Milliken on the Power of Party Leaders

[Evening Star]

I think Peter Milliken made some very good points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/14/peter-milliken-parliament.html

If our MPs really are our local representatives, it makes some sense to give them some more autonomy. My understanding is that even British MPs are less 'whipped' than ours?

[g_bambino]

I think Peter Milliken made some very good points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/14/peter-milliken-parliament.html

If our MPs really are our local representatives, it makes some sense to give them some more autonomy. My understanding is that even British MPs are less 'whipped' than ours?

I heard him speaking on these matters on a CBC podcast yesterday. I was pleased; it's well past time some consideration was given to the diminishment of parliament in our system of governance, and a good start would be taking a long, hard look at the way MPs are silenced by threats from the party leader. Members of the British parliament are indeed less whipped than their Canadian counterparts; this is because, in the UK, the party leader is chosen by, and therefore accountable to, the caucus, unlike in Canada, where the leader is elected once at a party convention and then rules with an iron fist because there's so little threat to his position. We used to here do it the British way, and it's time we went back to doing it that way again, I believe.

[c/e]

Edited May 17, 2011 by g_bambino

[Molly]

Sorry to come off as a knee-jerk partisan yet again, but to agree with Milliken's observations (and I do) is to call the lie to the common Tory obfuscation about authourship and policy through labelling some initiatives as privately-held opinions.

In this parliament, if a leader doesn't want an issue to come forward- questions, opinions, --private emebers bills-- then it doesn't.

Thus, if Rob Bruinooge is publicly yapping an anti-choice line, it is the policy of the leader/party- just like Hoeppners (private member) anti-gun registry bill is--- and both of those, just like the hang-'em-high plans and other stuff that the party actually claims right out loud.

It can't be disavowed with a wink.

[Molly]

....But anything that breaks the party/leader stranglehold is well worth trying. (Anything that might strengthen it to be avoided at all cost.)

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Our system is based on MP representation of geographical areas/populations.

Our MP's are not allowed to actually represent us, they are kept silent by the party leaders on topics their constituents feel are important because they might be controversial to the rest of the country.

This is the abomination of a democracy that we live in.

[Machjo]

Sorry to come off as a knee-jerk partisan yet again, but to agree with Milliken's observations (and I do) is to call the lie to the common Tory obfuscation about authourship and policy through labelling some initiatives as privately-held opinions.

In this parliament, if a leader doesn't want an issue to come forward- questions, opinions, --private emebers bills-- then it doesn't.

Thus, if Rob Bruinooge is publicly yapping an anti-choice line, it is the policy of the leader/party- just like Hoeppners (private member) anti-gun registry bill is--- and both of those, just like the hang-'em-high plans and other stuff that the party actually claims right out loud.

It can't be disavowed with a wink.

So you're OK with Calgary centre having well over a hundred MPs looking out for its interests whie well over a hundred constituencies have no oivce in Parliament?

No one voted for Harper other than his local constituents. How can you now pretend that he has the legitimacy to silence an MP whose job it is to look out for the interests of his constituents?

[Tilter]

So you're OK with Calgary centre having well over a hundred MPs looking out for its interests whie well over a hundred constituencies have no oivce in Parliament?

No one voted for Harper other than his local constituents. How can you now pretend that he has the legitimacy to silence an MP whose job it is to look out for the interests of his constituents?

It's the way the Canadian parliamentary system is set up and by the way, I don't know who anyone else voted for but in voting for the local CPC candidate I voted for Harper---- because he is the leader of the CPC party. There is far too much bullshit about "muzzling" and "dictatorial" and "authoritarian leadership" in a critique of Harper's leadership. It was the way a lot of premiers & PMs have run their mandate and the idea of having 166 leaders in a party may sound like a good idea but the government would last about a week before parliament was dissolved because of riot. If you feel that the "everyone is a leader" is best you should move to a country where fist fights rule the legislative assemblies, We've all seen the fights on TV & pretty well know how those sessions turn out.

Or--- maybe we need another firm figure like Dion meditating all decisions as the country silently falls to pieces.

[Keepitsimple]

It's the way the Canadian parliamentary system is set up and by the way, I don't know who anyone else voted for but in voting for the local CPC candidate I voted for Harper---- because he is the leader of the CPC party. There is far too much bullshit about "muzzling" and "dictatorial" and "authoritarian leadership" in a critique of Harper's leadership. It was the way a lot of premiers & PMs have run their mandate and the idea of having 166 leaders in a party may sound like a good idea but the government would last about a week before parliament was dissolved because of riot. If you feel that the "everyone is a leader" is best you should move to a country where fist fights rule the legislative assemblies, We've all seen the fights on TV & pretty well know how those sessions turn out.

Or--- maybe we need another firm figure like Dion meditating all decisions as the country silently falls to pieces.

Well said......we get very vocal partisans on this site that espouse their views that our electoral system should be trashed or reformed - mostly because THEIR party didn't win. But really, our system has served us well......there is no country I would rather be a citizen of....although I like the weather in Barbados. When we're feeling good, we elect majorities and get a few things done. When we're unsure, we elect minorities and tred cautiously. When we're fed up, we throw the bums out. It works.

[g_bambino]

It was the way a lot of premiers & PMs have run their mandate and the idea of having 166 leaders in a party may sound like a good idea but the government would last about a week before parliament was dissolved because of riot.

This isn't a matter of whether or not Harper is worse than any other party leader. It's about the way all party leaders are allowed to act because there's not much consequence to their actions. Speaking as though the only other alternative is a party with a hundred or more leaders is being absurd; if a party leader being elected by the caucus means multiple tens of leaders, then doesn't it follow that a party leader being elected by the party membership means multiple thousands of leaders? It works just fine in the UK, where the leader is chosen by caucus, and even the prime minister has to listen to and heed his MPs, lest they decide to see him gone. The prime minister is to be accountable to the entire House of Commons, not just to three men in seats across the aisle.

[sp]

Edited May 17, 2011 by g_bambino

[Topaz]

The problem is some voters who are too busy with their lives or don't really care about politics, vote for the local guy/gal for various reasons and NOT thinking of the leader. That being said, I think now more Canadians are going to be watching Ottawa more closely and see what happens with the Tories and the NDP. Also, when you have a leader that says, NO MORE THAN FIVE QUESTIONS, what is that? Times are changing and the leaders of these party better change with them. It time for the voters to have more say in Parliament through their MP and NOT through their leader, Right now, Harper's riding has more say than over Harper than another riding in Canada, they can get whatever they want, while the rest has to follow the leader.

[PIK]

I have to laugh at the ''it is always better some where else'' well sorry people it is not , we have the best and I wish people would quit this we have to change to be more like ...whoever. I don't want to be whoever ,things are fine the way it is.

[g_bambino]

things are fine the way it is.

You're happy with the PMO gradually vacuuming up more power as the decades go by?

[Evening Star]

This isn't a matter of whether or not Harper is worse than any other party leader. It's about the way all party leaders are allowed to act because there's not much consequence to their actions. Speaking as though the only other alternative is a party with a hundred or more leaders is being absurd; if a party leader being elected by the caucus means multiple tens of leaders, then doesn't it follow that a party leader being elected by the party membership means multiple thousands of leaders? It works just fine in the UK, where the leader is chosen by caucus, and even the prime minister has to listen to and heed his MPs, lest they decide to see him gone. The prime minister is to be accountable to the entire House of Commons, not just to three men in seats across the aisle.

[sp]

There is basically no whipping of individual reps in the US. I'm not even saying we should go nearly that far but it certainly seems reasonable to give MPs some more autonomy since they actually are who the voters voted for.

[Dave_ON]

Well said......we get very vocal partisans on this site that espouse their views that our electoral system should be trashed or reformed - mostly because THEIR party didn't win. But really, our system has served us well......there is no country I would rather be a citizen of....although I like the weather in Barbados. When we're feeling good, we elect majorities and get a few things done. When we're unsure, we elect minorities and tred cautiously. When we're fed up, we throw the bums out. It works.

Well there's an easy solution to the weather problem, allow the Turks and Caicos to join Confederation. Sadly the attempt failed the first time but I say we give it another try. That way we can still live in Canada, and have our warm weather too! They're already a British territory. The only downside is that pesky constitutional amendment...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/turksandcaicos/

But to the thread at hand. I would tend to agree that our system is not at all the problem, merely the way party's work. I think that there does need to be a great deal more accountability of the party leader to their caucus. People tend to forget our system was around long before party's were developed. Parties are useful voting block tools, but if the leader gains too much power, we sap the power from our individual representatives. Our system is far from broken, I just think the current incarnation could use a little tweaking as far as parties go. How precisely to achieve this is a whole other matter.

[jacee]

I believe the whipping power of the leader is due to the local candidates needing his signature on their nomination papers. Chretien used it and Layton likely would too. I agree the leaders have too much power and undermine the accountability of local MP's to their constituents. I guess the answer is to change the nomination rules.

[RNG]

I believe the whipping power of the leader is due to the local candidates needing his signature on their nomination papers. Chretien used it and Layton likely would too. I agree the leaders have too much power and undermine the accountability of local MP's to their constituents. I guess the answer is to change the nomination rules.

There is still the threat of kicking a rebellious back-bencer, hell even a front-bencher out of caucus. There go your research funds and on and on. So the leader still would carry a big stick, even under this scenario.

[noahbody]

In this parliament, if a leader doesn't want an issue to come forward- questions, opinions, --private emebers bills-- then it doesn't.

Thus, if Rob Bruinooge is publicly yapping an anti-choice line, it is the policy of the leader/party- just like Hoeppners (private member) anti-gun registry bill is--- and both of those, just like the hang-'em-high plans and other stuff that the party actually claims right out loud.

Because you underline is, does that make your unsupported opinion fact? Scrapping the gun registry is party policy because it was voted upon. Anti-choice has nothing to with the Conservative Party. The last member to bring forward a private members bill on abortion was a Liberal. By your reasoning, the Liberal Party is anti-choice.

The agenda of every political party is to be elected/reelected. Every party has a few wing nuts on the fringe. If Harper runs a tight ship, it's perfectly understandable. He did lose an election because the media attributed the personal views of Randy White to the party before they could have a policy convention due to the snap election call.

Edited May 17, 2011 by noahbody

[jacee]

There is still the threat of kicking a rebellious back-bencer, hell even a front-bencher out of caucus. There go your research funds and on and on. So the leader still would carry a big stick, even under this scenario.

And the constituents have no say? Something wrong there.

When Chretien refused to sign Sheila Copps' papers, the constituents elected an NDP member. Leaders need to be somewhat careful about ticking off the voters.

[RNG]

And the constituents have no say? Something wrong there.

When Chretien refused to sign Sheila Copps' papers, the constituents elected an NDP member. Leaders need to be somewhat careful about ticking off the voters.

Sure, four years down the road or whatever. Very few voters have that long a memory. Remember, politics junkies like those of us who populate these forums are, unfortunately the minority.

I am really surprised that Obama did Osama now. I would have thought he would wait till about a month before the next presidential election to do it. Way more bang for his buck that way. Now, by then the average voter will be way more interested in handicapping American idol entrants.

[August1991]

Thsi thread is just wishful thinking.

I was pleased; it's well past time some consideration was given to the diminishment of parliament in our system of governance, and a good start would be taking a long, hard look at the way MPs are silenced by threats from the party leader.

That sounds wonderful in theory but it makes no sense in practice. Most (if not all) MPs are elected because of party affiliation and the strength the party's leader. In Canada, it's ll coattails, as the Americans say.

I'll give you one example. In 2006 and 2008, André Arthur was elected as an independent MP in a riding just outside Quebec City. In both elections, and in 2011, the Conservatives did not run a candidate against him. During the 2011 campaign, Harper even stopped in Arthur's riding to urge voters to elect him again.

Arthur voted in teh House with the Conservatives on most issues but said that he preferred to sit independently. He didn't want to be constrained by party membership, and he didn't want Harper to carry any embarrassment for shooting his mouth off.

Well, Arthur lost in teh past election to an unknown NDP candidate elected solely because of Jack! and party affiliation.

In this parliament, if a leader doesn't want an issue to come forward- questions, opinions, --private emebers bills-- then it doesn't.

On the contrary, Harper has tolerated people such as Arthur.

[August1991]

This isn't a matter of whether or not Harper is worse than any other party leader. It's about the way all party leaders are allowed to act because there's not much consequence to their actions.

I agree. By and large, Canadians do not vote for MPs. They vote for parties/leaders. This past election is surely ample evidence of this truism.

Why do Canadian voters do this? I suspect that they wisely realize that spending time getting to know a local candidate is pointless. Instead, most voters glance quickly at parties and leaders and vote accordingly.

When you're driving late at night on a holiday along an unknown highway and looking for a hotel to sleep in, are you going to stop at several and check whether the price/conditions are right? Or are you simply going to pick a known chain and trust that its standards are maintained?

The problem is some voters who are too busy with their lives or don't really care about politics, vote for the local guy/gal for various reasons and NOT thinking of the leader.

Topaz, you have that backwards.

There is basically no whipping of individual reps in the US.

Well, Holiday Inn and Red Roof Inn whip their franchises into line. And our federal parties do the same for a similar reason.

But ES, I know it's not the topic of this thread but I'm willing to argue that Americans take a deeper interest in their democracy than we in Canada do in ours. IOW, there's a longer coattail in Canada than there is in the US.

Edited May 18, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

But ES, I know it's not the topic of this thread but I'm willing to argue that Americans take a deeper interest in their democracy than we in Canada do in ours. IOW, there's a longer coattail in Canada than there is in the US.

Willing to argue it are you? Please do so. Personally, I don't see it. For one, their election voter turnouts are consistently lower than ours.

[August1991]

Willing to argue it are you? Please do so. Personally, I don't see it. For one, their election voter turnouts are consistently lower than ours.

Election turnout? That's a bureaucratic measure, like compliance on a survey response rate. Bonam, you don't live in the real world.

When Canadians drive in the US (or even in Canada), we benefit from US drivers who ensure that chain hotels maintain their reputation.

Make no mistake. We Canadians are free riders.

Edited May 18, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

Election turnout? That's a bureaucratic measure, like compliance on a survey response rate. Bonam, you don't live in the real world.

It's the first and most obvious measure of the degree to which a population is involved in making the democratic choices that are made available to them. Of course, there are many other factors, but they are harder to measure and quantify.

When Canadians drive in the US (or even in Canada), we benefit from US drivers who ensure that chain hotels maintain their reputation.

And this has what to do with the extent to which Americans are involved in their democracy and how this compares with Canadian democracy?

Anyway, your point may well be right, I don't oppose it or anything. However, I don't think the population of either Canada or the US is all that involved, in general, I kind of see both as pretty apathetic of politics these days. But you made the strong claim that Americans take a greater interest in their democracy than Canadians do, and I'd like to see you back up that claim. Feel free to do so.

[August1991]

But you made the strong claim that Americans take a greater interest in their democracy than Canadians do, and I'd like to see you back up that claim. Feel free to do so.

IMHO, ordinary Americans understand that if they get it wrong, that`s it. Their society fails.

We Canadians have the feeling that someone superior will protect us from our mistakes.

----

In simple terms, we Canadians have a colonized mentality.

Edited May 18, 2011 by August1991