Book Review: Whipped -Party Discipline in Canada By Alex Marland
“The tight binds of partisanship among Canadian politicians are at odds with political parties’ loosening grip on the electorate”
Jake's Notes:
The most important notes are bolded, my personal thoughts are on the second indent, the number refers to the page number the information is taken from, all information that isn't a direct quotation is based on my reading and condensing of information.
Political party membership has become a means of collecting personal information, no longer a source of pride 3
People who are being elected to parliament are under the control of parties above anything else 3
Parties are strongly hierarchical, meaning only prominent members whom party leadership likes are given the ability to wield power 4
Canada is considered to have some of the most strict party discipline among “liberal democracies” 4
The strict discipline enacted on politicians is frustrating voters, and alienating them from partisan politics 4
This system concentrates all power among the PM and most powerful party members, decreasing the power of voters and the ability for their needs to be platformed 4
Party discipline is most strongly expressed through the party message, everyone is expected to say the exact same things and take the exact same positions, or face punishment 5
Discipline demands that MPs vote for things they don’t understand, or publicly support things they privately oppose, all in hopes for advancement within the party 6
People vote against their party around 1% of the time, and only in times when it doesn’t matter 7
The impotence of backbenchers is well known and has been criticised for a while 7
For the 42nd parliament, all three parties voted as blocs over 99% of the time 8
The pressure to conform is even greater in a minority government 8
The same pressure exists on the provincial level as well 8-9
There is a high level of MP turnover in elections, meaning many first-timers who follow the party line due to inexperience 9
The defenders of the system say it promotes cohesion, and it comes naturally, it’s just how the system best functions 9-11
MPs also benefit by voting in a bloc because it takes responsibility away from them, and they don’t have to know about every issue they’re voting on 11
Yeah, this is really bad and definitely an argument against it
Under this system “there is little opportunity for innovation, constructive criticism, public engagement, and big ideas” 11
The system is designed to turn away those who want change, and force those who stay to conform 11-12
The system originated in the UK in the 17th century 12
The system was translated into Canada in the 19th century 13
Parties formed around certain ideological beliefs 13
Throughout the 20th century the powers of individual MPs were increasingly reduced 14-15
Discipline is especially important for confidence votes, which can result in a new election if failed 15-16
In 1972 ballots were changed to list a party affiliation as well as name, meaning only the party nominee would appear on the ballot, greatly increasing the control of party leadership over who is nominated and affiliated with their party 16-17
Parties manipulate the process in order to only nominate desirable candidates, and deny anyone else trying to run 17
In the 1970s MPs were able to speak out so long as they voted in line, but by the 1990s there was no leeway 18
Parties systemically weed out non-conformists 19
The Liberals pretend to allow backbenchers more freedom, but that isn’t true 19-20
Backbenchers aren’t allowed to break from the party line, but if more significant MPs change their position on something they are supposed to follow and defend the flop 20
“Just 4 to 5 percent of the Canadian electorate prioritizes candidate factors in elections, a percentage even lower in urban areas, among less informed voters, and outside Quebec. Voter assessments of local candidates matter to the outcome of elections in only 10–14 percent of seats” 22
If parties did not exist people would have to know and care about local candidates a lot more 22
Without the parties however the political system becomes much more chaotic and people will be confused 22
Needs better evidence
In 1921 progressive independent candidates who were anti-party were the second largest group in government 22-23
Once in power the independent candidates had a hard time organising and functioning, and ended up joining with parties 23
The senate is full of party loyalists 23
The independent senators still voted with the house 86% of the time 23-24
NWT and Nunavut have different forms of government, all independents, but they lack transparency and accountability 24
The lack of parties on a municipal level as well makes it hard for people to know generally where candidates stand, or who to hold accountable 25
Party discipline exists mostly because of peer pressure 26
“parliamentary reforms will not resolve party discipline because “parties will always find a way to maintain their influence in the legislative process” 26
The growth of social media and digital communication has forced parties to become more strict over the MP’s freedom of speech 27
Records are not kept or made accessible, so the best way to learn about party politics is to interview someone in the know 28
The rampant party discipline undermines Canadian democracy 36-37
All potential candidates are vetted, especially digitally, to make sure they haven't said embarrassing things 38
Very little info on vetting is publicly available 38
The Reform Party wanted to remain decentralized, and as a result was full of people embarrassing themselves and the party 39
Digital Media increases the chance of embarrassment 40
Candidates are also given large contracts to sign, and are asked to reveal any potential dirt opponents may use to harm them 40-41
Vetting includes questions related to sexting and dating 41
The vetting process, especially scrutinizing people in their youth excludes most people from becoming nominated 44
MPs are torn between following only what their local electors want, or to act in a way they think is best for Canada 45
He uses Burke here as a source, awful person
MPs are told to ignore issues outside their ridings, even if they care about them 47
Some women MPs feel unsafe to work in the same ways as their male colleagues, and so meet in the bathroom 47-48
The governing party is not “the government” 49
Even among elected officials there is role confusion 49
Backbenchers are given questions to ask in order for someone more important to brag 50
Backbenchers are never supposed to question the party or government 50
Backbenchers are also kept out of the loop concerning important information until it is public for everyone 50
When it comes to important votes if anyone breaks ranks they will become an independent and lose all party resources and support 53
Backbenchers have no influence on what the main people already want to do, unless there is sufficient public outcry 53
An MP who was even filmed talking to his voters about how the whip works and how he had to vote with the party was seriously reprimanded and forced to walk back his statements 54
Any amount of honesty in federal politics can be dangerous 55
P. Trudeau called backbenchers nobodies, and said they need to figure out their own roles 57
Many MPs go their whole careers not really understanding the system and how to best function within it 58
Most pieces of legislation arrive already essentially finished, so MPs have little opportunity to add or change anything 60
MPs are relying on staff more and more to deal with their work 62-63
MPs are becoming brand ambassadors for the parties 64-65
This system puts all of the emphasis on the party leadership, and does not allow MPs to have a brand of their own 65
MPs are given scripts and have their speech severely limited by party leadership 66
Backbenchers are expected to give standing ovations during speeches at exactly specific times, and can be punished if they do not 68
Caesar-Chavannes had her own brand as a woman of colour MP who called out certain things, and was punished by party leadership for it 69
Caesar-Chavannes voted with the party 99% of the time, but just for speaking out on occasion was alienated 69-70
Caesar-Chavannes was the victim of online harassment that the Liberals did not try and defend her from 70
Saying Bernier was a “target of a ruthless online campaign to brand him as a racist”, almost sounds like he isn’t, which he is
People have strong impulses to work in groups and maintain group cohesion 72-73
People are more likely to conform if rewards for conforming are not guaranteed for everyone 73
Listening to authority easily overrides people's moral compass or personal ideas 73
MPs experience strong social pressure as well to conform 75-76
This whole chapter is naturalizing certain ways of human organisation that are by no means natural
Individuals have a lot of ambition, and making them think like team members helps to stop backstabbing 78
Sports team metaphors are a common way to understand party politics 79-80
The media as well talks about politics as a type of sport, which fosters certain attitudes and actions that can be off-putting for some 81
Seeing politics this way discourages cooperation 81
It's possible for figures from different parties to have relationships, but not in all contexts, and abroad that tends to disappear and people all act as unified Canadians 82
MPs who are ideologically far apart can be friends and work together on some things actually means everyone follows the same ideology with small p differences and aren't personally at risk by the other's politics
It is possible for leaders to be rejected if they really don't care about their MPs or team at all 84
Mulroney had good relationships with his MPs and they stood with him despite everything falling apart 85-87
Mulroney was extremely granular and involved himself with all of his MPs 87
Trudeau is easy to meet for some MPs and inaccessible to others 88
Leaders need large staffs, but they control everything, the staff just follow 89-90
There are several different theories that explain why people fall into such disciplined behaviour 91-92
Most MPs just want to be given nice positions and appointments 92-93
MPs also just want to be on camera whenever possible 94
MPs suck up to whips to get promoted etc. 95
Whips have to be intimidating and keep things in order 97-98
Whips also must perform many different roles and be seen in different ways to accomplish all of their jobs 98
37/47 of all whips have been from either Ontario or Quebec 99
Whips deal with a lot of human resources type tasks as well 100-101
Parking spots and office locations are key tools for whips to use to incentivise or punish MPs 101
Whips try hard to create a sense of cohesion and to keep up morale 102
The whip also helps MPs deal with personal issues when needed 103
Parties are extremely strict with messaging, and don’t want people going off script 105
The pervasiveness of media and footage of people means than any mistake can be captured and turned into a big deal 105
News media is sensational, and influenced by the personal beliefs of journalists and editors 106
Media greatly influences how MPs want to communicate, this means that most politicians essentially say nothing of value most of the time 106-107
The media is also obsessed with insubstantial things, in a way that disadvantages women and people of colour especially 107
There are a lot of bad-faith actors online as well who are trying to cause trouble for everyone 108
Political correctness makes it difficult for politicians to speak 109
The way he talks about this is very bad
Populism is general anti-elitism, and doesn’t worry about political correctness 109-110
Awful framing of these two things
There have been several populist movements in Canadian politics, with mixed success 110
Most Canadians think political correctness goes too far, and it makes Maxime Bernier angry 110
👎
Populists appeal to voters who think politicians are inauthentic 110-111
He says populism can come from anywhere, but his only examples are far-right losers who are mad they’re not allowed to be racists anymore, and fails to present them as the piss-babies they are
Examples of disagreement over serious issues within a caucus is depicted as the leader being weak or indecisive 111
The potential for media slip ups drives an increase demand to conform and avoid controversy 112
When MPs follow the party they’re called robots, when they don’t they’re called rogue elements, so there is no way to win 112
The caucus meeting is the only time people can be open and honest because it’s secret 113
Politicians boots social media posts only from other members of their party over 90% of the time 114
Bot accounts and paid engagement can be used on social media to boost posts or accounts 115
It’s possible as well that people are using paid trolls to create toxic online environments 115-116
Some MPs are still essentially digitally illiterate, and social media does not play a big role in their campaigns 117
Parties now act in a way where they’re only focused on their base 117
Wedge issues are brought up to try and make leaders take a position that might disrupt their base or their MPs 118
People will just leave when a controversial vote is coming up to avoid taking sides 119
MPs are sometimes forced to vote against issues that they strongly believe in, that can be personally taxing 121
Abortion is a major issue among the tories 122
The best way to avoid a story getting out of hand is to refuse to supply new information 123-124
MPs have a hard time dealing with the idea they’re meant to represent the party and not their voters 125
Secrecy is a main aspect of the Canadian government, people are only given selected information 125-126
It was decided that government functions best when MPs are able to speak with freedom in spaces that are totally hidden from the public 126
Everything that happens in parliament is planned for, and any surprise actions carry consequences 128
Trudeau warned the Liberal caucus to not make any comments about Trump, our their careers would be in jeopardy 129
Calls to remain on-message are overtly threatening 129
MPs crave talking points to be given to them by the party so they know official positions and can remain on message 130
This seems like a pretty strong indictment
Some MPs resent having to remain on script 131
Sometimes information is leaked to gauge public reaction 131
During campaigns local MPs are given things to take credit for, even if they had no part in doing them, in order to look good 132-133
There is an expectation that MPs are constantly being listened to and watch in order to find incriminating material to use against them later 133
Parties act as brands that MPs must always be a part of, which can make them all speak and act the same way which alienates people 133-134
Party messages are increasingly crafted by marketeers who are trying to grab people’s attention in as little time as possible 135-136
All MPs have to sign a document saying they agree with the party’s core values 136-137
“Plat-forms have since become corporate strategic plans” 137
The job of MPs is not to convince the caucus of the value of their voters’ ideas, but to convince the voters that the party’s already existing platform is right for them 137
An important job of MPs is to talk to average people and see where they stand on certain issues 138
Word choice is very important to invoke certain reactions 140
Canadian politics totally lacks identifiable characters that it used to have 141
MPs are devoid of personality and use the same scripts 141
The same message has to be repeated as much as possible for maximum effect 141-142
Trudeau used to hate scripting, but once he became PM he began being in favour of it 142
MPs resent being given scripts and lines designed to make soundbites 143
The public doesn’t pay much attention, so MPs have to say the same lines way more than they think they should because only then do some members of the public begin to hear the message 146
Isn’t this an argument for them not to say the same thing ad nauseum because nobody wants to listen
Voters like authentic politicians more 147
Liberals have been trying to get their MPs to use some more of their own words in order to not look like clones 147-148
Reading off a script in support of something a person personally does not like makes it less likely for them to come out against it 148
A lot of this system is designed to get attention and make sure people hear their messaging, but it seems much more likely to be the exact reason nobody gives a shit
Images are much better at connecting with voters than talking about policy 149
The liberals heavily emphasise the importance of story-telling 150
Party databases are some of the most important tools they have available 150-151
Collecting data is a vital part of an MP’s job if they want to be allowed to run for reelection 152-153
Data is increasingly being relied upon to make decisions and predictions for elections, and less so what MPs think themselves 154
The party controls the data, which is an extra means of control it has over MPs 155
The party will demand access to each MP’s data, and if it isn’t shared then that’s a quick way to be totally rejected by the party 155
Operations revolve around PMs and Premiers 157
People in the cabinet are under even tighter control than those outside 157
Media have always tried getting more access to meetings and people to interview, and that access has changed depending on who was in office 161-162
Under Chrétien, ministers needed to obtain preauthorization for public remarks 163
Martin wanted the PMO to be more hands-off because the state was too large for a single office to be involved in everything 163-164
Under Harper the PMO and messaging was extremely micromanaged and centralised 164
Unelected members of the PMO have a lot of power, and see MPs as just votes 166-167
The PMO can even decide the staff of certain MPs 170
Government communications are controlled top down 177
The fundamental element of caucus meetings is that they're private 179
If there are leaks then people no longer feel free to speak and it can ruin trust and relationships 179
MPs are only given 60 seconds to speak during meetings 181
He is obsessed with Mulroney
Current Liberals feel like they can't be critical during meetings 187-188
Caucus meetings the best time for MPs to feel heard, sometimes they just use it to complain about stuff 190-191
If an MP has something negative to say sometimes there is pressure to stay quiet 192
The rules of caucus are unclear so people just stay quiet sometimes 193
There are also regional caucuses representing places around Canada 195
One of the most influential and effective sub-caucuses is the all women's caucus which reaches across party lines 197
The presence of PMO staff can cause some MPs to be less inclined to speak during meeting 198
If PMO staff do not attend meetings then it is like they are making all the decisions by themselves 198
PMO staff call focus on social media, and praise people who are posting well and boosting the profile of the party leader 199-200
This is really pathetic sounding
MPs sometimes ask for PMO staff to be called out of a meeting 201
There is much more focus placed on people keeping a cohesive message, rather than what that message is
National caucus research offices exist to provide party members with information to stay informed 205
National caucus research offices also provide speeches and talking points for people to say 206
The help of national caucus research offices depends on what the MPs are trying to do, and if it aligns with what the party and leader wants 207
The need to be active on social media means there are no breaks for MPs 208
Bureaus make formats for social media posts used by MPs 209
MPs have to contact the Bureau before engaging with media 213
The bureau strips bits of information of technical language and superfluous facts to make it easier to understand, though sometimes also less true 216-217
Positive reinforcement is used to help people stay on message and working in the areas that the party and bureau most wants them to focus on 219
The house is designed to make it as difficult as possible for MPs to know and understand enough to act with significant agency 222
1 term is not long enough to figure things out 222
Parliament used to be more spontaneous, but by the 1960s and 1970s that stopped and MPs became increasingly docile 223-224
Having proceedings televised greatly influenced how things were done 224
Whips have to control jeering and other behaviours that are unprofessional 224-225
The house leader is the main figure working with others to make sure things get done 225-226
Things can be passed using extremely sneaky tactics like waiting until after the opposition leaves and holding a vote in their absence 227
The whips and speakers determine who speaks, it isn't based on who wants to speak or has important ideas 228
Question period is the only time people can ask questions, but are also limited to 45 seconds to speak 229
Questions are also scripted and controlled by the parties 229
Answers are also scripted 230
They don't even have to answer questions at all, and most of the time they give non-answers 230-231
"Arguably, the main purpose of petitions today is to harvest personal in-formation about citizens for database marketing" 231
The only way for MPs to do things themselves is through private member's business 232-233
It's possible for MPs to act with some freedom, but their association with their party can still make it difficult to act 233
Whips try not to be involved in every vote, only the important ones 235
There are numerous committees that people want to be on, and the party will make sure that only people who follow their orders work on what they want to 238
When it comes to securing votes whips can outrank everyone 242
Whips have to track down MPs in the bathroom, sleeping, or doing all manner of random things 243
The opposition will try and sneak in votes when MPs are away to take advantage of the missing numbers 244
This is a huge indictment of our government if things can happen because too many people were stuck in traffic or going to the bathroom
There is not enough time for people to know everything about every vote, so a lot of the time MPs just vote how they're told without fully understanding what's being voted on, and are given documents telling them how to vote 249-250
If an MP really doesn't want to vote in favour of something they are told to leave or pretend to be sick or something to prevent them official abstaining or voting against it 251
MPs have more success going against the party's will if they do it as a group 251
At least some MPs are pissed off most of the time 254
Sometimes issues are caused just because people can’t be honest 256
You have to deal with a lot of nasty stuff if you hold office 258-259
There is also a lot of confrontation and bullying among people working in government 260
It is especially difficult for women working in government 261
MPs are sometimes left crying after harsh interactions with people 262
Low-ranking staff members as well are abused and mistreated 262
Deciding who gets punished and how is a point of contention which isn’t the same for everyone 263-264
The leader is kept away from disciplining caucus members 264
Being an MP is draining due to the discipline 266
Other MPs used group pressure to ensure conformity as well 271
MPs who are being punished can also be excluded from speaking and participating in the house 272
One of the easiest ways to be kicked out of the caucus is to criticise the leader 275
There are virtually no independents in office, and nobody wants to run without the support of a party 277
Independent candidates have fewer resources, and people in general don’t care about them 277-278
Even in office, there are barriers preventing independents from properly engaging in the house, so even if they win their ability to participate is greatly limited 278
There are some benefits to being an independent, but serious drawbacks as well 279
Trudeau tried making a point of doing politics differently and appointing women and indigenous people to positions of power, but the partisan system remained 285-286
Wilson-Raybould was moved because Trudeau wanted to make a deal to help SNC and she refused to help 291
Nameless sources tried to slander Wilson-Raybould to make it seem more like she was just unpopular 293
Her resignation shattered the idea of party unity and her support of Trudeau 294
Caesar-Chavannes also tried to resign at the same time, but Trudeau told her to wait since it was bad optics 294
Other MPs started speaking as well and it seemed like the party was in shambles 294-295
Despite what Trudeau and the other said, Wilson-Raybould said that she was strongly pressured to help SNC 296
On women’s day MPs tried speaking at how Trudeau listened to women, but two MPs were found posting the exact same statements, which looks really bad 299
MPs attacked those speaking out against Trudeau and the SNC affair 300
Wilson-Raybould and Philpott were expelled 302-303
Some MPs feel like Trudeau, Butts, and Telford are the only ones with power 304
Eva Nassif was trying to run for office in Montreal, and was rejected because she failed to defend Trudeau as a good feminist during the SNC affair 306
“Wilson-Raybould became the first federal Independent candidate elected since 2008 and the first woman to do so since party labels appeared on federal ballots in 1972” 306
The SNC affair resolved itself after the election, is an anti-climax 307
The Liberals responded badly to this crisis because they lost control of the communications 308-309
The scandal was especially difficult because it involved Trudeau against three women, one black and one indigenous, which seriously damaged his reputation as a feminist 310
A lot of party loyalists were angry that they had damaged the party’s reputation and the credibility of Trudeau 311
As soon as it became clear that the outspoken MPs were going against the party they were ostracised and treated completely differently 313
Friendship and cooperation for many is predicated entirely on being on the same team as someone 313
For many the best action was to stay quiet since even they didn’t understand what was fully going on 314
Many MPs felt Trudeau was inaccessible, despite his public persona 316
“The events described in this chapter show that a government without message discipline is compromised” 317
I don’t think it shows that at all, a government doing shady shit and trying to cover it up, and feuding with its own members is compromised
Canadians want politicians to be less constrained by parties 320
Independents don’t get elected, and people see leaders as weak when not everyone follows them, but also too controlling 320
“In opposition, leaders complain about problems with the system; in government, they exploit the rules to their advantage” 320
Advice from former MPs to new MPs 321
He frames one of the most positive types of MP to be is a “team player” who basically functions in the system without challenging it in any way, and fails to recognise that the system, through this book’s own description, is obviously bad and in need of dismantling 324
Discipline is required for the government to function 325
Haven’t made this argument convincingly
Advice: Be Aware Frontbenchers ink Backbenchers Can Speak Up 326
Advice: Recognize the Trade-offs of Party Affiliation and Pick Your Battles 328
Advice: Research, Consult, and Build an Internal Coalition
“Chong was among the most independent-minded MPs in the 42nd Parliament, siding with his party on 98 percent of recorded votes (dissenting 13 of 793 times)” 332
Very sad that 98% agreement is independent minded
Party leadership devise bullshit work for MPs with ideas they don't agree with in order for them to go nowhere without taking responsibility 334-335
Ideas are always raised in private first and support is known before talking about it in the house 335
Advice: Advocate without Embarrassing the Leader 336
Advice: Consider Partisans’ Ideal Type of Parliamentarian 339
The ideal person described is effective but works in the system 339-340
It takes years to learn the system, by the time you do you're already a part of it, so most people in politics long-term support the status quo 341-342
Parties are as strong as ever, as is party discipline 343
The author sees no point advocating for change 343-344
There are some ideas for change, all small scale 344
Jake’s Overview
This book has lots of good info on how the party system works and shines a light on just how undemocratic our democracy can be. Lots of good facts to keep in mind moving forward. However, it does come across as quite small-minded and unimaginative, especially in relation to potential solutions, which are virtually absent. The author takes so much of an obviously broken system for granted, and gives no consideration to any kind of significant structural or radical change or critique. Some arguments are quite poorly made, operating on the assumption that the reader will also take certain practices as natural, unchangeable, or better than the alternative.