  Nothing gets passed without it benefiting them, they'll look to grandstand and improve their own name, their fate is no longer tied ot the party.

That is a valid point. How should we address that?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You've never watched the speech from the throne? That is where the policy and direction of the Government is set.

It really isn't.

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is a valid point. How should we address that?

I"m honestly not sure - it would be a tough one to beat. It's honestly why i've always preferred a Westminster system vs a republic.

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

....The PM is redundant.

 

Why do we need a PM?  Nobody seems to like or respect whomever in in that role. It's existance tempts challengers to spent time fighting their way up the ladder rather an devoting their energies to doing what we elect them to do. ....

A leader, regardless of what you call them is never redundant. In our system, we, the public chooses the leader so someone must have liked them. The fact they are disliked after a few years is just a matter of some not getting what they want.

You  cannot have a "cabinet" making final decisions as it would be like the  old adage, "a camel is a horse designed by committee". We would have stables full of camels and nothing for them to do LOL.

Challengers (or oppositions), spend time fighting their way to the top rather than devoting their energies to do what  we elect them to do?  ...Why? Because they are not getting what they want. Not because they want something good for the country. We have a system that allows private members bills, they could be using that but b!tching at the opposition gets more air time..

And besides Queenmandy85, who would you have to blame if there was no leader LOL

Edited June 1, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Queenmandy85]

I am not advocating we have no leader. The position of Prime Minister is a recent innovation created  as a convenience. The issues that created the post have long since vanished. What can the PM do that a highly trained Governor General can't. 

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

You  cannot have a "cabinet" making final decisions

That is how our current system works. Cabinet makes decisions based on advice from the professional civil service and Parliament.

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Without a PM, everyone would compete with their own agendas and resort to unorthodox tactics to gain an advantage. Kind of like this forum. ? This would result in disorder, as everyone would vie for the front position. It is crucial to maintain a structure that allows for effective governance and leadership.

The house of Commons has been a place of disorder and chaos for centuries. If you remove the brass ring of PM, what front position would they have to fight for? Cabinet positions , but those are appointed positions and require people of merit to fill them. For example, if no one in the House of Commons is qualified to be Minister of Science and Technology, the position can be filled by a Senator, someone appointed to the Senate for that purpose.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am not advocating we have no leader. The position of Prime Minister is a recent innovation created  as a convenience. The issues that created the post have long since vanished. What can the PM do that a highly trained Governor General can't. 

That is how our current system works. Cabinet makes decisions based on advice from the professional civil service and Parliament.

A recent innovation? In Canada?  Please elaborate. There has been a PM in Canada since confederation and for many hundreds of years before in Great Britain

95% of decisions are already made by the laws, rules and regulations within government by the public service. Cabinet make decisions on implementing new laws, rules and, regulations. Cabinet introduces and tries to make policy.

Edited June 1, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Queenmandy85]

33 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

A recent innovation? In Canada?  Please elaborate. There has been a PM in Canada since confederation and for many hundreds of years before in Great Britain

95% of decisions are already made by the laws, rules and regulations within government by the public service. Cabinet make decisions on implementing new laws, rules and, regulations. Cabinet introduces and tries to make policy.

The concept of a Prime Minister is only 302 years old. Not very long in an historical sense.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The house of Commons has been a place of disorder and chaos for centuries. If you remove the brass ring of PM, what front position would they have to fight for? Cabinet positions , but those are appointed positions and require people of merit to fill them. For example, if no one in the House of Commons is qualified to be Minister of Science and Technology, the position can be filled by a Senator, someone appointed to the Senate for that purpose.

Appointed by whom?  You see where you're going to run into a problem.

So again what happens is instead of getting 3 or 4 people running to lead the country, you get 338 people trying to form power cliques and grandstanding to pressure whomever doles out the goodies to give the most to them.

There needs to be a head of the party if you're going to have a party system and without a party system you have utter chaos.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The concept of a Prime Minister is only 302 years old. Not very long in an historical sense.

Well, 302 years may not be much historically if you consider the big bang but, the Canadian big bang is as old as Canada itself so, it is historically significant.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The concept of a Prime Minister is only 302 years old. Not very long in an historical sense.

Still, i think you have to admit that after 302 years we may be past the 'trial' stage

And lets recall that democracy as we know it is still comparatively new. So of course things like having a president  or a prime minister (instead of a dictator such as rome or monarch) is going to be newer as well - but we still like democracy.

Any political system is going to be terrible.  THe old joke is that democracy is a horrible way to govern people with it's only redeeming quality being that it's better than all the other ways

 So the goal is to have something that is the least imperfect. In short - we want a system that makes everybody equally unhappy.

There are definitely tweaks we can do to our system to make it better. But having a confrontational party based system has been doing fairly well and that kind of model requires a leader to be in charge of the party. Whether that leader is elected seperately (like the us) or by the party itself (canada party leadership races).  

And we WANT people clawing for that top position. That's how you weed out the weaker candidates.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Appointed by whom?

In who's name are they appointed now? We have a Head of State, who is far more experienced, definitely more scientifically literate, and, just for Myata, does not receive a salary be our Head of State.

Parliament has two functions. It advises the government on the needs of their constituants and they vote taxes for the functioning of the government. For necessary logistical purposes, we have a Governor General to oversee the Government. I understand there are far more liberals and socialists on this forum who would rather we become Americans, but, as a life long Conservative, I prefer a closer alignment with our constitution. 

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And we WANT people clawing for that top position. That's how you weed out the weaker candidates.

You want a strong candidate?...like Putin or Mussolini? I prefer a leader who has some scientific education. At present we have a Prime Minister with a scientific background, but he is surrounded by a Parliament full of lawyers and merchants, who block any response to the crisis we are facing.

I am a typical voter. I graduated from high school with a 52% mark in physics, same in math and a 54% in chemistry, and that was on my second attempt at all three. So, when I somehow managed to get into university where I got a degree in Military History and Strategic Studies. I came away with an understanding of Canada's Defence Scheme #1 frome 1920 to 1930, and a sketchy knowledge of the 16 ways to spike a 18th century cannon. With that vast body of valuable education, they let me vote. That is an insane system of government.

                                               REALITY CHECK

What I do like about our current system is politics is our national sport and Canadians are really good at it. We have had some outstanding Prime Ministers, unmatched by any British or American leader. Fortunately, it doesn't matter who becomes Prime Minister. They usually follow the advice of the professional civil servants who have been doing the job for many years and know when to warn about unintended consequences and how to manage issues a Minister may be unfamiliar with but the Public Servant has seen many times before. When a (Prime) Minister fails to listen to advice, they don't last very long.

When I was 14, I took part in my first campaign, working on Jim MacFarlane's campaign in 1962. I didn't do much, but I was hooked I decided to become Prime Minister. It was my destiny to be Prime Minister from 1962 until 1983, when it was clear I was totally unsuited and living in a fantasy. Now, if I can't be PM, nobody should. ??

The entire nation should say of prayer of thanks that I switched to pottery. At least, when I'm in the studio, I can't do any harm.

[Moonbox]

This is a silly topic.  We should get rid of the Prime Minister’s position because he tends to end up unpopular?  
 

The job isn’t to be loved everywhere.  It’s to govern.  

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In who's name are they appointed now? We have a Head of State, who is far more experienced, definitely more scientifically literate, and, just for Myata, does not receive a salary be our Head of State.

It doesn't matter in who's name it's done - it matters who does it.  And it's not the head of state.  I doubt the king could even name a minister in Canada.

And if you're seriously proposing we go back to being a monarchy, i think that's been tried before and abandoned.

 

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Parliament has two functions. It advises the government on the needs of their constituants and they vote taxes for the functioning of the government

I think you forgot it also passes laws.

It also determines the functioning of the gov't  that will require taxes.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You want a strong candidate?...like Putin or Mussolini? I prefer a leader who has some scientific education?

If that's what the people want then that's who'll claw their way to the top. remember - the people vote on the leaders of the party AND THEN vote on which party has power and even how much power.

But i do want the strongest candidates to put themselves forward.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 

I am a typical voter. I graduated from high school with a 52% mark in physics, same in math and a 54% in chemistry, and that was on my second attempt at all three. So, when I somehow managed to get into university where I got a degree in Military History and Strategic Studies. I came away with an understanding of Canada's Defence Scheme #1 frome 1920 to 1930, and a sketchy knowledge of the 16 ways to spike a 18th century cannon. With that vast body of valuable education, they let me vote. That is an insane system of government.

Yes - it is insane. But it's better than all the others.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

                                             Fortunately, it doesn't matter who becomes Prime Minister. They usually follow the advice of the professional civil servants who have been doing the job for many years and know when to warn about unintended consequences and how to manage issues a Minister may be unfamiliar with but the Public Servant has seen many times before. When a (Prime) Minister fails to listen to advice, they don't last very long.

I think you've been watching a little too much "yes minister"   

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

When I was 14, I took part in my first campaign, working on Jim MacFarlane's campaign in 1962. I didn't do much, but I was hooked I decided to become Prime Minister. It was my destiny to be Prime Minister from 1962 until 1983, when it was clear I was totally unsuited and living in a fantasy. Now, if I can't be PM, nobody should. ??

Sounds like you're one lab accident away from being a super villain    LOLOL 

Joking aside it's a simple fact that only the people who want it badly will succeed and that's true no matter what system you use.

18 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The entire nation should say of prayer of thanks that I switched to pottery.

Coincidentally number 17 on my list of 'sentences i never thought i'd hear"

But what your'e saying is that you are unsuitable to that particular job and the system weeded you out.  See? It works!

Edited June 1, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

This is a silly topic.  We should get rid of the Prime Minister’s position because he tends to end up unpopular?  
 

Arguably historically it's the popular ones you have to watch out for.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

This is a silly topic.  We should get rid of the Prime Minister’s position because he tends to end up unpopular?  
 

The job isn’t to be loved everywhere.  It’s to govern.  

Queenmandy85 seems to think that a "committee" can do the job.

He seems to think that a PM is a new invention.

Fact is, Prime Minister may be a newish moniker but there has always been a leader in every type of human society, even in animal society. That leader was either voted in by the tribe or they won the position in a battle.

The premise of doing away with the PM is just being naive, there will always be a leader, no matter what you want to call them..

Edited June 1, 2023 by ExFlyer