Report: Ex-MPs blame parties for Hill dysfunction

[Moonlight Graham]

Story from today's Ottawa Citizen:

It's widely accepted that Parliament is a fractious, dysfunctional forum that alienates millions of Canadians from politics. The question is, why has it descended to this distressing state?

A report to be released today provides a startling answer. According to 65 former parliamentarians interviewed by Samara, an organization that studies citizen engagement with Canada's democracy, political parties themselves are to blame.

To the former MPs, "it is often the way political parties manage themselves, their members and their work that really drives the contemporary dysfunction facing Canadian politics," the report says.

...

"Time after time the MPs articulated how decisions from their parties' leadership were often viewed as opaque, arbitrary and even unprofessional, and how their parties' demands often ran counter to the MPs' desires to practice politics in a constructive way," the report says.

The other major area of agreement was that MPs' "real work" is done away from the public spotlight. The former politicians "insisted they did their best work -collaborating across parties, debating and advancing policy, and bringing local issues to the national stage -in the less publicized venue of committees and the private space of caucus."

I VERY much recommend reading the entire article.

This is a very important issue i believe. I don't think it's so "shocking" that the parties and their leadership are blamed for the dysfunction in Parliament, i think anyone with a clue knows this is how our system functions.

With MP's being so controlled by their party leadership, and MP's saying that their "real work" occurs mostly behind the closed doors of private caucus meetings where MP's cannot be held accountable by the public, there is a severe dysfunction & deficit in our democracy. Personally, i would never run to be an MP because i would despise being told how to vote and not be able to represent my constituents, nor would i put up with not being able to express my views freely to the public/media if it went against my party...unless i wanted to get severely punished and/or booted from the party.

This needs to be an election issue, and the way our system functions needs to change.

[cybercoma]

I've been saying this for years.

[Molly]

As have I. The parties are the problem. Every single thing we do that further empowers them weakens our nation, undermines democratic principles, and diminishes our own rights.

[WWWTT]

At every election there has always bein a solution to political parties but does anyone here try?

Its called voting independant!

Every ballot that I remember seeing provincialy or federaly has had at least one there.

Have you ever thought of puting your mark beside that name?

Ultimately it is up to the independant candidate to be very vocal in their riding to effectively communicate

And it is also the responsibility of the voter to seek out and listen to all candidates and weigh wich would be best at serving them at parliament.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

As have I. The parties are the problem. Every single thing we do that further empowers them weakens our nation, undermines democratic principles, and diminishes our own rights.

Its always "someone else is the problem"

Maybe the problem is you not doing anything to find an effective soloution.

WWWTT

[Scotty]

As have I. The parties are the problem. Every single thing we do that further empowers them weakens our nation, undermines democratic principles, and diminishes our own rights.

That may well be but there's no way the parties are going to do anything to diminish their own power.

[cybercoma]

As have I. The parties are the problem. Every single thing we do that further empowers them weakens our nation, undermines democratic principles, and diminishes our own rights.

I think that's true, so long as we have a first-past-the-post system. As the powers increase in power and obviously take away the autonomy of individual representatives, we ought to sit down and have a serious discussion about proportional representation. Voters can then vote for the party whose policies they most support, at the expense of local representation. My suggested solution to that is Senate reform with an equal number of representatives from each region (Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada) and the territories/First Nations. This could work with a FPTP system and serve to balance regional interests with the proportionally represented party interests in the House. It's a ton of things to change and a Constitutional nightmare, so it will never happen.

The other route is what was suggested in the article. More people need to get involved in political parties and change the thinking so regional representation becomes paramount again. Unfortunately, when a party like that faces another party that whips its members, they'll lose every time.

[Molly]

I think that's true, so long as we have a first-past-the-post system. As the powers increase in power and obviously take away the autonomy of individual representatives, we ought to sit down and have a serious discussion about proportional representation. Voters can then vote for the party whose policies they most support, at the expense of local representation. My suggested solution to that is Senate reform with an equal number of representatives from each region (Western Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada) and the territories/First Nations. This could work with a FPTP system and serve to balance regional interests with the proportionally represented party interests in the House. It's a ton of things to change and a Constitutional nightmare, so it will never happen.

The other route is what was suggested in the article. More people need to get involved in political parties and change the thinking so regional representation becomes paramount again. Unfortunately, when a party like that faces another party that whips its members, they'll lose every time.

Ga-ack! We can hardly expect to strip parties of their power by giving them even greater standing!!!!

Let's start by removing party affiliations from ballots. It's a small and simple act that will force attention onto local candidates and away from national campaigns, just a bit. Every bit counts.

Then we can refuse to provide one red cent of refund for 'national' election expenses. If it can't be clearly shown to be a local expense, then it's just money gone, because no MP runs nationally....

[ToadBrother]

That may well be but there's no way the parties are going to do anything to diminish their own power.

Technically speaking there's nothing the parties could do if the majority of MPs in each caucus said "f--- you". Sure the leadership could toss them out of the caucus, and the riding associations and party apparatchik could wail on about it, but at the end of the day, political parties have at best a nebulous constitutional existence, and that's at best. Yes, the parties would probably work hard to get them reigned in, but our system doesn't technically count parties for votes on legislation, motions, etc.

The MPs could solve the problems at any moment but publicly refusing to do what they were told by the leaders and whips. It's happened in Britain, most recently with Gordon Brown's government when enough Labour MPs stood up over tax changes and basically told Brown that if he forced them to pass the bill as it stood, they'd revolt. What was Brown going to do? Expel enough MPs to bring his government down right there and then?

The MPs have only themselves to blame. The constitution affords political parties absolute no power at all. There is no mention of political parties in the BNA Act or the Constitution Act, 1982. The only thing in those acts is Members of Parliament, and if MPs don't like the power the parties have, then all they have to do is tell their leaders and whips to take a flying leap off the nearest cliff. They could do immediately after May 2 and give themselves four or five years to fix it the way they want, and then put the changes to the voters at the next election.

In other words, MPs can cry me a goddamned river. They let this happen, but they have the absolute power to fix it any damned time they pleased and tell the parties to stuff it, and there wouldn't be a damned thing the parties could do but snivel to the press for the term of Parliament.

[Molly]

Its always "someone else is the problem"

Maybe the problem is you not doing anything to find an effective soloution.

WWWTT

Maybe you should find out what I may or may not have done about finding solutions before you chastize me for doing nothing.

[Molly]

In other words, MPs can cry me a goddamned river. They let this happen, but they have the absolute power to fix it any damned time they pleased and tell the parties to stuff it, and there wouldn't be a damned thing the parties could do but snivel to the press for the term of Parliament.

And voters choose the MPs, and continue to back them when they set aside constituency interests and even national interests in favor of the interests of the party.

Voters, too, could fix it any damn time they pleased, but they do not.

[Moonlight Graham]

And voters choose the MPs, and continue to back them when they set aside constituency interests and even national interests in favor of the interests of the party.

Voters, too, could fix it any damn time they pleased, but they do not.

What voters need to do is to vote for MP's who are not afraid to buck the party line and risk career advancement in favour of representing their constituents more.

For better or worse, political parties are a needed reality of Canada's parliamentary system. Our system has "responsible government", meaning the government must retain the confidence of MP's in the House of Commons. If MP's were always free to vote any way they pleased on confidence votes, we would be having elections at an alarming rate. This would obviously be unwanted by voters, would tarnish Canada in the international context since our governments would be seen as unstable, and MP's just wouldn't put up with it because more elections means their jobs would be on the line far more often. Party discipline is important on votes of confidence, but the problem is that this discipline continues on almost all votes.

Canada needs more free votes in the House, and dissent must be tolerated far better within parties and their leadership. I find it frankly quite disturbing when one person aka the PM can wield the tremendous power that he does. Currently he has great power over legislation and how his MP's vote, he can call elections just about whenever he wants (through the GG), has great control over foreign policy & affairs, and appoints our Senators and judges. Jesus!

Here's an interesting article by C.E.S. Franks on the pros and cons of more free votes in the House of Commons.

[ToadBrother]

For better or worse, political parties are a needed reality of Canada's parliamentary system. Our system has "responsible government", meaning the government must retain the confidence of MP's in the House of Commons. If MP's were always free to vote any way they pleased on confidence votes, we would be having elections at an alarming rate. This would obviously be unwanted by voters, would tarnish Canada in the international context since our governments would be seen as unstable, and MP's just wouldn't put up with it because more elections means their jobs would be on the line far more often. Party discipline is important on votes of confidence, but the problem is that this discipline continues on almost all votes.

I think this is a bit of a red herring. Elections weren't all that common in the 18th century, before the evolution of modern political parties. At the end of the day, MPs would not want to be facing the electorate with the kind of destabilizing frequency you refer to. What it meant in those days is that Governments had to work damned hard to get sufficient votes for any bill.

Besides, I'm not advocating the end of political parties. Even if you did outlaw them, someone would only find a way to recreate them. But we can certainly weaken them. But, as I said, at the end of the day, the constitution makes no mention of parties, and if a caucus is unhappy about what the leader is doing, all they have to say is "If you try to force us to vote that way, we will revolt, we will pick a new leader in the house and you can damned well sit at the back of this room on your hands."

[Moonlight Graham]

But, as I said, at the end of the day, the constitution makes no mention of parties, and if a caucus is unhappy about what the leader is doing, all they have to say is "If you try to force us to vote that way, we will revolt, we will pick a new leader in the house and you can damned well sit at the back of this room on your hands."

Yes, pretty much. We need some MP's with some balls. The constitution makes no mention of a lot of things, including the PM, for better or worse.

[WWWTT]

Maybe you should find out what I may or may not have done about finding solutions before you chastize me for doing nothing.

Ok now,the way our parliamentary system works the lower house would have to pass legislation to ban political parties or to make any changes to how they can behave etc,etc.It would then have to pass in the appointed upper house(where every member has some kind of affiliation to some party or other).

So knowing this do you believe that any attempt of changing the partys role has any chance?

Don't get me wrong molly I agree with you that partys have become poisonous to both houses of parliament and has held back the politicall evolution of our country.

But the only solution is to vote for members that are independant

This subject should have its own thread and when time permits I'll start one

WWWTT

[Molly]

Ok now,the way our parliamentary system works the lower house would have to pass legislation to ban political parties or to make any changes to how they can behave etc,etc.It would then have to pass in the appointed upper house(where every member has some kind of affiliation to some party or other).

So knowing this do you believe that any attempt of changing the partys role has any chance?

Don't get me wrong molly I agree with you that partys have become poisonous to both houses of parliament and has held back the politicall evolution of our country.

But the only solution is to vote for members that are independant

This subject should have its own thread and when time permits I'll start one

WWWTT

Of course attempts to change the role can be successful, but automatically voting independent (in effect, treating 'independent' as a preferred party) is as dumb as voting any other party line, right or wrong. Independents can be as dopey and useless and crooked as any partisan toad. Parties were created because they can be an effective tool. So long as they serve, instead of attempting to rule, they are still extremely useful.

Voting for the best candidate- refusing to vote for a doofus or a crook or an incompetent, regardless of affiliation- holding that representative fully accountable by rewarding good conduct and punishing bad ones... those things make the party affiliation less essential to (re-)election.

If we elect wankers, crooks and fools based on their loyalty to their party, then we will be governed by wankers, crooks and fools who act on their party's interests and not ours. If we elect the best and brightest, then we will be governed/served by the best and brightest.

Makes me want to chew on rocks and spit sand to hear our prime minister babbling that his party was elected and should have the run of the place. In this nation, no party is elected. Ever.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Molly

[cybercoma]

Ga-ack! We can hardly expect to strip parties of their power by giving them even greater standing!!!!

Let's start by removing party affiliations from ballots. It's a small and simple act that will force attention onto local candidates and away from national campaigns, just a bit. Every bit counts.

Then we can refuse to provide one red cent of refund for 'national' election expenses. If it can't be clearly shown to be a local expense, then it's just money gone, because no MP runs nationally....

Interesting idea, but then everyone would simply be a wild-card in the house and you couldn't possibly know what to expect of them.

I don't believe the party affiliation is inherently bad in itself, which is why I propose proportional representation in the House. People vote for the platform/party that most aligns with their interests. In order to ensure that no region benefits unfairly, the upper house would be made up of equal representation from each region to balance or redraft bills that they deem unfair.

The problem I see is the combination of party affiliation and the first-past-the-post system. Where a representative is supposed to be the spokesperson for his/her riding, but isn't in this case. I say, let's just accept that MPs do not represent any particular region, divide the seats by proportional representation based on Canadians' beliefs as a whole, and leave the regional representation to Senators.

[WWWTT]

Of course attempts to change the role can be successful, but automatically voting independent (in effect, treating 'independent' as a preferred party) is as dumb as voting any other party line, right or wrong. Independents can be as dopey and useless and crooked as any partisan toad. Parties were created because they can be an effective tool. So long as they serve, instead of attempting to rule, they are still extremely useful.

Voting for the best candidate- refusing to vote for a doofus or a crook or an incompetent, regardless of affiliation- holding that representative fully accountable by rewarding good conduct and punishing bad ones... those things make the party affiliation less essential to (re-)election.

If we elect wankers, crooks and fools based on their loyalty to their party, then we will be governed by wankers, crooks and fools who act on their party's interests and not ours. If we elect the best and brightest, then we will be governed/served by the best and brightest.

Makes me want to chew on rocks and spit sand to hear our prime minister babbling that his party was elected and should have the run of the place. In this nation, no party is elected. Ever.

I do not believe you are even thouroughly thinking this through.

If there are no partys in parliament then essentially all MPs are independant.

If you can not recognize this then I sincerely believe you are not the person that can ever find a solution

Our political landscape would be very different without partys.

Our judicial system as is already reflects a non partisan landscape,however Canadian courts cannot create laws or create budgets and direct spending.But they do give a good insight into the direction our parliament may take if it was to adopt a non partisan face.

WWWTT

[Handsome Rob]

I'm curious as to what would happen/what would prevent them from trying, a secret ballot when voting in the house?

Leave the parties as status quo, but if you can't prove whom voted for what, you can't be whipped. MP's can be free to vote with there conscience.

Seemingly not that radical of an idea, surely there must be a clear reason it hasn't been tried?

[Smallc]

Seemingly not that radical of an idea, surely there must be a clear reason it hasn't been tried?

Because people wouldn't know what their MP was doing.