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.)
In Maxime's case it was a matter of dairy farmers telling MPs that they would throw money at other candidates (in both nominations and general elections) if they supported Maxime Bernier.
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.
Talk to a lot of American political commentators, and they'll tell you that primary elections have been a catastrophe in terms of exacerbating America's political polarization. The people who vote in primaries are the most partisan and most engaged (read as "ornery") in the entire electorate. They tend to push more extreme candidates, often to the detriment of electability in the general election. In "safe" districts, primaries tend to result in even more extremism because the winner of the primary is all but certain to win the general election. The best way to win the primary is win those extremely partisan primary voters.
The American political parties used to have a lot more power to temper the partisan extremism of primary voters with approval of candidates or their control over campaign funding. That evaporated due to the primary election system pushed in the early '70s, and the McCain-Feingold election finance law in 2002 that basically stripped the parties of their control over fundraising. Now, several US states have been playing with concepts like "jungle primaries" to try and temper that increasing polarization and the disconnect between the minority primary voters and the majority general electorate.
With very few exceptions IMO American political commentators tend to be associated with mass media of either side of the political spectrum. As an active member of a mainstream political party in AZ I can attest that the primary process includes a huge retail effort to collect signatures supporting candidates of all views and extensive open discussions and questions of these putative candidates however extreme they might be considered - especially by their opponents. The process takes place every two years and to say that party members only cater to extremists is misleading. Not to mention the massive advertising that takes place. If I had to guess I would say that the commentators referring to extremism dominating politics are Democratic Party supporters.
In the case of safe districts, and the member of congress is ably representing his constituents, primaries will not normally take place because no challengers will arise and the opposing party will not offer a candidate.
It depends on one’s view of the ideal political process. If one likes blandness, no surprises and to paraphrase Ian Fleming, no disturbing of “the dimity world of one lump or two” and suppression of any views outside a generally accepted median determined by unelected elites, then Canada is indeed Nirvana. If you want free no holds barred debate guaranteed by the supreme law of the land (1st Amendment) then the Primary process while not perfect comes close to the ideal IMO
You're from the state that nominated Kari Lake. Twice. And Blake Masters. Both of them darlings of the Republican primary electorate who were beaten by Democrats in a state that went for Trump by 5 points. In other states, let's talk about the freakshow oddities that are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. In solid Democratic districts, you've got progressive extremists Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar.
While I would have preferred Sheriff Lamb to Kari Lake as a candidate in the primaries I have no problem supporting the results because they were arrived at openly. And Blake Masters was defeated in the 2024 primaries. FWIW. Arizona since its inception has a history of supporting both parties at the same time. And so what if some politicians are viewed as extreme by those who prefer the mushy middle? Why are people (no offense meant) so afraid of positions that don’t fit their world view that they feel they have to demonize the person? I have been conned enough times that when I find too many people agree with me it’s time to reexamine my beliefs.
And the beauty of the US electoral process is that no President holds office forever. So you can plan for the future. Look at the 10 year Trudeau occupation of the seat of power as a contrast.
At the Ontario Liberal AGM last weekend I ran for the Presidency against Kathryn McGarry, and I lost by 776 votes versus 148.
I agree with the central thesis of this article, but something that I argued in my campaign is that leadership reviews are broken processes. There is something puzzling about the fact that the anti-incumbency vote of roughly 40% was about the same for Bonnie and for the Executive Council elections, yet Bonnie feels pressured to resign and the rest of the establishment remains virtually unchanged. We expect Leaders to subject themselves to a veto by a minority of members (in this case a minority of delegates, themselves a minority of the party), to perversely compensate for the transparent lack of competition in leadership reviews.
Obviously leadership reviews should be replaced with leadership contests that automatically re-occur within a specific time window.
Bonnie lost, much like Pierre, an election that was hers to lose. That should cost a leader their job. That caucus issued a statement tells you what a trainwreck they really are. But she lost. Sometimes the buck stops on the right person's desk.
Bonnie's personal circumstance is not comparable to Poilievre's. Poilievre inherited the leadership of a party with strong institutional foundations and he squandered a 20-point lead by alienating leftist voters into uniting behind the Liberals. Bonnie inherited the leadership of an institutionally weak and stagnant party both well behind in the polls - there was almost nothing she could have done to win on the first try (other than being more aware of the insufferable grovelling establishment within the OLP, which few members are cognizant of).
Poilievre lost an election by being hated by the electorate, Bonnie lost by being forgotten by the electorate. But there is similar self-delusion within the grassroots of both the Ontario Liberals and the federal Conservatives about the need for internal change, and I say that as a member of the former!
Carney did win well but not won by a landslide. The Conservatives’ results here were nothing like the Liberals were when they were down to a very few seats and then were revived by Trudeau who ended up being reviled by the electorate after nearly 10 disastrous years.
Very fair. Bonnie failed to convey a message of any kind, and considering the answers to questions mirroring the NDP, I would still suggest that those two parties merge. Vote splitting is why Ontario is being gutted to benefit Doug's donors.
In a current context, a string of newly elected but long in the tooth Liberal MPs are getting the "future endeavours" treatment, punted out of Ottawa where they can fade to black in relative obscurity on the public dime.
While this is a Liberal Party rejuvenation process that should be applauded, the Prime Minister has 100% say in what happens next. Carney will control the timing of resignations, when the by elections will take place and early indications are that there will not be an open nomination process. Reports that Carney is looking to the private sector for star recruits will nullify ambitions of local Liberal faithful who have put in the sweat equity to keep the Liberal brand the dominant player in the action.
The opportunity to be in the inner circle of government will be very attractive to some business people who have skills that are badly needed at this time, but the fast track to power makes them beholden to Carney and the PMO and that can lead to the same GroupThink problems of the previous administration.
"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. " - and the confidence of voters that the elected officials are actually working for the populace - not their own ideological fever dreams. Every. Single. Party. fails hard at this.
Only way to get leadership happening is to lead, follow or get out of the way. Everything runs through the PMO as the PMO is the government and everyone outside of the PMO including your own back benchers does what they tell them.
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.)
To add to that list, Christie Clark had no caucus support when she ran for BC Liberal leader. She was a disaster.
In Maxime's case it was a matter of dairy farmers telling MPs that they would throw money at other candidates (in both nominations and general elections) if they supported Maxime Bernier.
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.
Talk to a lot of American political commentators, and they'll tell you that primary elections have been a catastrophe in terms of exacerbating America's political polarization. The people who vote in primaries are the most partisan and most engaged (read as "ornery") in the entire electorate. They tend to push more extreme candidates, often to the detriment of electability in the general election. In "safe" districts, primaries tend to result in even more extremism because the winner of the primary is all but certain to win the general election. The best way to win the primary is win those extremely partisan primary voters.
The American political parties used to have a lot more power to temper the partisan extremism of primary voters with approval of candidates or their control over campaign funding. That evaporated due to the primary election system pushed in the early '70s, and the McCain-Feingold election finance law in 2002 that basically stripped the parties of their control over fundraising. Now, several US states have been playing with concepts like "jungle primaries" to try and temper that increasing polarization and the disconnect between the minority primary voters and the majority general electorate.
With very few exceptions IMO American political commentators tend to be associated with mass media of either side of the political spectrum. As an active member of a mainstream political party in AZ I can attest that the primary process includes a huge retail effort to collect signatures supporting candidates of all views and extensive open discussions and questions of these putative candidates however extreme they might be considered - especially by their opponents. The process takes place every two years and to say that party members only cater to extremists is misleading. Not to mention the massive advertising that takes place. If I had to guess I would say that the commentators referring to extremism dominating politics are Democratic Party supporters.
In the case of safe districts, and the member of congress is ably representing his constituents, primaries will not normally take place because no challengers will arise and the opposing party will not offer a candidate.
It depends on one’s view of the ideal political process. If one likes blandness, no surprises and to paraphrase Ian Fleming, no disturbing of “the dimity world of one lump or two” and suppression of any views outside a generally accepted median determined by unelected elites, then Canada is indeed Nirvana. If you want free no holds barred debate guaranteed by the supreme law of the land (1st Amendment) then the Primary process while not perfect comes close to the ideal IMO
You're from the state that nominated Kari Lake. Twice. And Blake Masters. Both of them darlings of the Republican primary electorate who were beaten by Democrats in a state that went for Trump by 5 points. In other states, let's talk about the freakshow oddities that are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. In solid Democratic districts, you've got progressive extremists Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ilhan Omar.
While I would have preferred Sheriff Lamb to Kari Lake as a candidate in the primaries I have no problem supporting the results because they were arrived at openly. And Blake Masters was defeated in the 2024 primaries. FWIW. Arizona since its inception has a history of supporting both parties at the same time. And so what if some politicians are viewed as extreme by those who prefer the mushy middle? Why are people (no offense meant) so afraid of positions that don’t fit their world view that they feel they have to demonize the person? I have been conned enough times that when I find too many people agree with me it’s time to reexamine my beliefs.
And the beauty of the US electoral process is that no President holds office forever. So you can plan for the future. Look at the 10 year Trudeau occupation of the seat of power as a contrast.
Somewhere Andrew Coyne is smiling...
At the Ontario Liberal AGM last weekend I ran for the Presidency against Kathryn McGarry, and I lost by 776 votes versus 148.
I agree with the central thesis of this article, but something that I argued in my campaign is that leadership reviews are broken processes. There is something puzzling about the fact that the anti-incumbency vote of roughly 40% was about the same for Bonnie and for the Executive Council elections, yet Bonnie feels pressured to resign and the rest of the establishment remains virtually unchanged. We expect Leaders to subject themselves to a veto by a minority of members (in this case a minority of delegates, themselves a minority of the party), to perversely compensate for the transparent lack of competition in leadership reviews.
Obviously leadership reviews should be replaced with leadership contests that automatically re-occur within a specific time window.
Bonnie lost, much like Pierre, an election that was hers to lose. That should cost a leader their job. That caucus issued a statement tells you what a trainwreck they really are. But she lost. Sometimes the buck stops on the right person's desk.
Bonnie's personal circumstance is not comparable to Poilievre's. Poilievre inherited the leadership of a party with strong institutional foundations and he squandered a 20-point lead by alienating leftist voters into uniting behind the Liberals. Bonnie inherited the leadership of an institutionally weak and stagnant party both well behind in the polls - there was almost nothing she could have done to win on the first try (other than being more aware of the insufferable grovelling establishment within the OLP, which few members are cognizant of).
Poilievre lost an election by being hated by the electorate, Bonnie lost by being forgotten by the electorate. But there is similar self-delusion within the grassroots of both the Ontario Liberals and the federal Conservatives about the need for internal change, and I say that as a member of the former!
Carney did win well but not won by a landslide. The Conservatives’ results here were nothing like the Liberals were when they were down to a very few seats and then were revived by Trudeau who ended up being reviled by the electorate after nearly 10 disastrous years.
Politics can be comedic so often.
Very fair. Bonnie failed to convey a message of any kind, and considering the answers to questions mirroring the NDP, I would still suggest that those two parties merge. Vote splitting is why Ontario is being gutted to benefit Doug's donors.
In a current context, a string of newly elected but long in the tooth Liberal MPs are getting the "future endeavours" treatment, punted out of Ottawa where they can fade to black in relative obscurity on the public dime.
While this is a Liberal Party rejuvenation process that should be applauded, the Prime Minister has 100% say in what happens next. Carney will control the timing of resignations, when the by elections will take place and early indications are that there will not be an open nomination process. Reports that Carney is looking to the private sector for star recruits will nullify ambitions of local Liberal faithful who have put in the sweat equity to keep the Liberal brand the dominant player in the action.
The opportunity to be in the inner circle of government will be very attractive to some business people who have skills that are badly needed at this time, but the fast track to power makes them beholden to Carney and the PMO and that can lead to the same GroupThink problems of the previous administration.
"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. " - and the confidence of voters that the elected officials are actually working for the populace - not their own ideological fever dreams. Every. Single. Party. fails hard at this.
Only way to get leadership happening is to lead, follow or get out of the way. Everything runs through the PMO as the PMO is the government and everyone outside of the PMO including your own back benchers does what they tell them.