That didn’t take long. Andrew Scheer – pledging days earlier to fight to the bitter end to stay on as federal Conservative Leader – fell on his sword Wednesday morning. Just two weeks ago, Scheer pleaded with Alberta Tories that loyalty to the party meant loyalty to him personally..Conservatives organizing to oust Scheer from the top job told me at the time that they expected to have him out before Christmas. I agreed that Scheer had little chance of surviving, but considered their prognostications of a pre-Christmas bloodletting wildly optimistic. For not the first time, I was wrong..Joining a large contingent of grassroots members and activists calling for his head was a respectable number of insiders who’s careers are mostly as political operators. Scheer denounced them as elitists, but is himself surrounded by the same kind..National Post columnist Rex Murphy isn’t wrong in pointing out that these insiders were primarily responsible for Scheer’s ouster, leaking news of his use of party funds to pay for his children’s private school tuition. Murphy is wrong however in bemoaning the fact that Conservative Party members were denied the right to make this decision for themselves at a scheduled leadership review vote in April..Normally one of the most (if not the most) sober-minded writers on Canadian politics, Murphy takes it as a given that this vote would be conducted with any democratic norms that we would expect in a regular election. This is not the case.. BARRY COOPER: Challenges for Western independenceJustin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer and Yves-François Blanchet .Leadership review votes are themselves undemocratic. In most parties, they are only even held if a leader fails to win government in the preceding election. In essence, this means that winning an election removes even the pretence that a party’s members should have any say whatsoever in who their leader is. Effectively, party leaders are elected for life, so long as they can deliver power. If we applied this version of inner-party democracy in our intra-party democracy, a prime minster that wins power would never have to face another election again. Because he won. We scoff at this idea for intra-party elections, but accept it as gospel for inner-party elections..In the United States’ primary system, even sitting presidents that win elections are not guaranteed their party’s nomination and leadership for the next go-around. They are forced to face their party’s supporters in a primary election, every single time..In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson crushed Republican challenger Barry Goldwater 61 per cent to 39 per cent; but just four years later he retired the Oval Office without a fight because he knew that he could not win his party’s nomination again in the face of opposition over the Vietnam War. In Canada’s parties, a sitting prime minister not automatically continuing as leader as long as he or she pleases is unthinkable..In cases where leaders fail to win power and are forced to endure the nuisance of a leadership review vote, they are a sham in any case. Anyone who has observed them with a critical eye knows that they are anything but democratic..Typically, members are herded into a large hall to listen to a lineup of loyalists preceding the actual leader, extolling the virtues of his or her continuing in the job. After this, members captive in the hall listen to a long and rousing speech from the leader, often with the caucus forced to stand nearby as an implicit signal of support from them. Few MPs or MLAs would dare not do so for fear of retribution. To the leader’s speech there is no rebuttal from those in opposition. There is no “question and answer” period to grill the leader off script. Party members are handed swag and signs with the leader’s name, which most will wear and wave out of peer pressure..Once the show of unity is over, members are sent straight off to cast their ballots, without time for consideration or debate. It is little different than voters being sent to cast their ballot on the prime minister minutes after he gives a speech to a captive audience, with no debate or chance for rebuttal from his opponents. Inner-party leadership reviews resemble Venezuelan elections more than Canadian ones..If after all this careful stage management, the members still decide that it is time for the boss to go, it’s difficult to trust the results. Inner-party democracy is not overseen by non-partisan outside officials like general elections. It is run entirely by party insiders, sometimes with agendas. Local MP or MLA nominations are notoriously corrupt..In its 2017 leadership vote, the Conservative Party insiders oversaw the ballot counting, and inexplicably destroyed the records even before the results were announced. In a race that saw Andrew Scheer edge out Maxime Bernier by less than 1 per cent of the vote on the final ballot. If there was dirty play or not, it was a disturbing move that undermines the election’s credibility. In general elections, ballots are kept in safe sealed boxes for months afterward in close races so that recounts can be conducted and the integrity of the process kept above reproach. No such protections exist in the Conservative Party, or most parties..This all combines to make the leadership review process a sham. In the history of Canada’s major political parties, there has only ever been a single case of a sitting leader of a political party actually losing a leadership review vote; Thomas Mulcair. Unofficially, John Diefenbaker is in that club as well, so let’s be charitable and call it two..Do we really believe that only twice in the history of Canada and its ten provinces have party members wanted to replace their leader? The question is wildly rhetorical.. Trudeau on WE scandal: Case closed .Without any formal mechanism for removing sitting prime ministers and premiers in most parties, and a shambolic process of removing the leaders of opposition parties, it’s no wonder that all of them that leave unwillingly, are forced out through messier, less formal means. This doesn’t make it right, but there is little other choice for party members that want new management..There’s a simpler and much more democratic solution to this; take a page from the US primary system and require all leaders, MPs and MLAs to go through automatic, neutrally managed nominations before every election, win or lose..Members wanting change and leaders wanting to face members directly would both be better served by it.
That didn’t take long. Andrew Scheer – pledging days earlier to fight to the bitter end to stay on as federal Conservative Leader – fell on his sword Wednesday morning. Just two weeks ago, Scheer pleaded with Alberta Tories that loyalty to the party meant loyalty to him personally..Conservatives organizing to oust Scheer from the top job told me at the time that they expected to have him out before Christmas. I agreed that Scheer had little chance of surviving, but considered their prognostications of a pre-Christmas bloodletting wildly optimistic. For not the first time, I was wrong..Joining a large contingent of grassroots members and activists calling for his head was a respectable number of insiders who’s careers are mostly as political operators. Scheer denounced them as elitists, but is himself surrounded by the same kind..National Post columnist Rex Murphy isn’t wrong in pointing out that these insiders were primarily responsible for Scheer’s ouster, leaking news of his use of party funds to pay for his children’s private school tuition. Murphy is wrong however in bemoaning the fact that Conservative Party members were denied the right to make this decision for themselves at a scheduled leadership review vote in April..Normally one of the most (if not the most) sober-minded writers on Canadian politics, Murphy takes it as a given that this vote would be conducted with any democratic norms that we would expect in a regular election. This is not the case.. BARRY COOPER: Challenges for Western independenceJustin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer and Yves-François Blanchet .Leadership review votes are themselves undemocratic. In most parties, they are only even held if a leader fails to win government in the preceding election. In essence, this means that winning an election removes even the pretence that a party’s members should have any say whatsoever in who their leader is. Effectively, party leaders are elected for life, so long as they can deliver power. If we applied this version of inner-party democracy in our intra-party democracy, a prime minster that wins power would never have to face another election again. Because he won. We scoff at this idea for intra-party elections, but accept it as gospel for inner-party elections..In the United States’ primary system, even sitting presidents that win elections are not guaranteed their party’s nomination and leadership for the next go-around. They are forced to face their party’s supporters in a primary election, every single time..In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson crushed Republican challenger Barry Goldwater 61 per cent to 39 per cent; but just four years later he retired the Oval Office without a fight because he knew that he could not win his party’s nomination again in the face of opposition over the Vietnam War. In Canada’s parties, a sitting prime minister not automatically continuing as leader as long as he or she pleases is unthinkable..In cases where leaders fail to win power and are forced to endure the nuisance of a leadership review vote, they are a sham in any case. Anyone who has observed them with a critical eye knows that they are anything but democratic..Typically, members are herded into a large hall to listen to a lineup of loyalists preceding the actual leader, extolling the virtues of his or her continuing in the job. After this, members captive in the hall listen to a long and rousing speech from the leader, often with the caucus forced to stand nearby as an implicit signal of support from them. Few MPs or MLAs would dare not do so for fear of retribution. To the leader’s speech there is no rebuttal from those in opposition. There is no “question and answer” period to grill the leader off script. Party members are handed swag and signs with the leader’s name, which most will wear and wave out of peer pressure..Once the show of unity is over, members are sent straight off to cast their ballots, without time for consideration or debate. It is little different than voters being sent to cast their ballot on the prime minister minutes after he gives a speech to a captive audience, with no debate or chance for rebuttal from his opponents. Inner-party leadership reviews resemble Venezuelan elections more than Canadian ones..If after all this careful stage management, the members still decide that it is time for the boss to go, it’s difficult to trust the results. Inner-party democracy is not overseen by non-partisan outside officials like general elections. It is run entirely by party insiders, sometimes with agendas. Local MP or MLA nominations are notoriously corrupt..In its 2017 leadership vote, the Conservative Party insiders oversaw the ballot counting, and inexplicably destroyed the records even before the results were announced. In a race that saw Andrew Scheer edge out Maxime Bernier by less than 1 per cent of the vote on the final ballot. If there was dirty play or not, it was a disturbing move that undermines the election’s credibility. In general elections, ballots are kept in safe sealed boxes for months afterward in close races so that recounts can be conducted and the integrity of the process kept above reproach. No such protections exist in the Conservative Party, or most parties..This all combines to make the leadership review process a sham. In the history of Canada’s major political parties, there has only ever been a single case of a sitting leader of a political party actually losing a leadership review vote; Thomas Mulcair. Unofficially, John Diefenbaker is in that club as well, so let’s be charitable and call it two..Do we really believe that only twice in the history of Canada and its ten provinces have party members wanted to replace their leader? The question is wildly rhetorical.. Trudeau on WE scandal: Case closed .Without any formal mechanism for removing sitting prime ministers and premiers in most parties, and a shambolic process of removing the leaders of opposition parties, it’s no wonder that all of them that leave unwillingly, are forced out through messier, less formal means. This doesn’t make it right, but there is little other choice for party members that want new management..There’s a simpler and much more democratic solution to this; take a page from the US primary system and require all leaders, MPs and MLAs to go through automatic, neutrally managed nominations before every election, win or lose..Members wanting change and leaders wanting to face members directly would both be better served by it.
