394
Speaker Johnson abandons floor agenda, sends members home early amid GOP rebellion (lite.cnn.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Speaker Mike Johnson has once again lost a battle against hardline conservatives for control of his own House floor — and he has no clear way out.

A small group of GOP hardliners, led by firebrand Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, effectively seized the floor from Johnson this week, refusing to allow him to move on their own party’s priorities until Republican leaders come up with a plan to pass President Donald Trump’s federal elections overhaul bill.

By Tuesday afternoon, Johnson was forced into one of the most humiliating possible positions for a House speaker: He conceded he could not regain control of the chamber and instructed members to leave Washington early. It’s the second straight week that GOP leaders have had to scrap their plans, this time losing out on nearly an entire week’s agenda.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 4 months ago (17 children)

Like in a bowling alley, when the ball doesn't trip the sensor and the pins don't reset...canada has that for government?

I want one!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (11 children)

    It's called a "confidence vote". It's not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, but if budgets and big things don't get passed parliament has no confidence in the government and an election happens. The two states of governance are A: a majority government where the ruling party has enough votes to pass anything they like. And B: a minority government that would have to make concessions and entice the other parties to vote with them. Minority governments are better IMO because they theoretically represent more people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Iirc, it's when the governing party proposes a bill and it fails to pass, it triggers a vote of confidence, and if that vote goes against them, then there's an election. Or the governing party can ask the governer general (represents the king... Yeah, I know) to call an election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    It’s called a “confidence vote”. It’s not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, b

    Generally, budgets and throne speeches are considered automatic confidence votes. Other than that, the House can either propose a non-confidence vote or the Government can designate a vote to be a confidence vote. Generally, the games of chicken over confidence votes happen a lot in minority governments.

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch02-4-e.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    One thing I've never understood: y'all declare you have no confidence in the government but you have enough confidence to trust it to run a fair election?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Elections are held by Elections Canada, not the governing parties. There are constitutional laws that must be followed for elections, such as spending, how long campaigns last for, how/where voting stations are covered, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    The Constitution Act, 1982 doesn't lay out how elections or electoral finances or voting or campaigns, etc are to be handled. The Constitution only says that elections have to happen every 5 years (s.4 of the Charter and s. 50) and anyone who can vote can be a MP/MPP/MLA (s.3 of the Charter), the conditions to suspend elections (s.4(2) of the Charter), and how many and how ridings are created for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia(s. 40), and electoral officers (s.83) for Ontario and Quebec. The ridings and the electoral officers are subject to federal or provincial law.

    Section 51(1) does lay how to readjust the ridings.

    On a fun fact about the Constitution. Many people think it takes 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population to change the Constitution. Certain sections can be changed with a simple vote in the House and/or Provincial Legislature to change.

    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

    How elections are run is decided by either the Elections Act at the Federal level or a Province's version of the Elections Act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    It's not the citizens having no confidence in the government, it's the other members of parliament. If the government cannot get a majority of MPs to support their bill, they have lost the confidence of parliament, which will trigger and election (or technically could have the GG assign government to another party who DOES have the confidence of parliament, though to my knowledge that has never happened, but it is a tool in their toolbox).

    Our federal elections are run by Elections Canada, which reports to parliament as a whole, not to the Government of Canada. It is a non-partisan agency. We have a similar setup in the provinces with each having their own provincial election agency. I am unsure how it is handled in the territories.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    It's a vote on something that the government must pass to keep control, such as a budget; if they don't get the votes, then it's "no confidence in this government" therefore now the GG calls the rest of the leaders in to try to form another government. If that fails, then the GG forces an election. Elections are entirely separate from governance and changing the rules is very difficult so it doesn't get fucked up easily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    We have rules too, but the despot in chargge tramples on the rules, and his toadies in Congress and on the Supreme Court let him. He already had Musk and his DOGE goons get rid of most of the career government workers who normally carry out the rules. Elections are supposed to be run by the various states, and that's given us hope for changing control of Congress at the midterms in November, but he is trying to wrest control of the whole election process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Pretty much. If the current party in power is not able to gain sufficient support for confidence motions (there are a number of things that qualify as a confidence motion, the budget being a big one) Then the Governor General (the official representative of the King / Queen) can offer control to another party if they ARE able to gather that support, or simply call an election.

    Technically the (currently King) is our head of state, but for most functions our Prime Minister fills that role. The current government losing confidence of parliament is one of the functions where the King still holds de facto power in addition to de jure power.

    Note that while they are titles held by the same person, the titles of King of Canada and King of the United Kingdom are legally distinct, and while referring to his role in Canadian governance, it is appropriate to refer to Charles III as King of Canada specifically, and inappropriate to use his other titles in that context. Mostly because the King of the United Kingdom has no role in our government, but the King of Canada does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Hereditary monarchy is silly (derogatory)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I think most Canadians would agree. We just don't care about it enough to try to change it because if something came up where we actually needed to force the issue we could fairly easily, and it has it's own benefits in being closer allies with other Commonwealth countries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    canada chucks another ball down the lane?

    (is joke i know you press the button and wait for the employee to walk down the gutters and kick the pin resetter and then run away because kicking pin resetters has killed a lot of people but it's how you get them to work)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent