Mitch Heimpel: How to mount (or defeat) a Canadian caucus revolt
Canada has relatively little experience with leader purges. But that seems to be changing.
Note from The Line editors: we are, in theory, taking this weekend off, but our friend Mitch filed this, and given the news developments of the last day or so, we figured it was best to get this out ASAP. Enjoy your long weekend!
By: Mitch Heimpel
Caucus revolts have gotten more common in Canadian politics of late.
They've always been commonplace in Westminster politics. In recent years, they've dethroned three prime ministers in the U.K. They're almost as common as general elections for removing prime ministers in Australia. They're a sign of a healthy parliamentary system ... sort of. Our system runs on confidence. Prime ministers are supposed to be responsive to pressure from the backbench.
Canada has been something of an exception to this, and not always to our national benefit. Though less so lately. We’ve seen sitting governments in revolt (Jason Kenney in Alberta, 2022) We’ve also seen opposition leaders taken out by frustrated caucus (Erin O’Toole federally in 2022, Patrick Brown as Ontario Progressive Conservative leader, 2018.) The Chrétien-Martin feud was more of a civil war than a revolt.
Still, despite the examples above, these events remain relatively rare in Canada, compared to many of our Westminster peers, because of how centralized power has become in leaders’ offices (especially in the PMO). Our normal, as described in Jeffrey Simpson's The Friendly Dictatorship, is how our system evolved, not how it was meant to be.
Now, since there are signs (see here and here and here) that at least some Liberals are musing about taking a shot at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it's perhaps a good time to set some ground rules for caucus revolts. This is what we've learned not just from recent Canadian experience, but also from what our British and Australian cousins have learned over the years.
1. The pace of events dictates the outcome of events.
Caucus revolts are not usually drawn-out affairs. Frustrations may build up over months or even years, but active strategizing and tactics to remove the leader is measured in hours, days and sometimes weeks. Margaret Thatcher was gone in two weeks. Patrick Brown was thrown out overnight. Whoever adapts the best to a situation that evolves hour-to-hour often prevails. That can be the leader’s office. But, more often, adrenaline and momentum favours the revolutionaries.
2. These are fights to the death.
In our system, party leaders have so much ability to dictate who carries the party banner in elections, and who sits in caucus, that few backbenchers take the decision to revolt against the boss lightly. Most know that if they fail, they've committed the ultimate career-limiting move and will probably be finished in politics. Leader’s offices are especially bad at foreseeing and adapting to the seriousness of the challenge they're facing. By the time they realize the boss is in danger, it's often too late.
3. It’s not always just bitching.
Every caucus has gripers. All of them. You can't overreact to bitching. As a result, a lot of leader’s offices don't take bitching very seriously, especially when it comes from the same people who always complain. But it's important to think about the gripers like kindling. They're not dangerous on their own, but if the right spark hits them, they can help the fire get big fast. Leader’s offices are notoriously bad at knowing when the complaining becomes conspiring.
4. The Bandwagoners decide the outcome.
In any caucus revolt, the biggest group is not the people against the leader and it's not the people who are defending the leader. It's the people who just don't want to be on the wrong side. Politicians are risk-averse people by nature. Their instinct is always to vote with the leader ... right up until the minute they think the leader is toast. In 2018, Malcolm Turnbull barely survived the first challenge to his job as Australian prime minister, when his caucus was forced to pick between him and former minister Peter Dutton. When the next question was put three days later, Turnbull lost eight votes on a motion to vacate his leadership and have a contest with multiple candidates. Dutton was again defeated, this time on the second ballot, by eventual prime minister Scott Morrison.
5. Know if secrecy is your friend.
Sometimes operating in the back rooms helps a caucus revolt. Sometimes it's doing everything in public. Much depends on the political strengths of the leader you're trying to topple, and the strength of your party membership. A strong membership tends to chafe at the idea of caucus taking decisions away from them. A weak membership is more indifferent. A party leader who is a strong communicator benefits from a fight out in the open. A poor communicator tends to benefit more from one-on-one interactions with caucus. Thatcher was toppled by one-on-one meetings with her cabinet. Kenney was brought down by an organized effort that took their case to the party members. Former Manitoba NDP premier Greg Selinger defeated a public effort by five of his cabinet ministers. Patrick Brown was beaten both behind closed doors, and in the media by his caucus.
All caucus revolts eventually become public, and they eventually play out in the media. This is all about planning; don't make things public before you're ready. When things erupt into public also controls when the media and party members go from being spectators to constituencies. Public fights move faster, involve more parties, and are harder to control (see: Rule 1) Remember your Sun-Tzu. Wars are moral contests, won and lost in the temple before they are ever fought.
6. What is the ultimate weapon?
Leaders sometimes need to bring down the hammer, and similarly, mutineers sometimes need to force a final fight. John Major got sick of "the bastards" who hounded him over Europe and called a leadership election on himself to challenge them to "put up or shut up." In 2016, 172 Labour MPs forced a vote of no-confidence on Jeremy Corbyn, and took his leadership to the party members only a year after his initial selection.
Opposition leaders have fewer options than prime ministers. Prime ministers facing internal pressure can call elections to force the party into line. Sometimes it works, as it did for Tony Blair in 2005, when he faced a caucus restless over the Iraq War, and a finance minister in Gordon Brown itching to take the reins of government. Sometimes it has mixed results, like it did for Theresa May. And sometimes, as currently seems to be the case for Rishi Sunak, it backfires.
Forcing elections, calling leaderships before the other side is ready, kicking people out of caucus or withdrawing nominations are all big weapons in a leader's arsenal. The threat of using whatever the ultimate weapon is can be effective in forcing caucus into line or pushing the leader out in some kind of negotiated surrender. But it's a Chekhov's gun. Don't make that threat in Act 1, unless you're prepared to use it.
7. One thing never causes a caucus revolt.
Caucus revolts aren't caused by a single incident. They become open conflicts because of a single event. But at their root is years of deteriorating personal relationships, ancient grudges, caucus cliques and neglected ambitions. Anyone who thinks they can't advance under the current leader is a target for caucus rebels. Anyone who hasn't had face time with the boss for months, or years, is a prime target for caucus rebels. Anyone who was on the wrong side of the last leadership, or has friends in caucus who are sympathetic to caucus rebels, is a target for caucus rebels. House leaders, whips and caucus chairs can only do so much. If the boss doesn't value their relationships, resentment builds up over years.
By the time Thatcher was taken down by her caucus, one of their biggest complaints was that she hadn't been seen in the caucus tea rooms in years.
8. Only the leader is indispensable
A leadership revolt is about the leader. It's not about the chief of staff and it's not about the finance minister. The caucus members leading the revolt don't want the leader to be the leader anymore. There are people (see: Rule 4) who may not be eager to topple the leader, but still agree that some kind of change is necessary. That’s where sacrificial lambs come into play. Chiefs of staff, campaign managers and ministers all have to be dispensable. Because if anyone other than the leader is indispensable, then the leader is dispensable.
If things are going so badly that the caucus wants to revolt, you probably do need to make changes. Showing you're listening, demonstrating accountability at the senior levels and demonstrating change can take the wind out of a caucus revolt before it gets out of hand.
The above are general rules — exceptions can obviously apply. And as noted at the beginning, Canada doesn’t have much experience with these situations. That’s why Australia and the U.K. are so instructive. But things do seem to be changing in Canada, and certainly, things seem to be changing in the Liberal caucus. The above rules are offered free of charge to mutineers and loyalists alike. Good luck!
Mitch Heimpel has served Conservative cabinet ministers and party leaders at the provincial and federal levels, and is currently the director of campaigns and government relations at Enterprise Canada.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
The Liberal MPs are obsequious to a ridiculous (delusional) degree. To think that these ppl who had the wherewithal to get elected & all that that entailed, makes me wonder how they allowed themselves to end up as fearful trained dogs; how they’ve willingly chose to remain in this servile situation. The mindset baffles me.
Resume: Sat as Liberal MP for 8 years. Never participated in anything of consequence, voted as whipped to do so, followed obediently when scandal after scandal showed that the leadership was beyond corrupt, gratefully accepted crumbs of attention & was ignored by anyone of consequence. So, yes, I’d make a valuable addition to your company.
Maybe change that 8 year gap as a stay at home parent.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks. I doubt the liberal mps have a big enough backbone to revolt. They didn’t after so many of the controversies that Trudeau was directly linked to and have supported him even when his decisions have posed a risk to Canada. So I’d be surprised if they actually do revolt now. Either way - maybe the one possible positive would be a new election.
Actually - now I wonder if there was a revolt that led to the early election in 2021? There were definitely some not great stories that Trudeau was involved with at the time.