The power of backbenchers: Canada versus UK

It always amuses me when British commentators complain that the UK Prime Minister has too much power. The strength and pure potential for intimidation at the disposal of Number 10 pales in comparison to Langevin Block.

Consider this recent example of a UK Conservative MP speaking out against the policy of his own government. In Canada, any government MP or even opposition MP that dared to say anything against their leader or party’s policy would be kicked out of caucus. MPs can only question their leader behind closed doors, and even then they have to be careful about it. On the other hand in the UK, MPs can publicly differ from the party line and such rebellion is considered relatively routine.

Part of the problem is the meekness of the Canadian MPs. If David Cameron had given rebel MPs the boot it would have created an uproar that could have ended Mr. Cameron’s leadership, or at least have hamstrung his government. I can’t think of anytime that MPs have rushed to defend their fellow caucus member’s right to speak their opinion in public. Really they usually seem delighted that a potential opponent for a Ministerial position has been eliminated.

Another difference between Canadian Conservatives and UK Conservatives is the existence of the 1922 Committee. This can be considered the governing body of UK Conservative backbenchers. It gives MPs a certain amount of protection from the leadership and it provides a mechanism for MPs to challenge the leader’s right to lead. If you like, you can consider it as a sort of union for backbench MPs.

So as Canadians debate ways to weaken the might of the PMO, we should look at the ancient home of the Westminster system. And consider ways that we can embolden Members of Parliament.