Turner on Caucus Style Differences

Garth Turner tells us about his first caucus meeting as a member of the Liberal caucus on the hill.

I was immediately invited to sit in on caucus committees debating tax, economic and trade policies. I was swept into a conversation on social policy alternatives. A wise and experienced guy took me aside to discuss the raging, noisy debate on the oil sands and the environment.

What a contrast there was between this room of engaged people, and the dour group meeting at the same time, in the same building, fifty feet away across a corridor. For the better part of a year I came to know caucus every Wednesday morning as a time when Conservative MPs gathered to listen to PMSH give an opening speech and a closing speech, with ministerial statements, threats from the whip and orders from the house leader in between.

Interesting - although I've suspected that Harper was mostly a micromanager for a long time, some of Turner's observations expand the picture considerably - showing us how desperate the CPoC is to hang onto power.

No debate then. No discussion. The contrast with today could not have been more stark. Inside the national Liberal caucus I was struck at how collegial it was, a tone set by Stephane Dion. I was heartened by the ideas I heard flying around and the obvious willingness of people writing legislative changes and policies for the next election, to embrace mine. This bodes well, I thought. This is what caucus should be. This is where concepts and visions gain political life. This is what voters and constituents would expect me to be doing with other MPs. Finally.

I had thought that Dion would bring a much more positive approach to things than PMSH ever could. I've never seen Harper do anything other than appear either a) distant and aloof (he's really not listening to you) or b) Angry. Not exactly the kind of person that invites discussion.

I recognize that Garth has his own axe to grind here - the ultra conformist ranks of the CPoC gave him a pretty rough ride last year, and commenters on his blog are often equally harsh towards him. However, what he is describing here is consistent with what I have been able to guess about Dion from a handful of media exposure moments, and a little bit of experience with watching the Liberal shadow cabinet as it starts to make itself heard.

Dion always struck me as a very classical man - one who views decision making as a matter of discourse (at least up to the point of coming to a decision). In any form of democracy, discussion is vital at all levels.

MPs who do not listen to their constituents (e.g. Jason Kenney) are not representing anyone except themselves. If the leadership invites discussion, then that will be reflected in the behaviour of the lower level MPs as well when they are dealing with their constituents.