Could post-Brexit party politics ever break out in our Commons?
Parliamentarians don’t have much official power to depose a party leader
It “makes House of Cards look like Teletubbies,” is how British Tory MP Nigel Evans, an erstwhile backer of Boris Johnson’s aborted leadership bid, described the spectacle still unfolding in Westminster in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.
Johnson, expected to announce his candidacy on Thursday, did precisely the opposite, reportedly after he realized, with the lengthening list of candidates now including his one-time Brexit brother-in-arms Michael Gove, there was no way he could win.
As of this writing, embattled Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn was still flatly refusing to resign — even after losing two-thirds of his shadow cabinet and a caucus nonconfidence vote — on the grounds he had been elected by party members, which, he suggested, meant the rejection by MPs had “no constitutional legitimacy.”
For parliamentary junkies on this side of the Atlantic, it’s become the ultimate political reality TV show. Could it ever happen here?
Short answer: Not exactly, but sort-of-ish, depending on the specific circumstances.
Despite the best efforts of Conservative backbencher-turned-early-bird leadership contender Michael Chong, all three major federal parties rejected his proposal to give disgruntled caucus members the power to trigger a leadership review.
Compared with their British counterparts, Canadian MPs have relatively little influence over their party leadership processes — beyond those extended to every registered party member, such as both the right to vote on and to campaign for the top job.
In the British Parliament, party caucuses play a far more crucial role in choosing a new leader.
Not only do Conservative MPs run the election itself through the evocatively named 1922 Committee of backbenchers, but the caucus is also charged with winnowing down the list of candidates to just two names, which are then put to a vote by the full party membership via mail-in ballot.
In addition, the caucus has the power to call a non-confidence vote, provided the motion garners the support of at least 15 per cent — 50 MPs currently.
On the other side of the aisle, Labour MPs need to meet a slightly higher threshold to hold a confidence vote — 20 per cent of the combined U.K. and European parliamentary caucus, which is currently 249 members in total.
They also control the preliminary candidate-selection process, requiring leadership hopefuls to secure support of 15 per cent of the combined caucus to be nominated, with the winner elected by the party as a whole, through a one-member, one-vote system.
Back in our corner of the Commonwealth, meanwhile, there are no such internal caucus protocols — not officially, that is.
The reality is that MPs have always had — and, barring a radical revamp of the parliamentary system, will always have — the inherent power to depose a troublesome leader by withdrawing their support, either as individuals or as a bloc.
As soon as naysayers hit a critical mass — which might not have to be a particular percentage if it includes a large number of high-profile MPs — it wouldn’t just be the leader who would have to decide whether to dig in his or her heels, as party officials and rank-and-file members would likely be making their views on the matter loud and clear, as well.
For a caucus whose party is currently in power, the choice could become even more stark. The Liberals, for instance, currently hold what is generally considered to be a comfortable majority of seats, yet it would take just 18 MPs threatening to side with the nays on a confidence matter to put the leader — and the government itself — at risk of being toppled.
Canadian federal party leaders may be relatively safe from facing existential challenges from within, but they shouldn’t assume that the lack of a formal system gives them a free pass to antagonize MPs without consequence.
At least in the U.K., party leaders know precisely how many unhappy MPs it takes to hit the tipping point. Over here, there’s a not-bad chance you find out only when you go over the limit.