THREAD: When explaining structural problems with the way the Canadian parliamentary system works, it can often seem very abstract, but occasionally reality interjects, and the WE scandal is showing an important reason why membership leader elections are bad for parliamentary govt

One of the best features of how Westminster parliamentary government has developed is that it has formalized and institutionalized a capital O Opposition that plays a very specific role in our parliamentary system now, and it's role is to act as a check on the govt.

It doesn't just do that by opposing in the abstract sense, the Opposition does that because it opposes as an alternative government in waiting, incentivized to actually perform its opposing role better, and keep the government in check because it is a "government in waiting."

This is even more true in times when the government party doesn't command a majority in the house, because the government could fall and be replaced by the Opposition at basically any time. The threat of being replaced by a government in waiting keeps the govt on their toes.

What you've seen during the last few months is actually quite effective opposition for the most part, including over the WE scandal. But this good opposition is handicapped by the empty threat of an alternative government. The Opposition is opposing well, but cannot replace.

This is because they don't have a leader who can credibly be seen to be the PM in waiting. It's not the fault of the CPC that they had to delay the leadership election, they had no choice, but it's why leadership elections just aren't compatible with parliamentary government.

Imo the lame duck status of the alternative government is a reason the polls right now don't reflect the good opposition job the Tories have done, and also emboldens reckless behaviour by the Liberals because they know there isn't an alternative government ready to replace them.

You don't notice this when you have majority governments, when it feels like elections are more fixed and scheduled, but that is not how parliament is supposed to work, in theory the government can or should fall at any time, so the Opposition has to always be ready.

But membership elections that operate like primaries just don't mesh with irregular election cycles, which is again a feature not a bug in the parliamentary system, given they essentially mean it's harder for there to be an alternative government in waiting in the Opposition.

There is some good empirical evidence that voters do recognize and reward good Opposition, which itself incentivizes serious and effective Opposition, but the Tories have been, because of circumstances beyond their control, handicapped because they can't do this without a leader.

This may seem like an abstract point to make, but you're getting a real time example of why good Opposition makes for good governments if and only if that government is credibly threatened by an alternative government. It can only do this when there's an alternative PM as well.

If the caucus had selected the leader or used a streamlined process, similar to the UK Tories, that delivered a quick outcome, you wouldn't have this problem, but protracted leadership elections, especially in a minority, undermine the threat of an alternative government. END/