Mitch Heimpel: Normalize leadership spills
Our democracy functions better when caucuses hold their own leaders to account.
By: Mitch Heimpel
On Sunday, word leaked that Ontario Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie had received a thoroughly underwhelming support number in her leadership review. Crombie had failed to defeat incumbent Doug Ford in the election last February; the party did gain seats from its previous paltry sum of eight, but remained way back in third place. It was Crombie’s first kick at the can, and it was obviously a disappointment for Ontario’s Liberals.
Observers had been speculating for months that Crombie faced long odds at the party’s AGM in Toronto this month. Crombie’s final support from Ontario Liberal party members was a tepid 57 per cent. The balance of 43 per cent had voted in favour of a new leader.
After the vote on her fate last weekend, caucus, we were told, was pulled into an emergency meeting, presumably to be briefed about the number and what Crombie's next steps would be. Stories vary about what actually transpired in that meeting, and who said what, but the Toronto Star said that caucus revolted and showed Crombie the door. I don’t know what happened, but this much is a matter of record: Crombie said she’d stay on, but then cancelled a press conference and announced via a statement a few hours later that she’d be stepping down as soon as a successor leader could be chosen.
That was a predictable outcome. But there’s a fascinating wrinkle here that isn’t getting the attention it should: On Monday, the day after Crombie said she’d quit, the Ontario Liberal caucus rushed out a statement denying that they had staged a revolt against their erstwhile now-former leader.
They didn't need to release that statement. And even if they were telling the truth, they shouldn’t have. Caucus revolts are good. We need more of them.
That’s not a position you hear a lot of people in political life take, at least not openly. Leadership spills can be divisive affairs. I say this as a guy who worked closely with Erin O’Toole; I had just left for the private sector a few weeks earlier when he was spilled by his caucus. It wasn’t fun to watch. But I stand by my take. Revolts and spills are healthy in moderation and we need more of them — or at least the plausible danger of them — to keep our political system functioning as it was designed.
Politics is always going to be a blood sport, and healthy political systems recognize that and build systems around it. Leadership rivalries and caucus dynamics are just a part of political life. There are always people whose current political fortunes are tied to an incumbent leader and others who would benefit from throwing that leader out. It can go too far; it has before. Ceaseless internecine warfare is part of what caused major problems in the U.K. Conservative Party at the end of their tenure in government. Canada’s federal Liberals have some lingering trauma from their own experience with this over 20 years ago now.
But that’s not what happened here. Crombie got an underwhelming number in her review. That’s not on the caucus. It is generally accepted practice in Canadian politics that the Joe Clark precedent governs leadership reviews. A leader has to get roughly two-thirds of the vote to have a chance to stay on. Leaders who find themselves in the 50s, like Ralph Klein in 2006 or Jason Kenney in 2022, tend to do the right thing and resign. And so did Crombie.
Which makes the statement by the Ontario Liberal caucus so puzzling. They didn't turf her, Liberal party members did. They didn't need to explain themselves.
But even if they did pressure Crombie, so what?
It is parliamentary convention that caucus gets to determine when a leader's tenure ought to come to an end. The fact that we have superimposed American-style primary politics onto our leadership selection process just complicates the obvious. A leader without caucus support never survives long anyway. But, other than the federal Conservatives, who have adopted the Reform Act — which creates a process by which a leadership spill can take place — no other caucus has really formalized the rules around how the leadership of their party can be changed without a death or resignation.
And our political leaders prefer it that way. Right now, party leaders have all the power. They have the power to determine where an MP sits in the House, where their office is, whether they can continue to sit in caucus, whether they will have that party's nomination in their riding at the next election and, in some parties, even when they speak in the House and what they speak to. Ask anyone who’s knocked on doors during elections — the voting public understands this reality. They all know that whatever name may be on their ballot, the leaders are calling all the shots. They vote accordingly.
This is good for leaders. But it’s bad for basically literally everyone else, including the voters and the public writ large. Elected members can start rebalancing the scales on that by normalizing leadership spills. Members can add importance to their own election. They can make their local race matter more. They can be better voices for their own constituents.
They can also do the voters a huge service by actually stress-testing their leaders. Our system runs on confidence. Not just in the government, but in the ability of leaders to command the various elements of their own party, including their caucus. The ability of the opposition to form a competent, coherent and professional alternative to the government is essential to how parliamentary democracy functions. Proposing coherent new policy while managing a restive opposition caucus is the best real-world training for a future would-be PM or premier. Voters should have a chance to see how well, or not, an opposition leader functions.
If the caucus doesn't think a leader can do it, they're the best-placed people to say so. They have the obligation to govern themselves accordingly, and all the power they need to ensure that they are heard.
I don't know whether the Ontario Liberal caucus revolted on Bonnie Crombie. But if they did, they shouldn't have backed away from it. They should have owned it, proudly. Because we need more of this in our politics. A lot more.
Mitch Heimpel is a former senior advisor to federal and Ontario Conservative politicians.
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. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter. Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com.
I've come to have a lot more respect for the importance of caucus support after a number of leadership races with frontrunners who lacked that support. Members of caucus know these people better than we do: they've worked with them, they've seen how they really are rather than the curated image projected to the public.
Maxime Bernier talked a good line when he ran for the Conservative leadership, but notably had no support from caucus. When he subsequently went off the rails with his People's Party of Canada, suddenly it became obvious why that was. Allison Redford won the Alberta PC leadership and the premiership without that caucus support. In office, she was a trainwreck who helped end the PC's long dominance of Alberta politics. Looking further afield, there's the example of Jeremy Corbyn's disastrous time at the helm of the UK's Labour Party. Beloved by a critical number of party members with little accountability; despised and eventually deposed by a caucus that knew him and worked with him.
On the other hand, an unruly caucus can be an insuperable challenge for any leader. The populist faction in the Alberta Conservatives took down Jason Kenney and look to be calling the shots for Danielle Smith irrespective of the mismatch between their goals and the majority of the public (or even the party.)
I’ve always wondered why Canadian political parties don’t hold riding association primaries like (elbows down-deodorant on?) our neighbo(u?)rs to the south. The present system with the major party leaders approving nominations of candidates ( or even appointing these outright à la Doug Ford in his last election) smacks of elitism, cronyism, at times nepotism, sycophantism, etc what have you. Plus you have parachuting of candidates even when you have riding nominations which is not exactly endearing to local constituents. And if pension qualifications are involved (eg a candidate needs to be nominated and win a second term to get his pension), this certainly gives the leader financial power over the potential candidate. IMHO a primary system gives the candidate much more credibility with his constituents and encourages representing their view as opposed to that of unelected backroom elites.
I realize this will result in extra expense but the boost in the credibility of MPs is well worth it IMHO. Frankly the current system smacks more of the Soviet Union communist party IMHO.