![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe Canadian news has been full--until today's breaking news of a terrorist plot domestically, at least--of commentary on new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's first effort against the Tories. I think that Trudeau's effort to mobilize backbenchers, of all parties, in Parliament is a potent threat. Certainly the Conservatives are unhappy.
It's an arguable weakness of the Canadian parliamentary system that political parties are centrally directed, giving most MPs very little ability to question the party line in Parliament or in public. (The party whip keeps the MPs in line.) Wonkman notes that, in the case of the federal Conservatives, which hold only a relatively slim majority in Parliament and have any number of unhappy backbenchers, anything that could weaken the hold of the Conservative Party over its MPs could weaken the majority government.
I have to give Trudeau credit. This is a good strategy.
The newly minted Liberal leader intends to introduce a motion that would strip party whips of their power to decide which MPs are allowed to make members' statements in the House of Commons.
Trudeau's motion will put Harper's legendary iron control over his caucus to the test, providing an outlet for restless Tory backbenchers to defy their leader.
Indeed, Harper may be trying to buy himself some time to strike a truce with his backbench rebels before letting Trudeau's motion come to a vote.
[. . .]
The motion is undoubtedly problematic for the prime minister, who is facing a rebellion by backbenchers fed up with their inability to speak their minds during the daily 15 minutes allotted for members' statements.
The revolt was triggered last month when British Columbia MP Mark Warawa was removed from the Tory roster because he intended to talk about abortion -- an explosive subject which divides Conservatives and which Harper is determined to keep a lid on.
Warawa has asked Speaker Andrew Scheer to rule that his privileges as an MP were breached; at least eight other Conservative MPs have openly backed his complaint.
It's an arguable weakness of the Canadian parliamentary system that political parties are centrally directed, giving most MPs very little ability to question the party line in Parliament or in public. (The party whip keeps the MPs in line.) Wonkman notes that, in the case of the federal Conservatives, which hold only a relatively slim majority in Parliament and have any number of unhappy backbenchers, anything that could weaken the hold of the Conservative Party over its MPs could weaken the majority government.
When you have 170 MPs, you can afford them a good deal of freedom: you can even let a few of them vote the “wrong way” without jeopardizing your government.
When you have 165, you have to be more aggressive. Troublemaking MPs are called before caucus and explanations are demanded. Dissent is unwelcome and intolerable.
When you’ve only got 160, your backbenchers don’t get to eat, sleep or sneeze without a party staffer watching over their shoulder, clutching a whip and grinning menacingly: every vote counts, every MP must be handled, and there will be crushing consequences for screwing up or speaking your mind.
159? Even stricter.
158? Even harder.
Don’t even contemplate the horrors of 157. And it only gets worse from there.
The Liberals are trying to exploit this weakness. If they can ferment caucus acrimony, and especially if they can spark defections or resignations, all kinds of exciting things happen.
I have to give Trudeau credit. This is a good strategy.
