Rookie MPs and MP Amateurism in general

[nk86]

Hello everyone,

New to the forum so I thought I would start off a topic. I am a student at McGill and I have a really strong interest in Can. Politics. I stumbled onto this site and thought it would be a great place to discuss with other politically engaged people.

I have also recently started writing a column for a school publication and my latest article was about young MPs and how they have performed. Do check it out if you like.( http://thepoliticalbouillon.com/en/category/americas/national/the-backbencher/)

Anyway, I was wondering whateveryone thinks of these MPs and more broadly MP amateurism in general. I read the Samara report “Accidental Citizen” and I think having diversity in the House is absolutely brilliant. Though one cannot discount the fact that in can come at detriment to incompetence. What are everyone’s thoughts? How do we balance diversity in the HoC with competent individuals? Is there even a need?

[waldo]

a statement balancing diversity with competence might get you called out... it might be (incorrectly) interpreted to suggest the 'old boys' lawyer/political science path as one providing "more competent" candidates. Or that ethnic, cultural and gender diversity might have considerations toward competency - touchy!

clearly, the MP exit interview based Samara report shows the overall diversity of pre-MP career paths... a diversity of careers before parliament, extending well beyond a more traditional view of MPs being lawyers/poli-sci wonks.

your blog column didn't allow me an appreciation of the education route of the 4 newly minted NDP MPs (your described former McGillians). I do infer that they were all set-up to succeed by the NDP - perhaps as much out of forced circumstance given the 'Orange Wave' results in the last election. I'm inclined to believe that most anyone could be successful as an MP, given a proper supporting party infrastructure and personal dedication. I'll offer you another example, one more publicly prominent - that of Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Clearly, the scrutiny and criticism she received might have been enough to affect the success outcome for many newly elected MPs. It certainly looks like she has proved many wrong - those 'haters' who so wanted her to fail. In this case, she received significant NDP mentoring/assistance to help set her up for success... she appears a most dedicated individual. Again, a balance of party support measured against personal dedication.....

anyway, thanks for bringing notice to the Samara project undertaking, although one always wonders just how critical anyone is during an exit interview - so-called 'anonymous' doesn't mean as much anymore. Should we be surprised the government doesn't actually/regularly perform its own exit interviews with departing MPs? Improvement? What's that for?

[shortlived]

The commons has been given too much authority. The commons MPs should be representing their ridings. The senate MPs should be coming from a background of government administration, yet how many deputy ministers end up in the senate, or as ministers? Simply put a power vacuum has been supported in the commons which has led to greedy partisan control of government funds, resulting in a debtor state.

There are no MP mistakes other than a vote in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, parliament has just become an elite club that fails to craft law to make it accessible or to benefit the common citizen.

Unfortunately the public elects incompetent people, if being a amateur means not being a professional crook, we need more amateurs.

Edited March 5, 2013 by shortlived

[Moonbox]

The nature of our political system makes it so that the amateurish, ignorant and incompetent can actually be a desireable set of traits for an MP. If you look at the Conservatives, for example, the vast majority of them are muzzled, leashed and fed talking points. The votes are whipped and they do little but follow the party line. There are others who, if they have the proper knowledge, credentials and political acumen, are given significant responsibility and leeway with the press, but these are exceptions. Canadian Federal politics are all about the brand and about the head of the party. The rest is trivial. This isn't ideal, but it's reality.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau is a perfect example of the monkey parliamentarian. She was a paper candidate and didn't even speak French, yet she won a French riding for the NDP without even really running a campaign. Her success will depend largely on keeping her mouth shut and following instructions from the NDP brass.

[Paradox]

The House of Commons should be a place of youthful, passionate ideas; and it is in this way that "rookie" members should be encouraged. We need to bring in a constant rotation of new, energetic, and determined Canadians in the Lower House, as that is where Canada's national legislative agenda is driven. This does also, naturally, mean that we are not always going to have an ideal level of expertise in the House of Commons. Fortunately for us, the bicameral system of legislature established for us by the Fathers of Confederation addresses this shortcoming of the Lower House.

The Honourable the Senate is responsible for the review of legislation to catch mistakes, and to slow down the process to ensure professional, expert scrutiny, and committee research and studies. Given, the appointments process is currently less than ideal; my advice for the prime minister is to create a sort of senate appointments commission, to ensure an appropriate balance of professions, experts, and perspectives, so that this function can be performed adequately.

[Argus]

The chamber of "Sober Second Thought" would serve that function if it weren't mostly full of non-entities. I wouldn't mind the place so much if they only put people in there based on a lifetime of achievement and demonstrated wisdom and ability. A chamber full of highly educated, experienced people might well serve a purpose. That's not what we've got though, not what we've ever had, at least in my lifetime.

[PIK]

The nature of our political system makes it so that the amateurish, ignorant and incompetent can actually be a desireable set of traits for an MP. If you look at the Conservatives, for example, the vast majority of them are muzzled, leashed and fed talking points. The votes are whipped and they do little but follow the party line. There are others who, if they have the proper knowledge, credentials and political acumen, are given significant responsibility and leeway with the press, but these are exceptions. Canadian Federal politics are all about the brand and about the head of the party. The rest is trivial. This isn't ideal, but it's reality.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau is a perfect example of the monkey parliamentarian. She was a paper candidate and didn't even speak French, yet she won a French riding for the NDP without even really running a campaign. Her success will depend largely on keeping her mouth shut and following instructions from the NDP brass.

Better then the chretien days when he let his MP's say anything they wanted knowing he was not going to come thru on any of it.

[g_bambino]

The House of Commons should be a place of youthful, passionate ideas; and it is in this way that "rookie" members should be encouraged..

The problem, though, is institutional memory. The turnover in the House of Commons is so high that any new batch of MPs coming in has little knowledge of the parliamentary process or even our system of government and there's few veterans to educate them. One of the few things Preston Manning said that piqued my interest was his idea to establish a boot camp of sorts, a model parliament for newly elected MPs to run through, to teach them how it all works before they take their seat in the real House of Commons.

[RNG]

When I first started voting, more years ago than I like to think about, it seemed your MP was important. Through the years the power has been more and more centralized in the respective party leader's master's hands. Individual MP's are mere puppets voting as directed.

A sad tale.

Edited March 21, 2013 by RNG

[Moonbox]

It's the ignorance, apathy and stupidity of the general electorate. We on this board here are about 1000x more interested in politics than the average Canadian, and regardless of how much I disagree with various people's opinions here, I'd say I respect the opinions of most of them more than the average Canadian's. Most of them...

[g_bambino]

It's the ignorance, apathy and stupidity of the general electorate...

That certainly doesn't help.