Scottish Consultation on Independence Referendum
Posted on | 25 January 2012 | No Comments
As mentioned in an earlier post, the Scottish Government launched its own consultation on a referendum on Scottish independence, which you can view here. The consultation runs until 11 May 2012.
The Scottish Government is looking to hold said referendum in the fall of 2014. This time frame is to allow for the responses to the consultation process to be used to inform the further development of the bill before it is debated in the Scottish Parliament some time in 2013.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond (Scottish Nationalist Party-SNP) revealed the proposed referendum question:
Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?
Salmond described the question as “short, straightforward and clear”, but there has been criticism that adding “Do you agree” made the question biased, and that a better question would simply ask “Should Scotland be an independent country?” More problematic, however, remains the possibility of a second question on the ballot paper on an alternative to full independence:
The Scottish Government is willing to include a question about further, substantial devolution on the lines of “devolution max” if there is sufficient support for such a move.
Devolution max would see a greater devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament, in particular, more financial control, without Scotland becoming fully independent.
The option of a second question on the ballot is probably the key point of contention between the SNP and unionists. The other main area of disagreement concerns the SNP’s desire to let 16 and 17-year-olds vote in the referendum. The SNP’s and Unionists’ positions can be summarised thusly:
| SNP position | Unionist position |
|---|---|
| Referendum in the autumn of 2014 | Referendum “sooner rather than later” (by the end of 2013?) |
| Backs a yes/no ballot but open to a second “devo max” question | Wants a one question yes/no “decisive” ballot |
| 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in the referendum | Backs the status quo with 18 and over able to vote |
| Backs the Electoral Commission’s regulation of the ballot | Wants the Electoral Commission to oversee the vot |
The larger issue, however, is that of legality. As I had explained in my earlier post, the UK Government has stated that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is one of a reserved matter that falls under the purview of the UK Parliament, and because of that, legislation for a referendum brought forward by the Scottish Government would likely be challenged in court and the Scottish Government would lose. Alex Massie addresses this point:
Will it be legal? The Scottish Government make it plain they desire a Section 30 order amending the Scotland Act that would transfer to Holyrood the power to hold a referendum of this ilk in ways unlikely to agitate our learned friends at Parliament House. That is as dandy as you could hope and all might be well but for the problems of conditions and, indeed, a second question. The consultation document is not perhaps as convincing as it might be on this. Apparently:
A wide range of opinion has been expressed about whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold a referendum consulting the Scottish people about independence. The Scottish Government’s February 2010 paper set out a referendum question asking whether the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be extended to enable independence to be achieved. The Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate for a referendum as long as that would not change any reserved law or relate to those aspects of the constitution which are reserved by the Scotland Act 1998. The referendum question proposed in 2010 was carefully phrased to comply with that requirement. Much independent legal opinion supports the Scottish Government’s view.
What is beyond any question is the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum about changes to the powers of the Scottish Parliament within the framework of devolution. Legislation to hold a referendum on “devolution max”, for example, is clearly within the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Perhaps. I am not sure that Her Majesty’s Government, far less the courts, necessarily agree with the second paragraph here. Is it really “beyond any question” that a secondary referendum on “devolution max” is “clearly” within “the existing powers of the Scottish parliament”?
Related Posts:
Tags: Constitution > devolution max > referendums > Scotland > Scottish politics > secession > UK politics
Update on e-petitions
Posted on | 20 January 2012 | No Comments
The UK House of Commons Procedure Committee recently released its report on the Government’s e-petitions scheme.
It is well known that there is significant confusion regarding how many signatures an e-petition requires in order for it to be debated in the House of Commons. Indeed, this blog regularly gets hits from people searching for information on how many signatures does an e-petition need in order to be debated. What I have tried to make clear in previous posts is that no e-petition is guaranteed a debate in the House of Commons, but that an e-petition which garners over 100,000 signatures will be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration for debate.
The Committee’s report has further clarified the matter (italics added):
26. We are also concerned that the statement [on the e-petitions website] that a petition with over 100,000 signatures is “eligible for debate in the House of Commons” is unclear and not well-understood by the public. The subject of an e-petition (so long as it does not fall foul of any of the House’s own rules) is eligible for debate no matter how many signatures an e-petition has. Members may choose to apply for adjournment debates or for debates in backbench time without the support of an e-petition signed by over 100,000 petitioners. Passing the 100,000 threshold is significant only because it triggers a letter from the Leader of the House to the Backbench Business Committee.
27. We recommend that the Government should modify the sentence “You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons”, which currently appears on its website, by leaving out “it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons” and instead inserting “the Government will ask the Backbench Business Committee of the House of Commons to consider scheduling a debate on it in the House”.
In other words, any e-petition, even if it has only a handful of signatures, could be brought forward for possible debate by an MP if that MP believes the issue at the heart of the petition should be debated by the House. Reaching the 100,000 signature mark only ensures that the Government will ask the Backbench Business Committee to consider scheduling a debate on that e-petition (but will not guarantee that this debate will occur).
Related Posts:
Some interesting links: rebel MPs, e-petitions, hung parliaments, and political disengagement
Posted on | 20 January 2012 | No Comments
1. Rebels of the Chamber
Isabel Hardman has a fascinating piece looking at some of the most rebellious backbench MPs in the UK House of Commons:
Once an MP starts down the route of the serial rebel, it seems easier for the whips to leave them be. Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, is one such example. “A whip called me once, saying: ‘I just wanted to confirm that you will definitely be voting against us tonight’,” he says. “I replied, yes, your intelligence is right.”
2. Procedure Committee releases its report on e-Petitions
In an earlier post, I reported on a hearing of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee into the Government’s e-petitions scheme. The Committee recently released its report. Among their recommendations:
- Extra sittings: The committee’s report recommends that an extra sitting in Westminster Hall, between 4.30 and 7.30 pm on a Monday, should be created for debates on e-petitions. The sitting would take place only if the Backbench Business Committee had scheduled a debate on an e-petition. The committee proposes that this change should be introduced as an experiment and reviewed after a year.
- Government website:The committee’s report also recommends changes to the Government’s e-petitions website so that the information provided to petitioners is clearer, fuller and more accurate.
3. The Hung Commonwealth Parliament: the First Year
The 2010 Australian general election, held on 21 August, resulted in a hung Parliament, with both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal/Nationals Coalition emerging with 72 seats each in the House of Representatives. The remaining seats were held by one Western Australia Nationals member (Tony Crook); one Australian Greens member (Adam Bandt); and four non-aligned independent members (Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, Andrew Wilkie, and Tony Windsor). This was Australia’s first hung parliament in 70 years. The Parliamentary Library of the Australian Parliament has produced a detailed overview of the this parliament’s first year and the various standing order changes that have been implemented to better deal with the situation.
4. The Real Outsiders
Samara Canada’s latest report looks at the politically disengaged in Canada:
First, whether they were engaged or disengaged, our participants universally condemned politics. Contrary to the notion that the disengaged are apathetic, we found that those less likely to participate were neither disinterested in nor uninformed about the system. Instead we found that their disdain for politics was driven by an intuitive understanding of how the political system functions and their previous interactions with it.
Related Posts:
Tags: Australia politics > Canada politics > e-petitions > hung parliaments > Interesting links > MPs > political disengagement > UK politics
Public Perception of Access to Parliament
Posted on | 17 January 2012 | No Comments
UK House of Commons Speaker John Bercow established the Speaker’s Advisory Council on Public Engagement (SACPE) provides informal, independent advice from an external perspective on the programs which the House of Commons has already introduced to improve outreach and to serve as a vehicle for thinking about what Parliament needs to do to convince the public that it has reformed and that it is really relevant to them.
Recently, SACPE chairperson, Professor Jonathan Drori, appeared before the House of Commons Administration Committee as part of their inquiry into Visitor Access and Facilities in the House of Commons.
It was an interesting meeting. There appeared to be a degree of tension between Dr. Drori’s ideas for how Parliament should be made more accessible and open to the public and some MPs’ focus on cost and practicality and feasibility of doing just that. Dr. Drori emphasized what he believed to be the larger issue: that people needed to value democracy and in order for this to happen, they needed to be engaged. This would happen via education: ensuring people understand the mechanics of democracy – voting, how laws are made, the differences between local politics and national politics, etc., but also via Parliament ensuring that the people understand the work it does. He repeatedly stressed the need for a new education centre, a project which has been discussed in Parliament for several years now, but the development of which seems to be largely hampered by two issues: cost and lack of space.
Drori also stressed that Parliament needs to employ all means available to reach out to the general public and to engage citizens by providing means for them to participate and contribute on a larger scale. He encouraged the members of the Committee to adopt a mindset of experimentation in order to seek out the best ways to achieve these ends.
One member of the Committee, Dr. Phillip Lee appeared to disagree with Dr. Drori that Parliament wasn’t accessible to the public, explaining that they could watch proceedings on television or online, or listen to them on the radio. He seemed particularly unhappy with the idea of increasing visitation to Parliament, saying that on some days, it was already “like a school playground” given the number of school groups visiting. Dr. Lee added that the design of the buildings and security concerns made greater access impractical. Dr. Drori noted that viewing Parliamentary proceedings on television or online simply did not provide the same level of experience and reminded the members that the public paid their salaries.
Indeed, much of the meeting did focus on the logistics of balancing greater access with security concerns, and the physical limitations of the Parliament buildings themselves. Dr. Drori tried many times to suggest that there were initiatives that could be undertaken that would allow for greater public access without them getting in the way, and that it was most important that the public not be kept out. He stressed that it really came down to an attitudinal divide: some MPs simply don’t like having members of the public around.
At one point near the end of the meeting, Dr. Drori stated that Parliament’s portcullis logo wasn’t viewed as particularly welcoming by the general public, that it was seen as a gate, something to keep the people out. This statement seemed to upset at least one member of the Committee, Labour MP Rosie Cooper who said she’d never heard such a thing and demanded to know where Dr. Drori got that information. He said it was research that had been shown to SACPE members at one of the meetings, and that he would be willing to provide the details to the Committee.
Of course, the portcullis is a gate. The symbol was developed as part of Sir Charles Barry’s plans for the rebuilt Palace of Westminster after the original burned down on 16 October 1834; he conceptualized the new Palace as a “legislative castle”, and the symbol of a castle gate, a portcullis, fitted well with the scheme. The Portcullis with a crown on top has come to be accepted as the emblem of both Houses of Parliament. In 1996 the use of the crowned Portcullis was formally authorised by license granted by the Queen. Dr. Drori was quick to explain that he wasn’t advocating that Parliament discard its symbols and logos, but that it was crucial that it be aware of public perception and views regarding these matters: “People need to see that Parliament is theirs, that it is of them and for them.”
You can watch the committee meeting with Dr. Drori here.
Related Posts:
2011 Canadian Weblog Awards Shortlist
Posted on | 15 January 2012 | No Comments
I was genuinely astonished, and incredibly pleased and proud to find out today that this blog has been shortlisted as one of the five best politics blogs in the 2011 Canadian Weblog Awards.
To my fellow nominees, I extend my congratulations. It is an honour I am pleased to share with you all.
The winners will be picked from this shortlist over the next two weeks. Good luck to everyone.
Related Posts:
Link clean-up
Posted on | 15 January 2012 | No Comments
The beauty of the internet is that it is a dynamic place. Unfortunately, that dynamism means websites change, content moves around and sometimes disappears completely.
For bloggers, particularly those writing about politics, this presents a special challenge. I am careful to link to sources that I believe are going to be around for the long haul, but that of course doesn’t mean that they won’t reorganize their site, remove some content, or institute paywalls. Earlier this year, I installed a plugin for WordPress which scans blog content for links which no longer work. There were quite a few, and I set about addressing the issue.
I am pleased to announce to readers that my clean-up of broken links is complete, and every link on this blog works. In some cases, the site I was linking to had reorganized their content, and it was simply a matter of re-finding the report I’d linked to and updating the link. In some instances, however, the item I had linked to had completely disappeared. In some cases, I was able to find the same story on a different site. In other instances, however, that proved to be impossible, which left me with one of two choices. Either I could edit the blog post to remove the reference to the article or item in question, or I could simply add a note indicating that the item was no longer available online. If removing the reference had little to no impact on the post in question, that is what I decided to do. In a handful of cases, however, editing the post to remove a reference to the article or report would mean removing a major part of the blog post, significantly altering the post in the process. I preferred to leave the content as is, but with a note indicating that my original source material was no longer available online.
Now that the backlog has been cleared away, I will be able to deal with broken links immediately, since the blog is scanned every 72 hours. If, however, a broken link escapes my attention, please let me know using the Contact fom.
Related Posts:
Coalition Street or Parliament Hill Street Blues?
Posted on | 15 January 2012 | 2 Comments
There is an interesting article on the BBC website discussing the dearth of British political dramas on television. Inspired by the airing of a Danish political drama, Borgen, on BBC Four, the writer, Terry Stiastny, wonders why there have been no British equivalents since the excellent House of Cards which aired in the 1990s.
Borgen is a political thriller about the election of Denmark’s first female prime minister (not the actual first female prime minister who was elected last year – the series aired a year before that actually occurred, so it’s about a fictional first female prime minister) and her coalition government. Borgen will appeal to all political junkies, especially anyone with an interest in coalition politics, but also people interested in good drama – the show also focuses on the main character’s personal life, and how she negotiates being a wife and mother with her political life. And to readers in Canada who are intrigued by this, Borgen is available through *ahem* unofficial sources. Not that I am advocating that anyone do anything illegal here. I’m simply saying it is available if you really want to see it (and it is definitely worth watching).
But back to the issue of political dramas on television. The UK has produced some classic political comedy. Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister are perhaps the best known – certainly familiar to viewers outside the UK. More recently, we have The Thick of It. While The Thick of It hasn’t aired in Canada (to be honest, I don’t think any network here could air it because of the language), many in Canada who work in and around politics are very familiar with the series, having found ways to view it. But as the BBC article notes, there hasn’t been a political drama television series produced in the UK since House of Cards.
The article posits two possible reasons for that. First, the UK public is too cynical about politics to warm to a political hero or anti-hero, and second, there exists a general ignorance of Westminster among writers.
Lord Michael Dodds, who wrote the novel House of Cards was based on, is quoted as saying “that awful word, ‘politics’” puts people off, while Dr Matthew Ashton, a lecturer in politics and media at Nottingham Trent University, explains:
“If you tried something like the American West Wing, which I think is still the gold standard for political TV – where you’ve got a very idealistic view of the presidency and the people who run it – over here, people would say politicians just aren’t like that, and I think they’d reject it.”
He may well have a point – there have been sufficient political scandals over the years, not least among them the expenses scandal, that have served only to further lower politics and politicians in the eyes of the general public. That is why political satire is probably more popular – it makes fun of politicians. It will be interesting to see how Borgen is received by the UK public – the lead character, Birgitte Nyborg, is likeable and optimistic.
The second reason advanced to explain the dearth of political drama does make a lot of sense. If most writers and those who commission scripts and proposals for television series are largely ignorant of the inner workings of Parliament, it isn’t something they’ll naturally think of writing about. House of Cards was based on a novel, external source material. There aren’t that many novels written about politics. Memoirs and other works of non-fiction yes, which can be turned into biographical pieces, but ultimately, these will focus on the life of the whole life of the individual, not exclusively on the political.
This made me wonder about Canadian television series about politics. After a bit of searching online, I have ended up with the following list:
- Quentin Durgens, MP (1965-69)
- Not My Department (1986)
- In Opposition (1989)
- Rideau Hall (2002)
- Trudeau (2002)
- H2O (2004)
- Snakes and Ladders (2004)
- DaVinci’s City Hall (2005)
- Dan for Mayor (2010-11)
Of those programs, only one (Quentin Durgens, MP) seems to have been popular, lasting four season. Most of the others were short-lived, usually only one season. DaVinci’s City Hall was a spin-off of sorts of a very popular program (DaVinci’s Inquest), about a Vancouver chief coroner. In DaVinci’s City Hall, the coroner enters municipal politics, running for mayor. While the original program ran from 1998 to 2005 – hugely successful for a Canadian drama, the spin-off was cancelled after one season. It would seem Canadians like their coroners to stick with forensics and solving crimes, not running for office. Rideau Hall was a short-lived comedy series about an earthy, one-hit wonder disco queen named Regina Gallant who is recommended for appointment as Governor General by a conniving Prime Minister anticipating she will become a national embarrassment in the job, allowing him to move ahead in eliminating the position, along with the Canadian Monarchy. The series brought in fairly good ratings for the CBC and it was expected the show would be renewed for a second season; however, the show was cancelled after the Canadian Television Fund’s budget was cut by the federal government and CBC could only afford to keep its more popular shows. Snakes and Ladders, also a comedy, was about a woman who takes a job as an executive assistant at Parliament Hill for a cabinet minister, was critically acclaimed and won awards, but never got the viewership. Dan for Mayor, another sitcom, again focused on municipal politics in a small town. Not My Department was the CBC’s attempt at a Canadian version of the highly popular BBC series Yes Minister, but is described as “painful“. I couldn’t find much of anything about In Opposition. Trudeau is a mini-series based on the life of Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau and was one of the highest-rated Canadian television programs of the year, winning several awards. H2O is an original mini-series about a Prime Minister agreeing to a US plot to divert water from the Great Lakes.
Canadian programs face special challenges simply finding an audience, given the heavy competition from US programs, which all have much bigger budgets and much bigger names attached to them. Snakes and Ladders, by all accounts, was very good – but it never found an audience in its first (and only) season, and Canadian networks, in particular the CBC, don’t have the budget to stick with programs over the long-term and try to build an audience for them. Canadians did watch Trudeau, but that mini-series benefitted from its subject matter – Trudeau continues to both fascinate and irritate Canadians. H2O‘s popuarity was undoubtedly aided significantly by the fact that it starred Paul Gross, who also co-wrote the series. Plus it played to Canadians’ underlying suspicions about their neighbours to the south.
Is there an audience in Canada for good television drama (or comedy) about politics? We might soon get an answer to that question. The CBC is in the process of developing a six-part mini-series based on the most excellent novel, The Best Laid Plans by Terry Fallis (read my review here). If the series is well-received, then we’ll know that Canadians aren’t too cynical about politics to embrace a political hero. Sadly, we’ll have to wait until probably some time in 2013 to find out.
Related Posts:
The debate on Scotland indepedence heats up
Posted on | 13 January 2012 | No Comments
Debate on the issue of independence for Scotland has heated up again this past week in the United Kingdom.
On Tuesday (10 January), the Government launched its consultation on “facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendum on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom”, which you can download here.
The “legal” bit seems to be the crux of the matter here. I am not a constitutional expert by any stretch of the imagination, and so I won’t attempt to weigh in with my own opinion on the matter; rather, I will share with you what others far more knowledgeable than I have to say.
To summarize, the issue appears whether the Scottish Parliament can legally deliver its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. According to the UK Government:
The Scottish Parliament only has power to legislate on matters that are devolved and has no power to legislate on matters that are reserved to the UK Parliament. The Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is one of those reserved matters. In our view legislation for a referendum brought forward by the Scottish Government would likely be challenged in court and the Scottish Government would lose.
This will sound somewhat familiar to many Canadians. Just as Canada’s Constitution Act, 1867, set out the powers of the Parliament of Canada and those of Provincial legislatures (sections 91 and 92), the Scotland Act 1998 contains a list of matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, i.e. not reserved. That is essentially the power to make laws in relation to matters of health, education , transport, policing and justice. All other matters are reserved, to the UK Parliament, including the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Canada has this as well – the Constitution stipulates that residuary powers are the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada:
The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, s. 91, confer on the Federal Parliament the power ” to make Laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces“. This power is “residuary” in the sense that any matter that does not come within the power of provincial legislatures comes within the power of the federal Parliament. This residuary power ensures that every area of legislation comes under one or both of Canada’s two orders of government.
Since, in the opinion of the UK Government, any unilateral move towards a referendum by Scotland would be illegal, the Government is proposing passing legislation that would give the Scottish Parliament the power to deliver a referendum, but with a few strings attached – the question would have to be a straightforward simple question asking Scots if they want Scotland to be independent, yes or no, and the referendum would have to take place within eighteen months of the bill’s passing.
This isn’t what the Scottish Nationalist Party is proposing. The SNP also originally stated that the referendum would be held around 2015, but this week, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond announced it would be held in the fall of 2014, with full details to be released later this month. The SNP are open to a two-part question, one asking about outright independence, and a second proposing increased financial powers for the Scottish government short of full independence, which has been dubbed “devolution max” or “devo max”. This is viewed as a gradualist approach to independence, a tactic which should be familiar to Canadians since the Parti Québécois has frequently endorsed such an approach for Quebec (called “étapisme”).
It is clear that the Canadian experience with the Quebec sovereignty debate is well-known in the UK. On Wednesday (11 January), during Questions, the Rt. Hon. Michael Moore, the Secretary of State for Scotland, engaged in the following exchange:
Iain Stewart:The House of Commons Library has given me strong evidence to show that the economies of Quebec and Canada as a whole suffered in the 1990s due to constitutional uncertainty. For the sake of jobs in Scotland and England, does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing we need is a prolonged period of constitutional uncertainty, and that the First Minister should stop playing politics and get on with it?
Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is correct to point to that independent analysis and the experience of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is vital that the economic uncertainty we now face because of the referendum is resolved, which is why we have brought forward proposals to make the referendum legal, fair and decisive. I want it to happen as soon as possible.
Later that day, during Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron also made it clear the UK has no desire to repeat Canada’s experience:
Edward Miliband:I want to ask the Prime Minister about Scotland. We on this side of the House believe that the United Kingdom benefits the people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United Kingdom in equal measure. We are stronger together and weaker apart. Does he agree that we must make the case for the Union—not simply a case against separatism, but the positive case about the shared benefits to us all of Scotland’s part in the United Kingdom: the shared economic interests, the shared institutions such as the NHS, the defence forces and the BBC, and above all the shared values we hold together?
The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that this is an area where the right hon. Gentleman and I will be in 100% agreement. I passionately believe in the future of our United Kingdom, and passionately believe that we are stronger together than we would be by breaking apart. Frankly, I am sad that we are even having this debate, because I support the United Kingdom so strongly, but we have to respect the fact that Scotland voted for a separatist party in the Scottish parliamentary elections, so the first thing that it is right to do is make clear the legal position about a referendum, which is what my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary has been doing. We have made the offer to devolve the power to hold that referendum so that it can be made in Scotland and held in Scotland. Frankly, I look forward to having the debate, because I think that too many in the Scottish National party have been happy to talk about the process but, do not want to talk about the substance. I sometimes feel when I listen to them that it is not a referendum they want, but a “neverendum”. Let us have the debate, and let us keep our country together.
Edward Miliband:May I agree with the Prime Minister? This is not a fight about process between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, or between the British Prime Minister and the Scottish First Minister. The way to tackle this issue is to have immediate cross-party talks in Scotland about the timing of the referendum, the nature of the single-question referendum and the vital involvement of the Electoral Commission. Does the Prime Minister also agree with me that we need as soon as possible, as he said, to get beyond process and have that discussion about the substantive issues? This is a momentous decision that our children and grandchildren will have to live with if we get it wrong, so we need a serious, thoughtful and inclusive debate about the choices and the benefits to Scotland of staying in the United Kingdom. On this important issue, the people of our country deserve nothing less than that serious debate about the benefits of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right on those three points. On the process of negotiation, which is very important now, particularly given that the SNP has come out and made more clear what it wants to do, I am very happy for the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament to speak directly to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and let us come to a conclusion about the best time and the best way to hold the referendum. But it must be clear, it must be legal, it must be decisive and it must be fair. Those are the absolute keys. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: as soon as those process questions are settled, we need to get on to the substance. [ Interruption. ] The only point I would make about the timing—[ Interruption. ] As SNP Members, who cannot seem to keep quiet, are so keen to leave the United Kingdom, I do not quite understand why they want to put off putting the question for so long.
As stated at the outset, I am not a constitution expert, and so I will leave you with some links to articles, columns, etc., written by people with far more expertise.
1. Alex Massie has written a good introduction to the issue for the Daily Beast.
2. The Constitution Unit’s Robert Hazell writes that David Cameron might regret taking this all or nothing approach, while Barry Winetrobe asks what “Union” is everyone fighting over?
3. The Guardian does a reality check on whether the UK Government has the power to dictate terms of a referendum.
4. The New Scotsman asks if David Cameron is right to fear an “independence bandwagon”.
5. Some Q&As on the issue: from the BBC and from the Telegraph.
6. Françoise Boucek warns that, based on Canada’s experience, the campaign for Scottish independence will be long and attritional.
Related Posts:
Tags: Constitution > devolution max > referendums > Scotland > Scottish politics > secession > UK politics
On candidate selection
Posted on | 11 January 2012 | 1 Comment
Recently, a Canadian Member of Parliament elected as a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP) from the province of Quebec announced that she was crossing the floor to join the Liberal Party. The MP, Ms. St-Denis, explained that she found herself increasingly disagreeing with the positions the NDP were espousing in the House of Commons, and more in agreement with the positions taken by the Liberals.
In this instance, no one can accuse Ms. St-Denis of political opportunism. The NDP is currently the Official Opposition in Ottawa, while the Liberals, historically Canada’s most successful political party, were reduced to third party status in the last federal election. Ms. St-Denis joining their caucus increases the party’s seat total to 35.
More interesting, perhaps, was the reaction on various blogs, Twitter and other online forums. NDP bloggers immediately dismissed her as a “nobody” joining a dying party – good riddance. Many also decried her actions as “undemocratic”, a betrayal of what her constituents wanted and had voted for, and challenged her to resign her seat and seek re-election as a Liberal. Others called for a ban on floor-crossing.
However, as Graham Fox, the President of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, noted on Twitter:
“The logic behind banning floor-crossing would also mean that leaders should not have the power to throw MPs out of caucus.
If we don’t want MPs to have the ability to “violate the voters’ decisions”, why would we allo party leaders to have that power?”
He added in French (translation mine):
“Bien que chocantes, les defections politiques ne sont pas necessairement anti-demo, et rappellent que les partis ne comptent pas pour tout.” (While upsetting, political defections aren’t always undemocratic and remind us that political parties don’t count for everything.)
In response to that, @jesse_helmer replied:
“I have trouble squaring calls for reform that would weaken part [sic] discipline with opposition to switching parties.”
These are important points. If you support the idea that MPs should have more independence – for example, if you would prefer to see fewer whipped votes in the Canadian House of Commons (almost all votes are whipped), if you would like to see an end to scripted questions during Question Period, and MPs, especially backbenchers, free to ask whatever questions they want, even if it embarrasses their party, if you would like to see an end to party whips controlling who sits on committees, etc., then it makes little sense to support banning floor-crossing, which is probably the ultimate freedom an MP has to voice his or her disagreement with the direction in which their party is moving.
Similarly, if you argue that it is “undemocratic” for an MP to cross the floor because he or she was elected as a member of that particular party, then it is equally undemocratic for a party leader to kick an MP out of caucus and force them to sit as an independent, since that would also be going against what voters had voted for.
I have previously written about some of the main arguments for and against floor crossing, and so I won’t repeat myself in detail here. The question you have to ask yourself is what is the role of an MP? Is it simply someone who toes the party line no matter what and votes as they are told to vote on every given issue, or do we want MPs to use their own judgement, analyze each issue and vote as they see best, even if that includes deciding that they no longer agree with their party, or that their party’s positions aren’t in the best interest of their constituents?
There is another issue at play here, however, one that has been largely overlooked. The last election, the one which saw Ms. St-Denis elected, happened only recently, in May 2011. In a column from La Presse, Vincent Marissal writes that Ms. St-Denis is apparently one of four new NDP MPs from Quebec who aren’t entirely happy being NDP MPs, but whether the other three will quit the party may depend on the outcome of the current NDP Leadership contest:
Pourrait-il y avoir d’autres défections? C’est douteux pour le moment mais, à Ottawa, des néo-démocrates ont laissé entendre que Mme St-Denis «était l’une des quatre députés» susceptibles de quitter le bateau. À suivre, surtout si Thomas Mulcair mord la poussière dans la course à la direction. (translation: “Could there be more defections? It’s doubtful at the moment, but in Ottawa, the New Democrats hinted that Ms. St-Denis “was one of four MPs” susceptible of jumping ship. This is to follow, especially if Thomas Mulcair bites the dust in the leadership race.”)
Many people have been asking why she ran for the NDP in the first place, when she clearly seems to be more of a Liberal in terms of policy positions. Ms. St-Denis admits that she ran not expecting to be elected, which was a safe-enough assumption on her part. Historically, the NDP has never won more than a few seats at any one time in the province of Quebec, and the party didn’t have much of an organization (or many members) in that province. However, the May 2011 election saw some seismic changes in Canada’s political landscape, most notably the demise of the pro-independence Bloc Québécois (reduced from 47 seats to 4 seats). The BQ’s support largely went to the NDP, which had gone into that election with one MP from Quebec and emerged after the election with 59 of the province’s 75 seats.
Because, historically, the NDP never expected to win many seats in Quebec, they often ran placeholder candidates in many of the ridings. These candidates are often chosen at the last minute, and may not be very well vetted since the party is mostly focused on being able to say they are running a full slate of candidates. The NDP isn’t the only party to do this, of course, and most of the time, there’s no chance that these candidates will win. But sometimes they do win, and the party finds itself with new MPs who may not be fully committed to the party and its policies.
Another factor is that there is strong evidence that a lot of the former BQ voters in Quebec who turned to the NDP weren’t really voting for the party per se, but for its leader, Jack Layton, who passed away this summer. Mr. Layton was extremely popular and quite well known in Quebec – more popular and better known than his party and its policies, it’s probably fair to say. Ms. St-Denis acknowledged that, saying people in her riding had voted not for the NDP but for Jack Layton, and Layton was dead, implying that her move from the NDP to the Liberals didn’t really matter because voters hadn’t really voted for the NDP and its policies.
And it’s also fair to say that the NDP’s policies never really received much media attention. Since 1993, the NDP has been the 4th party in the House of Commons, which meant that media attention was largely focused on the parties (and policies of the parties) which had a real chance of forming the government: the Liberals and Reform/Canadian Alliance/Conservatives. That they finished second in the May 2011 election, becoming the Official Opposition for the first time in the party’s history, caught almost everyone off-guard. Late in the election campaign, when it became increasingly clear that something was going on, both the media and the other parties were left scrambling – the media trying to figure what the NDP stood for, and the other parties what to attack them on. Therefore it really shouldn’t come as a surprise if some of the people who ran for the NDP in Quebec, never expecting to win, weren’t that familiar with what the party actually stood for – some of them didn’t even campaign at all in the ridings in which they were candidates.
As I have written repeatedly, in various posts, the Canadian House of Commons is already extremely whipped, with MPs already quite subservient to their party leadership (particularly in contrast with MPs from the UK). Party discipline does not need to be strengthened in the Canadian House of Commons, if anything, anyone interested in political reform should be looking at ways of weakening the power of party whips and party leadership, and giving MPs more freedom to carry out their roles and obligations as individual Members. Banning floor crossing runs counter to increasing MP independence. More attention should also be given to candidate selection. Parties should focus less on trying to run full slates and more on the quality of their candidates. Perhaps the phasing out of the vote subsidy will force some parties at least to do just this because they won’t have the financial resources to run a full slate, and there won’t be any financial incentive to have a warm body on every ballot. In the end, perhaps that will be a good thing.
Related Posts:
Tags: Canada politics > changing parties > elections > floor crossing > political parties
Inside the New Zealand House of Representatives
Posted on | 8 January 2012 | No Comments
Like its Australian counterpart, the New Zealand House of Representatives’ debating chamber is arranged in a horseshoe shape. The Chamber measures 19.3 by 13.12 metres, which is smaller than the Canadian and UK Houses of Commons. As in the other chambers, the Speaker sits at one end, on a dais, and the Clerk and other Table officers are seated at a Table in front of and below the Speaker’s Chair.
The Members sit at desks arranged in three to five tiers. The MPs who are members of the Government side sit on the Speaker’s right, with the members of the executive nearest to the Speaker. The members of the Opposition parties sit on the left, with the members of the shadow cabinet nearest the Speaker, as we can see in this image from Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand:
The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and deputy to the Leader of the Opposition sit facing each other in recognised front bench seats. Their respective whips are seated immediately behind them. Other Ministers and members are allocated seats within the area of the Chamber occupied by the party to which they belong on a basis determined by the party. As far as practicable, each party occupies a block of seats in the Chamber, so that its members are seated contiguously. It is also a recognised practice that, if at all possible, every party leader should have a front-bench seat. Because New Zealand uses Mixed-Member Proportional voting rather than First-Past-The-Post, coalition government is the norm and so the government side of the House will include all of the parties forming the coalition.
In this image, we note that the horseshoe shape of the Chamber is divided at three points by gangways. One gangway at the far end of the Chamber leads beyond the bar of the House to an exit. The other two gangways are on either side of the Chamber. The one on the Speaker’s right leads into a lobby known as the Ayes Lobby, and the one on the left leads into the Noes Lobby. New Zealand MPs used to use these lobbies for divisions as is done in the British House of Commons, but since adopting MMP voting in 1996, the lobbies are used only for what are called “personal” votes. Party votes – which would be the equivalent of a whipped vote in other parliaments – don’t even require that all MPs be present. If a party indicates that is it voting in favour of a bill or motion, then a number of votes equivalent to the number of MPs that party has is attributed to the Ayes. Because of this, even the Speaker votes in New Zealand, which is not the case in other Westminster-style parliaments. The Speaker’s vote is included in any party vote cast and the Speaker votes in a personal vote, though without going into the lobbies personally – the Speaker’s vote is communicated to the teller from the Speaker’s chair. Because the lobbies are rarely used for divisions, they are now set aside for the exclusive use of members while the House is sitting as a place where they can go to relax.
Ministerial advisers are able to converse with their Minister from a bench situated immediately to the right of the Speaker’s chair (not shown in the diagram). Immediately to the left of the chair there are seats available for former members of Parliament, heads of diplomatic missions and visiting members of overseas parliaments.
Related Posts:
Tags: bar of the house > clerk > coalition government > government > House of Representatives > Mace > New Zealand > opposition parties > parliaments > sergeant-at-arms > Speaker > table officers
Admin
Copyright
On procedure and politics by Radical Centrist is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
