So given the fact that this was able to happen without legislation being in place, what are your thoughts on that? Could we not continue the situation as it is now?
I'll add a second part to that question as well. Obviously in most if not all of those cases—and this goes back to what we were talking about earlier—the fact is that there is some accountability of the leader to caucus and some accountability to the party membership. The leader is leader of both the caucus and the party. It goes back to that whole principle that in most if not all of those cases, the majority of caucus and the party membership would I think have held the same views, that it was time for the leader to go. They lined up.
Of course, there could be instances in which that wouldn't be the case. My only concern—and I want to hear your thoughts on it—is that in that case the onus is put far more strongly onto the caucus.
Now, if their views were to differ from those of the party leadership, do you have concerns that the difference would then remove power from the party members as a result?