Somewhat unexpectedly, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott each announced that they would be running as independents in the next election, eschewing the Green Party (even after Elizabeth May said that she would even step aside as leader if Wilson-Raybould was interested in the job). Both of them made speeches that were variations of the same theme – that they want to “do politics differently,” that they were tired of parties, and wanted “non-partisan” ideas and to do things by “consensus” – all of which betrayed an ongoing naiveté and lack of understanding about Responsible Government and Westminster parliaments. Talking about “cooperation” and “non-partisan” ideas, or “consensus” sounds good, but it doesn’t understand how things actually get done. Partisanship when done properly (as in, not devolved into tribalism) is about having competing ideas – which is a good thing. Add to that, “consensus” may work in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut where you have small assemblies and a cultural predisposition to it, but it’s not the same in the House of Commons with 338 MPs – not to mention that consensus demolishes the ability to hold governments to account. When everyone is responsible, then no one is accountable. And sure, the pair might decry that there is “too much power in the centre,” but I’ve said time and again that the cause and solution of centralised power in our parliament is about the way in which we choose leaders, and done in a way that gives them an imaginary “democratic mandate” that they then abuse. Having more independent MPs won’t change that – assuming that they can get re-elected on their own. (Celina Caesar-Chavannes, incidentally, said that their speeches were “inspiring” and she too is now considering running again as an independent after previously saying she planned to bow out of elected political life).

As an aside, all those speaking up for the empowerment of @Puglaas and @janephilpott. They weren't fired. They resigned. The victim-of-bad-men thing is a bit patronizing all around, IMO. #cdnpoli

— Susan (@susandelacourt) May 27, 2019

In hot takes, Andrew MacDougall assesses what kind of stars would need to line up for either Philpott or Wilson-Raybould to win as independents, with Éric Grenier crunching the numbers of past independent MP victories. Chantal Hébert considers the long-game implications for the decision to run as independents, and how it lines them up for future moves or influence if the next election results in a hung parliament. Paul Wells looks to both history and Jerry Macguire to look at the lessons that this whole quixotic independent run amounts to, and how the lessons for other MPs may just be the opposite of what Philpott and Wilson-Raybould intend.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP’s House Leader wants to ban floor-crossing in the legislature, which is complete patent nonsense and an affront to our Westminster system of government. Our system is predicated on how we elect individual MPs/MLAs as individuals, not as party ciphers – no matter what your calculus is in the voting booth. That’s why we don’t elect party lists or the likes. If the UCP can’t understand that, for as much as they like to talk a big game about respecting democracy and traditions, then it shows how craven they really are. All this move does is demonstrate that they view their own party members to be drones for the leader, at which point you may as well replace them all with battle droids and be done with it.

This is patent nonsense. Our system is predicated on the idea that you vote for your representatives as individuals, and all of the autonomy that entails, rather than for a party banner. This move simply confirms the notion that your MPs/MLAs are nothing more than drones. https://t.co/H5jKfq6LXN

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 27, 2019

A reminder to Philpott, Wilson-Raybould, and Nixon – all of you may want to read my book in order to get a proper grasp of how Westminster democracies actually work.

Good reads:

• Chrystia Freeland moved the Ways and Means Motion that starts the legislative cycle for the New NAFTA ratification bill to be tabled.
• Harjit Sajjan says it’s possible the military justice reform bill won’t pass the Senate before Parliament rises, and notes the bill is just a first step at reform.
• Karina Gould says that Microsoft and Facebook have signed onto a “declaration” of electoral integrity, and hopes other web platforms will join.
• Here’s an interview with Gould about the level of preparation going into the election around combatting junk news and disinformation campaigns.
• Facebook does seem keen to comply with the new electoral advertising registry guidelines, even as Mark Zuckerberg ignored a summons to appear at Parliament.
• Last week, Canada filed its paperwork with the UN to make our claim to the North Pole, in competition with Russia and Denmark.
• At committee, the refugee provisions of the budget implementation bill were amended to guarantee oral pre-removal hearings for those affected.
• “Progressive” pressure groups are starting anti-Conservative attack ads already. (Remember, fixed election dates are garbage).
• The nominated Conservative candidate in Burnaby–North Seymour is both against abortions but also against LGBT education in schools.
• Elizabeth May says she would like to see Canada stop importing oil – but apparently has no clue about the economic case for that.
• In Alberta, the government killed the working group aimed at stamping out “conversion therapy” because they say it doesn’t exist as they can’t bill for it. Erm…
• Andrew Coyne looks at how badly the whole media bailout packages has become politicized, tainting it entirely.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.