The idea of a Republican or Democratic Secretary of State ensuring a “fair and free” election blows my mind.
No it doesn’t. Canada has a robust, nonpartisan public service, and Elections Canada is part of that. We hire people based on their merits, not their politics, and we actually hold them to ethical standards.
I’ve worked for several prime ministers from both the Liberal and Conservative parties, and they’ve had very little effect on my day to day job.
I first heard of it when the Secretary of State for Florida in 2000, responsible for overseeing the election and certifying the final result, just happened to be the co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida.
It gets worse. The current Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, was elected in the 2018 state election, which was run by Secretary of State Brian Kemp.
Lack of confirmation hearings, I would expect, would be even worse? On this side of the border, we’ve had some absolutely horrid nominees get rejected on the basis of what came up in confirmation hearings.
But who’s the “we” who’s doing the hiring? Someone makes the hiring decisions, and that someone has a boss, and that boss has a boss, until you get to the top boss, and that top boss pretty much has to be a politician of some sort. Now, maybe you have a tradition that those political top bosses don’t interfere in the process, but we’re finding out down here just what happens when folks decide to ignore traditions like that. I mean, the US postal service used to be “non-partisan”, too.
+1, plus a metric shedload more.
There is a fundamental difference in attitude between American and Commonwealth anglophone nations as to what these jobs look like. In Commonwealth countries, the civil service is more like ideals behind the American Executive Branch: they make sure the work happens, but they do not decide policy, except insofar as to carry out the directives issued by the government. It’s fundamental that they’re apolitical. When there’s an election on, people in such jobs are not allowed to say anything in public that might be construed as political.
As far as my experience goes, there is nothing like this in the US. It’s a background cultural difference, but I think it’s huge. It’s probably better explained by someone who DID grow up in a Commonwealth country.
This is the point I was making a week or two ago, about the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Speaker is non-partisan snd neutral, even though they are elected to the House in the general election on a party nomination.
Once they’re elected Speaker, they must be non-partisan and neutral. That’s their job.
A while ago, one of our Supreme Court judges retired and gave an exit interview to a media outlet. He was asked if the judges are political and if that affected their decisions. His reply was that he did not know how any of his colleagues voted. Partisan politics was not discussed.
That’s one area where you may have one up on us:
But the question we’ve been seeing so much here lately: But what if they don’t? And ultimately, there really isn’t any way to avoid that question.
Both under conservative governments at about the same time.
Story is paywalled, but from what I can tell your point is that an oil company was fined for foreign bribes, the same crime SNC Lavalin was accused of, and that the fine occurred during the Harper administration?
Not sure what that has to do with Alberta’s government being in bed with the oil patch. For the record, our provincial government is too, it’s not just an Alberta thing.
Because we don’t swap out a huge number of top civil servants every time we change governments. We change the cabinent, but all the deputy ministers stay on. The minister doesn’t have the power to fire a DM on a whim the way they do in the US. Civil service protections actually have some force in Canada.
The previous article had 5 free views. Griffiths Energy facing corruption charge | CBC News
Sorry missed them moving goalposts about CPC to the UCP. Thought we were talking about Federal politics here. In any case, neither party ran to the rescue of these oil companies.
Nip the agitation at the bud. Don’t nominate the ultra-partisans to the role. Don’t give the role partisan authority. Because you’ll enjoy a period of political bliss when it’s your guy on the bench and experience a whole world of pain when it’s theirs. And the standing of the institution is worse for it.
Australian Federal Speakers are not as non-partisan as with the UK (or Canada?). They still caucus with their party, which is in government. They stand opposed at each election. But they are neutral and expected to be even handed in a fairly confrontational environment.
Some Speakers are better than others. The best are senior and well-established parliamentarians. Have seen political office on either side of the Treasury benches. Have standing and respect. Have no aspiration for further and higher political office. Revere the institution and the historical importance of the role.
This would “gang aft agley” if the Speaker considered their role was potentially a stepping stone to higher office, is the leader of the majority party, controls the day-to-day order of business and political strategy, and is even formally second on the order of presidential succession.
Honestly, it was an absolute squeaker (a 4 vote difference)
We’re number 2! We’re number 2!
In this month’s Wikipedia traffic report (most-viewed articles), the Canadian election came in second for the week of April 27-May 3, behind the movie Sinners. (On can possibly draw conclusions from that juxtaposition.)
But wait, there’s more! Mark Carney came in fifth!
Both beat out the Australian election, which came in 10th. Sucks to you, Aussie-land!
What percentage of Wikifolk are Canadian?
My understanding is that the traffic report is people who search the topic, anywhere in the world, not limited to people who edit Wikipedia.
Well Carney caves at the first sign of pushback as expected.
Digital services tax scrapped
So, while I thought ‘Con Carney’ was a fitting name given the nature of how he was elected, now I have to rethink that name for something else:
Cave-in Carney? Too obvious.
Capitulation Carney? Not snappy enough.
How about Flip Flop Carney, or Floppy Elbows Carney? Yeah, that seems about right.
But I’m sure others with better wit than I have can come up with better.
Canada will always stand up to its principles, and I’m certain that Mark Carney will continue to be in the lead to support that. The problem here is that this new tax was idiotic to begin with and should never have been enacted.
Trump, as usual, overreacted and got his shorts in a knot over a fairly minor detail in the larger scheme of things. According to a Canadian journalist reporting for Al Jazeera, this decision "shows Trump that Canada can be pushed around”. The journalist’s name was Paris Marx. I don’t know if they’re related to Karl, but I wouldn’t be surprised. 