Roundup: Wrongheaded notions about party policy-making

Posted on by

Over at Policy Options yesterday, Stephen Harper’s former policy director, Rachel Curren, lamented the policy-making process of the Conservative Party, sighing about the fact that the majority of the leadership candidates were just retreads of Harper-era policies. But sweet Rhea mother of Zeus was her op-ed full of so many mistruths about the Westminster parliamentary system, that my head about exploded.

While Curran was disingenuous about how the Conservatives were the party of grassroots policy-making that the Liberals were top-down (that has not been the case until they changed their policy process just last year, which is a problem), the crux of her article rested on this notion that the party needed some outside policy groups or think-tanks to do the heavy policy lifting for them because they were just too cautious a group to do it otherwise.

No.

The notion that it’s not the role of the party itself to engage in policy development, but rather to fight and win elections, is complete and utter bullshit. Likewise, it’s not up to the civil service to come up with policy either – they can offer advice and options for implementation, but political policy is certainly not their job.

It is absolutely the role of the grassroots to engage in policy development because that’s their job. Politics is supposed to be about bottom-up engagement, both in terms of policy development and in the selection of candidates (and removal of incumbents when necessary). And what utterly boggles my mind is the notion that Curran is peddling that we should take away what little power the grassroots has left and pass it off to these third-party think-tanks that can access the kind of funding that parties can’t, and have little accountability. If we take this away from the grassroots, then what good are they? Continuing the farce of our illegitimate leadership selection process to coronate unaccountable presidential figures who can then dictate top-down policy and control over the party (and if you don’t think they’re not dictating policy, then why the hell are they running on it in this gong show of a leadership contest)? These contests actively disenfranchise the grassroots (despite all appearance to the contrary), so taking away what policy powers they have left leaves the grassroots with what? Being donors with no say in what they’re donating to? How is that any way to run our political system?

This kind of stuff infuriates me because it’s not the way politics is supposed to happen. The grassroots are supposed to be empowered, and leaders are supposed to be responsive to them – not the other way around like it is now. It’s a problem and it’s one we need to fix, and hey, I just happened to have written a book all about these kinds of issues, which I would suggest that Curran read, because she might learn a thing or two.

Good reads:

  • Chrystia Freeland was in Mexico to talk NAFTA, and gave a speech about using data to show American legislators the benefits of trade to their regions.
  • The bill to create a committee of parliamentarians to oversee national security issues is about to go to Senate committee, where it will be in for a rough ride.
  • A shoddy piece of moral panic disguised as “journalism” (with no corroboration) has people yelling for investigations into third-party spending in the last election.
  • A new StatsCan report shows that youth are, on the whole, doing better financially than their parents. Just don’t expect this to change anyone’s narrative.
  • Here’s a look at the problematic elements of Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandating sexual assault training for judges and how it could impact judicial independence.
  • The leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding that VICE journalists and the RCMP seeks guidance on journalists’ source protection.
  • Families frustrated with the delays in the MMIW inquiry are vowing to blockade proceedings – because that will totally help them go faster.
  • No, Justin Trudeau didn’t “photobomb” those prom kids in Vancouver.
  • Jason Kenney says that division is the greatest threat to the federal Conservatives. Gosh, you think?
  • Here’s a look at how the Conservative leadership race could still go off the rails owing to its format.
  • Susan Delacourt says that third-party financing rules may be coming regardless of the current moral panic over it.
  • My column this week looks at the appointment process for a new Ethics Commissioner and wonder if Mary Dawson will be stuck in the role forever.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a good explainer video from Maclean’s about the softwood lumber dispute.

Here’s a sneak peek at the Canadian History Museum’s new Canadian History Hall.