LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

There's a story in Monday's Hill Times that would easily be dismissed as inside baseball if it wasn't actually a sign of a bigger problem in our understanding of how politics works.  The gist of the piece is how Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin has some friction with her Toronto-Danforth riding association, and some of her riding executive are talking about resigning or not seeking new terms, and the reason seems to revolve around her parliamentary staff trying to interfere with the riding association's work in order to boost her chances for re-election.  And yes, this is actually a problem.

For starters, there is supposed to be a separation between an MP's parliamentary role and their role as the party representative.  As the MP, they represent all constituents in parliament, and their staff are supposed to support them in that role.  The riding association, meanwhile, is the partisan arm that has an interest in keeping the riding belonging to whichever party they belong to.  It should not, however, simply be a re-election machine for that particular MP.  For an MP's parliamentary staff to be trying to direct a riding association in such a direction is improper interference and violates the independence of the riding association.

Part of that separation is demonstrated by the fact that generally, the MP is a non-voting member of the riding executive, because they certainly have an interest in what goes on, but it's not their personal campaign vehicle.  Generally, there should be further separation in how events are planned.  If it's an MP event like an open house or town hall event, then the riding association shouldn't be involved because it's an event for all constituents, not just those belonging to the party.  Likewise, if it's a riding association event like a fundraiser, then the MP's staff should have no involvement because it's a strictly party event.  Each has a different function to play that's easy to confuse if one isn't careful, or if the partisan calculation starts to blur the lines between party and parliamentarian.  Just like it's a cardinal sin to mix party with government, we need to be aware that there is a separation and it must be respected if we want our politics to work the way it's supposed to.

Why this matters is because the riding association is the primary interface between individuals and our political system.  Joining a party is the way in which everyone plays an active role, because it's how candidates get nominated, and how policies get decided from the grassroots level.  The riding association is also the interlocutor between the people of the riding and the caucus, most especially if it's a riding association that doesn't have a sitting MP.  It's why all of the plaintive wails about not having an MP from your chosen party leaves you "unrepresented" is a load of bunk so long as there's a riding association in place, it means that there's a conduit between the riding and the parliamentary caucus for concerns to be raised.

When there is a sitting MP, the independence of the riding association is all the more important because part of the function of a riding association in our system is to hold the MP to account for their actions when they are elected.  Because riding associations are the way in which we nominate candidates for election, it's also how we remove them when they don't perform or if they no longer represent the values of the riding.  Nomination fights that seek to take out incumbent MPs can be nasty business but they're also very necessary to ensure that the democratic will of the party members can be respected and to keep the incumbents honest in their dealings.  That means that if the incumbent MP's staff is interfering with the riding association in order to try and make it a re-election machine, as Dabrusin's staff are allegedly doing, then it interferes with the riding association's ability to hold her to account as the MP, and accountability is at the heart of our system.  This point cannot be understated.

The other reason why this particular story is concerning is because the Liberals have already dealt a blow to the role of riding associations with their party constitution changes last year.  Usually, riding associations are supposed to generate policy which gets voted upon and gets forwarded to biennial policy conferences, where the assembled delegates vote on these policy resolutions that form the broader party's policy direction.  The new Liberal constitution, however, severely curtails this process, calling it "inefficient," and has centralised much of the new policy formation out of the leader's office using Big Data as the justification for how they plan to consult and come up with policy.  This, along with demolishing party memberships in favour of free "supporter" sign-ups, has severely weakened the role of riding associations, which is detrimental to the health of our democratic system.  This makes the alleged intrusion by Dabrusin's staff all the more staff all the more alarming, because it's hitting the association when they've already been cut off at the knees.

Of course, much of this is about how politics is supposed to work, and it's not an exact science.  The strength of riding associations is variable across parties and regions, and there have been enough examples of riding associations being essentially non-existent until an MP gets elected in a sweep, a particularly poignant example being the NDP in Quebec in 2011.  But if we want politics to work properly in this country, then we need people to get involved, to join riding associations and to contribute to the system from the ground-up.  Having the leader's office centralise authority, or the MP's office big-footing things only serves to disenfranchise the role of grassroots members, the very people that our process is supposed to be engaging.  For the health of our democracy, we need to return that power to those grassroots.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Meryl Streep's misplaced speech at the Golden Globes demonstrates why most conservatives dislike Hollywood

TORONTO, Ont. Jan. 10, 2017/ Troy Media/ Thanks, Meryl Streep.  Your speech at last Sunday's 74th Golden Globe Awards provided another reason why most conservatives dislike Hollywood.

After receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement, the talented actress used the forum to express her views on politics and the arts.

Many liberals (and a few conservatives) praised Streep's comments.  They admired her analysis of the political landscape.  They appreciated her viewpoint about the lack of respect for the arts community and its distinctly international flavour.  They loved the fact that she criticized U.S. president-elect Donald Trump without ever naming him.

In turn, many critics launched into personal diatribes and ad hominem attacks after Streep's speech.  Emotion, rather than intelligence, ruled social media on Sunday night.

I thought that Streep's speech was poorly thought out.  While I don't expect much from the voluminous echo chamber that contains most of Tinseltown's elite, this politically-charged message deserves to be critiqued.

First, it was an awards show, not a political convention.

This has happened at other awards shows.  But most people didn't tune in to listen to Streep's political sermon.  It's much the same as when vice-president-elect Mike Pence was disgracefully singled out by the cast of the Broadway musical Hamilton in November.  It makes some people feel uncomfortable, puts a damper on a fun evening and there's absolutely no justification for doing this.

Second, while Streep deserves credit for acknowledging her partisan leanings in the past (she proudly describes herself as part of "the Left"), it's a major reason why she shouldn't have spoken out.

She targeted a politician she doesn't like and one she actively campaigned against in last year's presidential election.  Streep spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in support of presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in prime-time just after the second night's headliner, former president Bill Clinton.

Hence, the Golden Globes speech just made her look like a sore loser.

Third, Trump's imitation of handicapped New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski which he constantly denies, but the video coverage disputes was disgusting.  No question about it. But most people have moved on and really don't care about it anymore.

Streep claims it still bothers her and that Trump's actions apparently made it acceptable for others to do it.  That's a preposterous and completely inaccurate line that many left-wingers have drawn in recent months.

It makes me wonder about her focus, ideas and thoughts.  There are more important things to worry about and not all of them relate to the Trump presidency.

Fourth, the decision against naming the president-elect in her speech doesn't make Streep a classy hero.

Silence isn't golden in this case.  Rather, it has the bitter taste of pewter because she helped perpetuate the image that Hollywood is left-wing, insular, pompous and out of touch with Middle America.  Whether Streep likes it or not, this group helps provide the income and comfort level that she (and other performers) enjoy.  If she believes in public relations, she should start thinking about her words and actions a bit more.

Fifth, the sacred game of football didn't have to be included in this discussion.  You have no obligation to watch this great sport, Meryl.  In fact, millions of football fans (and mixed martial arts fans, who you also went after) are probably glad that you don't.

Will someone copycat Streep's speech at the Screen Actors Guild Awards (Jan. 29) or the Academy Awards (Feb. 26)?

I wouldn't bet the farm against it.  But I would bet such a speech will do nothing but drive a wedge further between conservatives and Hollywood.

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube was a speechwriter for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

© 2017 Distributed by Troy Media

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.