Posts in Category ‘Politics’

Will MPs rebel over boundary reforms?

Since day one back in May 2010, the UK media has made predicting the break-up of the coalition a favourite hobby. Indeed, almost every controversial policy has been dubbed the issue that will spell the end of the Coalition – the budget, tuition fees, the AV referendum, reform of the NHS, the London riots to name but a few – each of these was supposed to bring about an irreversible split between the two parties. However, that has not happened. While tensions have undoubtedly increased between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats over some (or all) of these issues, the Coalition continues forward.

This may change, however. One of the bills passed by the Government, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-11, would see the number of MPs in the House of Commons reduced from the current 650 to 600. After the bill received Royal Assent in February of this year, the Boundaries Commission set about redrawing existing constituency boundaries to accommodate the requirements of the bill. Tomorrow, 12 September 2011, MPs will be given advance notice of how their constituency will be affected. Fifty MPs will see their constituency vanish. Others will see theirs change, in some case, dramatically.

According to The Independent, Government Whips are worried that some Coalition MPs who face the prospect of losing their seat completely will decide they have no reason to continue supporting the Government in the House for the remainder of this Parliament, i.e the next three years. There is also the issue of MPs whose constituencies will remain being shuffled out in favour of other, higher-profile MPs who will be losing their seats:

Senior ministers including George Osborne, the Chancellor, Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, and Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, are among those whose seats are under threat.

It raises the prospect of more junior MPs being shunted out of safe seats to make way for key government figures. “It will be every man and woman for themselves,” a Tory backbencher said. “It will be piranha pool-time,” said another. There is even speculation that some disgruntled MPs could quit within weeks, sparking a wave of by-elections.

The details of the boundary changes won’t be made public until the following day (13 September), and these changes are for constituencies in England only. Changes to constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced later this year.

ETA: You can read the leaked reports here.

Related Posts:

The Backbench Business Committee on e-petitions

As readers may know, part of the plan when the UK Government launched its new e-petitions scheme this summer was that a petition which garnered over 100,000 signatures would be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration for possible debate in Parliament. Two petitions have reached the required number of signatures and have been referred to the Committee (see this post for more information on this).

Today, the Backbench Business Committee has released on statement on e-petitions noting certain problems with the e-petitions scheme as currently set up and which need to be addressed. These problems are:

1. The Government has not allocated any additional time to the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling debates on e-petitions and the Committee’s existing limited supply of debate days is already oversubscribed.

2. More importantly, the Committee has no power to schedule debates unless some MPs come forward to tell the Committee that they wish to take part in them. However the Government has not provided any way to link petitions to MPs who wish to sponsor them on the e-petitions site, or any advice to petitioners on what they might need to do to achieve this.

The Committee concludes:

The Backbench Business Committee will:

  • publish advice on their website to help organisers of petitioners know how to take their case forward;
  • continue to press the Government to provide specific time for debates on e-petitions so that there is an effective way for the public to engage with Parliament;
  • hold individual and group meetings with campaign groups and organisers of e-petitions to discuss how best to get their issues on the agenda.

What this seems to imply is simply that there will not be any debate on any e-petition which reaches the 100,000 signature requirement unless the Government allocates more days to the Backbench Business Committee specifically for this purpose, and even then only if an MP or group of MPs sponsor a debate on an e-petition. Right now, there exists no way to link MPs with e-petitioners so that the MP can sponsor the e-petition and push for it to be debated.

Update: The Government indicated today that additional time might be allocated to the Backbench Business Committee for e-petition debates.

Related Posts:

HM e-petitions: clarifying misconceptions

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): But does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail, which says that this amounts to an e-petition con? The Government said to the public, “If 100,000 of you sign one of these petitions, there’ll be a debate.” What discussion did the Government have with the Backbench Business Committee about how the time for those debates would be allocated?

Mr Heath: May I caution the hon. Lady, first against reading the Daily Mail , and secondly against agreeing with what it says? The Government have never said that when a petition reaches the threshold it will have an automatic right of debate. It will be considered with a view to seeing whether the matter raised has already been debated or is already going to be debated in a different context or whether the request has already been met by the Government. If there is then a need to debate something that the public have registered as an interest, the Backbench Business Committee will respond to that request. That seems to me an entirely proper way of doing things and it is a huge improvement on the old No. 10 petition site on which the petitions went precisely nowhere. (source)

Since the launch of the UK Government’s e-petition at the beginning of August 2011, two petitions have reached the magic 100,000-plus signature mark.

For those unfamiliar with the new e-petitions scheme, I wrote about it in detail at its launch, which you can read here. To summarise, persons in the UK can now petition the government electronically. This does not replace the traditional paper petition, however, those will continue to be accepted. Any petition, electronic or paper, which receives over 100,000 signatures will be referred to the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee. The Committee will review the petition and decide if the subject of the petition merits being debated in Parliament. However, there is no restriction on the number of signatures required for the Backbench Business Committee to consider scheduling a debate based on petition – the Committee is free to consider a debate on a petition that has any number of signatures, if they believe the issue raised by the petition is worthy of debate.

The first petition to reach 100,000 signatures was one proposing that anyone convicted of any wrongdoing following the riots last month lose any government benefits they might be receiving.

The second petition to gather more than 100,000 signatures requests full government disclosure and publication of all documents, discussions and reports relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, as requested by information commissioner Christopher Graham. There have been reports in the media of a third petition calling for a referendum on EU membership with over 100,000 signatures, but this is misleading. There was a campaign launched in March 2011 to petition Parliament for a referendum on the EU. The total signatures on all of the various traditional paper petitions and e-petitions add up to more than 100,000, but there is no single e-petition on the matter with over 100,000 signatures, and this drive began before the government’s e-petition site was launched at the end of July 2011. There is no e-petition on the official e-petition site calling for such a referendum which has over 100,000 signatures.

Regarding the second one, the Government has responded already, stating:

The Government has confirmed its commitment to full transparency about the Hillsborough disaster through full public disclosure. All papers had previously been shared with the Hillsborough Independent Panel. The Government is happy for all the papers, including Cabinet papers, to be released as soon as the Panel so decides, in consultation with the families. We expect them to be shared with the Hillsborough families first and then to the wider public.

The petition requesting that convicted rioters lose their benefits has also received a response from the Government:

As you may be aware, the House of Commons debated the recent public disorder when Parliament was recalled on 11 August 2011 and there was an opportunity for MPs to address the substance of this e-petition. This does not preclude a decision by the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a further debate on this issue when the House of Commons returns from the summer recess.

In the meantime, we would like to update you on the Government’s current position on the substance of this e-petition.

Prisoners convicted of a criminal offence and detained in prison are not entitled to social security benefits. That means that anyone who is eligible for social security benefits and who is caught, convicted and imprisoned for any offence committed during the recent disorder that has disrupted London and other UK cities will be disqualified from receiving social security payments. The Department for Work and Pensions is also looking at whether further sanctions can be imposed on the benefit entitlements of individuals who receive non custodial sentences. In addition the Department is considering increasing the level of fines which can be deducted from benefit entitlement.

In relation to social housing, it is already a ground for eviction if a tenant or a member of their family is involved in anti-social behaviour or criminal activity in their local neighbourhood. Ministers have encouraged social landlords to use these powers, and a number of local authorities have pledged to do so. The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting on proposals to allow such evictions to take place where the criminal activity takes place outside the vicinity of the local neighbourhood; more information is available to view here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/newsroom/publicdisorder.

Based on search word activity on this blog, there seems to be some confusion over what makes a petition “successful”. A petition does not have to get 100,000 signature to get a response from the Government department to which the petition is addressed. All e-petitions will be referred to the appropriate Government department for response once the period for signature gathering is closed. The only potential plus of garnering 100,000 or more signatures is that the petition will also be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration for debate. It is important to note, however, that debate is not guaranteed to occur, and even if it does, it may be in Westminster Hall rather than the main chamber of the House of Commons. As well, a debate on an issue raised in a petition does not mean that there will be a vote after the debate that will change the law affected. will be eligible to be debated in the House of Commons, though this is not guaranteed to happen. Most importantly of all, while much will be made of the 100,000 signature mark, there is no restriction on the number of signatures required for the Backbench Business Committee to consider scheduling a debate based on petition. In other words, garnering 100,000 signatures will not guarantee a debate, and garnering fewer than 100,000 does not exclude the possibility of a debate. Petitioners must not view the possibility of having their petition debated in Parliament as the only measure of “success”, for even if the petition does end up being debated by MPs, in all likelihood, the matter will not in any way be binding on the Government.

The impression some have that any petition which garners more than 100,000 signatures will be debated in the House of Commons is probably in part attributable to some rather shoddy journalism. For example, in this piece from the Daily Mail, Harry Phibbs writes: “Those attracting over 100,000 signatures will be put forward to be debated in the House of Commons.” Further down he writes:

Even more people, 218,995, have signed up to a demand that rioters should lose welfare benefits. It calls for “all financial benefits” to be removed which I doubt the Government will deliver – they are in coalition with the Lib Dems after all and have not been able to scrap the Human Rights Act which could be an obstacle. But even before the proposal is debated in the Commons there is direct evidence that it has had an impact on policy.

Phibbs makes it sound as if it is guaranteed that any petition gaining 100,000+ signatures will be debated in the House of Commons. This is not the case. They will simply be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration. The Committee will then decide if the subject matter warrants debate, or it may simply decide to refer it to the appropriate government department for the usual response.

This is the key issue. How likely any petition will end up being debated is questionable. The Backbench Business Committee has already voiced its displeasure at having the petitions referred to it, and is asking for extra debating days to be given to her committee to allocate, because it is not exactly short of subjects MPs want to talk about. The Committee chair, Natascha Engel warns that the e-petitions scheme runs the risk of creating false public expectations:

But although she welcomed the move for greater public engagement, Engel described the number of signatures as an “arbitrary” government figure. “We can’t give priority just because something has 100,000 signatures on a petition,” she said.

And she was concerned the government risked “raising expectations” when parliamentarians were seeking to rebuild public trust that was still “very, very fraught” after the MPs expenses scandal.

Concern was even raised about the possibility of MPs not showing up to debates.

Engel said her stance would have been different if e-petitions was intended as something MPs could draw on to secure debates. And she said: “If they gave us some time I wouldn’t have a problem”.

Consequently, it is important that people understand two things: an e-petition does not need to gain 100,000+ signatures to get a response from the appropriate Government department or to be considered for debate. All petitions will be referred to the department responsible once the time period for collection of signatures has closed, and the Backbench Business Committee is free to consider any petition for debate, regardless of the number of signatures attached to that petition. Therefore all petitions will be “successful” petitions. Second, garnering 100,000+ signatures will not guarantee that an e-petition will be debated in Parliament. It will simply guarantee that the e-petition will be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration. The Committee will then decide if the e-petition merits debate.

If the e-petition addresses a matter which the House of Commons has already debated in the current session, it is highly questionable that it would be referred for debate. By convention, Parliament will not revisit a matter that it has already debated.

(Note to Canadian readers: the Canadian Parliament does not currently accept e-petitions, and the Quebec National Assembly is the only provincial/territorial assembly that does accept e-petitions.)

Related Posts:

Some interesting links

This blog’s author is rather swamped at work these days, and so I will take this opportunity to share with you some recent links that have caught my attention.

1. Is the tide finally turning for Nick Clegg?

Having gone from everyone’s darling after the first ever leaders’ debates last spring to the most despised person in British politics, Nick Clegg seems to be getting some respect in the press these days, and from rather unlikely sources. First up is this piece in the right-leaning, pro-Tory Telegraph by Paul Goodman, wherein he writes: “Whatever happens, Clegg will be in the midst of it – polite, influential, under-scrutinised and enduring as ever, despite the opprobrium heaped on his head. (…) His party has not split. He has faced no leadership challenge. None of the party’s MPs has called for him to go. His last party conference rallied round – as will the coming one, despite the inevitable huffing and puffing. His one-man masochism strategy is also a marathon strategy, as he strains towards the day when voters will thank him, however begrudgingly, for his role in the great mission of deficit reduction.”

Then there’s Rafael Behr’s piece in the left-leaning, pro-Labour New Statesman: “Speculation along these lines is a diverting political parlour game, but it ignores the current reality that Clegg is the Deputy PM, leading a party with enough seats in parliament and enough ministers in cabinet to leave yellow fingerprints all over government. The best testimony to the Lib Dems’ power is the fury it routinely provokes on the Tory right. Hawkish on the deficit, liberal on social policy and populist on bankers; thriftier than Labour but nicer than the Tories, the Lib Dems are squatting stubbornly, sometimes chaotically, in the middle of British politics. The voters might not thank Nick Clegg for it in the opinion polls; the other parties resent him for it. One thing he cannot be, however, is ignored.”

2. Political perceptions run amok

Recently, in The Observer, we learned that Labour’s new strategy would be to attack David Cameron as a “recognisably rightwing” leader. This view of Cameron was roundly rejected by readers of the more right-leaning Spectator (note the reader comments on this piece, rather than the blog post itself) and over at ConservativeHome, where the general consensus among right-wing Tories is that David Cameron may be many things, but right-wing is not one of them.

3. Parliamentum

For anyone who generally enjoys reading this blog, I would like to recommend another blog to you, Parliamentum, written by James W. J. Bowden. He writes about “Westminster parliamentarism in the core Commonwealth (The UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), particularly the unwritten constitution, the reserve powers of the crown, and the evolution of parliament, the cabinet, and the crown as institutions.” His approach is more academic than mine, since my goal is more to explain how parliament and parliamentary procedure works to people who aren’t very familiar with either, but I think both blogs complement each other quite well.

4. The Cabinet Manual and the Working of the British Constitution

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) released  a report analyzing the draft Cabinet Manual, a potentially powerful document that codifies and unites the often unwritten conventions and rules that have governed and guided governmental activity for decades. I have mentioned this draft Cabinet Manual in a few posts. You can download the PDF of this report here.

5. For anyone going through Parliament withdrawal

Some good news: the UK Parliament resumes sitting next week. The BBC’s Mark D’Arcy provides a handy look-ahead as to what to expect. If any of that sounds interesting to you, you can livestream proceedings in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and committee hearings thanks to Parliament Live TV. Canada’s Parliament doesn’t come back from its summer holidays until September 19.

Related Posts:

On party financing

A debate is looming in the United Kingdom concerning the issue of funding for political parties. There have been attempts in the past to address this issue, most recently in 2007, but those negotiations failed because the parties were unable to agree a cap.

Current situation

There is currently no limit to the amount an individual or organisation can donate or lend to an organisation/individual. However, the money must come from a permissible source if it is above £500 (about 797 CAD).

When organisations/individuals receive a donation or a loan above £500, they must verify that the donor or lender is permissible.

Under Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), eligible donors or lenders are:

  • an individual registered in a UK electoral register (including bequests)
  • a UK registered company which is incorporated within the European Union and carries on business in the UK
  • a GB registered political party
  • a UK registered trade union
  • a UK registered building society
  • a UK registered limited liability partnership that carries on business in the UK
  • a UK registered friendly society
  • a UK based unincorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK
  • certain kinds of UK-based trusts

All parties contesting a relevant election are subject to limits on expenditure incurred in the ‘regulated period’ in advance of an election. These limits are separate to the limits on election expenses incurred by individual candidates standing at elections. At Parliamentary general elections, a party’s spending limit is either:

  • £30,000 (47,855 CAD) multiplied by the number of constituencies being contested;
  • or £810,000 (1.3 mn CAD) in England; £120,000 in Scotland (191,315 CAD); or £60,000 (95,630 CAD) in Wales

whichever is the greater. (source: the Electoral Commission) This means that in a general election, such as the May 2010 election, if a party contested all 650 constituencies, its campaign spending limit would be £19.5 mn (31.1 mn CAD).

Proposed Changes

Media reports state that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, an independent public body which advises government on ethical standards across the whole of public life in the UK, is recommending a new limit on donations, introducing an annual cap with figures ranging from £50,000 (79,692 CAD) to £10,000 (15,943 CAD) being considered. The Committee’s report is expected in October, but if they do proceed with an annual cap, this will have major implications for UK political parties, and in particular, Labour.

Labour is almost completely dependent on donations from trade unions for its funding. As George Eaton notes in this piece in the New Statesman:

The latest party funding figures have just been released and the most notable thing, as usual, is Labour’s remarkable dependence on the trade unions. In quarter two, the party received £3,093,094 in donations, £2,651,589 or 85.7 per cent of which came from the unions. Unite, the country’s biggest union, was alone responsible for 24.8 per cent (£765,628) of all donations. Of the £5.9m the Labour Party has received across both quarters this year, £5.2m or 88 per cent came from the unions.

Such a cap would also impact the Conservative Party, which receives most of its funding via large donations from businesses and other organizations, but not to the same extent that it would hurt Labour. According to the Guardian:

An analysis of five and a half years’ worth of donations to the parties reveals the move would most dramatically affect Labour’s funding base. If the £50,000 limit had been in place over the period, Labour’s donations would have been reduced by 72%, the Conservatives’ by 37% and the Liberal Democrats’ by 25%.

Canada

In Canada, things are very different. Only an individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make political contributions:

  • up to $1,000 (627 GBP) in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party
  • up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party
  • up to $1,000 in total to a candidate in an election who does not represent a registered party
  • up to $1,000 in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest

Donations from all other sources, including unions and corporations, are illegal.

The maximum amount that is allowed for the election expenses of a registered party for an election is calculated in two steps:

Step 1: Multiply $0.70 (about 44p) by the number of names on the preliminary lists of electors for electoral districts in which the registered party has endorsed a candidate or by the number of names on the revised lists of electors for those electoral districts, whichever is greater.

Step 2: Multiply the result of step 1 by the inflation adjustment factor that is in effect on the day of the issue of the writs for the election.

You can see the final campaign expense limits for each registered party for the most recent general election here. The three main parties (the Conservatives, NDP and the Liberal Party) averaged about $21-mn each (13.1 mn GBP). (Source for all of the above Elections Canada.)

As well, Canada currently has a per vote subsidy which is paid to political parties. Currently, the subsidy is just over CDN$2 per vote (1.25 GBP) if a party garners more than 2% of votes cast nationally. I have written about the vote subsidy in this post, and so won’t repeat myself here. The current Conservative Government is planning to phase out the vote subsidy, however.

According to the Guardian article, the Committee is looking at state financing for political parties, but given the UK’s current economic problems and the austerity measures introduced by the Government, it is thought that this would be very difficult to bring forward. They are also looking at how to treat the issue of union donations:

The debate now appears to rest on whether union money should be treated as single large donations or as multiple small donations from individual members’ affiliation fees, and whether those affiliation fees should automatically go to Labour.

Union members could be given the option to donate their fee to another party in what would be the most radical shakeup of Labour’s relationship with the unions in a generation, which would be fiercely opposed by union leaders.

As might be expected, Labour suspects the move towards a donation cap is an attempt to weaken it, since it would be the party most negatively impacted by such a move. Similarly, the opposition parties in Canada also suspect the Conservative Government’s plans to eliminate the vote subsidy is politically motivated since they are more dependent on the subsidy than is the Conservative Party. However, in the UK, any changes introduced will be achieved only through all-party negotiations and agreement. The reason no reforms were achieved in 2007 is because the parties could not come to an agreement. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will start all-party talks once the Committee’s report is released in October:

A Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that the coalition would not impose a deal on the parties. “The history of party funding reform is littered with corpses. You have to do it in consultation with the other parties,” the spokesman said.

This is the right approach to take. As I wrote in my post on the vote subsidy, it should not be left to the government of the day (or one political party) to set political financing rules that affect all parties – it should be a multi-party process.

Related Posts:

Canada’s first voter-initiated referendum

In a much earlier post, I wrote about the Canadian province of British Columbia’s Recall and Initiative Act. This act provides a mechanism to recall sitting Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and to bring citizen initiatives before the Legislature or to province-wide referendum.

As discussed in that post, which focused primarily on the recall aspect of the act, since the Act’s adoption in 1995, there have been 20 attempts at recalling MLAs, and only came close to succeeding. The verification process was halted because the MLA targeted by the recall petition resigned.

The Recall and Initiative Act also allows for voter-initiated legislation and referendums. The requirements for a voter-initiated referendum are similar to those for a recall of an MLA.

Overview of how a referendum can be initiated in the province of British Columbia

To force a province-wide referendum, a registered voter must first apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a petition to have a legislative proposal introduced into the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the Act.  This application must include a draft Bill for introduction into the Legislative Assembly.

If the application is successful, the Chief Electoral Officer will inform the petitioner to that effect, publish notice of the approval in the Gazette and at least one newspaper and issue the petition 60 days after notice has been published in the Gazette.

The petitioner then has 90 days to gather the required number of signatures in support of the petition. Petitions may only be signed by registered voters in the electoral district for which the signature sheet was issued. Also, each petition requires 85 different petition forms for signatures, one for each electoral district. The petitioner must collect signatures from at least 10% of the registered voters in each of the provinces 85 electoral districts. If this target is not met in even only one district, the petition will be denied.

Petition canvassers – the persons who go around trying to collect the required signatures – must be registered “volunteer canvassers” as per requirements set out in the BC Elections Act.

If the petitioner succeeds in collecting the required number of signatures in each electoral district in the required 90-day time frame, he or she then submits the petition to Elections BC, which then has 42 days to review the petition to determine whether the petition meets all of the requirements.

If the Chief Electoral Officer determines that the petition has met all of the requirements, it and the draft bill are referred to the Legislature’s select standing committee on Legislative Initiatives. The select standing committee must, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the initiative petition and draft Bill, meet to consider the initiative petition and draft Bill. Then, within 90 days of the date of its first meeting, the committee must either table a report recommending that the draft Bill be introduced in the Legislature at the earliest applicable opportunity, or refer the initiative petition to the Chief Electoral Officer. If the select standing committee refers the initiative petition and draft Bill to the chief electoral officer, the chief electoral officer must hold an initiative vote under the Act.

If a referendum proceeds, it requires a super-majority to succeed. This means that the result must satisfy two criteria: 1) that more than 50% of the total number of registered voters in British Columbia vote in favour of the initiative, and 2)  that more than 50% of the total number of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in the province vote in favour of the initiative. In other words, the initiative must be supported by a majority of voters overall as well as a majority of voters in at least 64 of the province’s electoral districts. It if receives, for example province-wide support of 60%, but fails to achieve at least 50% support in 64 electoral districts, the initiative will not pass. If the vote is successful, however, the government would be required to introduce the draft bill contained in the petition.

It should be noted, however, that nothing in the Act requires that the government of the day pass the draft Bill after it is introduced. It could die on the floor of the House as do many private members’ bills.

BC’s first voter-initiated referendum

There have been six attempts to launch a voter-initiated referendum since the passage of the Act in 1995, but none succeeded until this year.

In 2009, just after having been elected with another majority in a provincial general election, the BC Liberal Government announced it would be harmonizing its provincial sales tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax, replacing the PST and GST with a new 12% Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). The Liberals has categorically rejected doing so during the election campaign, and their apparently sudden change of heart did not sit well with many in the province.

A former provincial premier, Bill Vander Zalm, launched a campaign against the HST, organizing a series of rallies across the province. In February 2010, his petition opposing the HST was approved, and he successfully collected the required number of signatures in all 85 of the province’s electoral districts. While that was going on, the Government moved ahead, introducing the HST legislation in March 2010, and the new tax came into effect on July 1, 2010.

Vander Zalm’s petition, meanwhile, became tied up in court. A group of BC businesses launched the court action in an effort to stop the anti-HST petition and draft legislation arguing that the proposed legislation is outside the jurisdiction of the province because the HST was enacted by a federal law. In August 2010, the judge disagreed, and the petition and draft bill were referred to the select Standing Committee so that it could decide whether to refer the draft Bill to the Legislature, or refer the petition and bill to Elections BC for a referendum. The committee opted for a referendum. Then-premier Gordon Campbell announced that the results would be binding on the Government.

Meanwhile in September 2010, documents obtained by the media under a Freedom of Information request showed that  B.C. government bureaucrats were engaged in discussions about the HST with their federal counterparts well before the May 2009 provincial election.

Prompted by growing backlash to the HST, Premier Campbell announced in November 2010 that he was stepping down as leader of the Liberal party and Premier, paving the way for leadership contest which was won by Christy Clark in February 2011.

The date for the HST referendum was set for June 2011 and was conducted by postal ballot. Results were announced on August 26 and the petition proved to have been the first successful one since the province adopted the Recall and Initiative Act in 1995. Elections B.C. announced that 54.73% of the 1.6 million British Columbians who cast a ballot in the mail-in referendum voted to get rid of the tax and 45.27% voted to keep it. Over 50% of voters in 71% of the province’s electoral districts rejected the HST, thus meeting the Act’s super-majority requirement.

British Columbia remains the only jurisdiction in Canada with voter-initiated recall and referendum legislation. The BC requirements for both are quite stringent, particularly when compared to similar legislation in some US states, for example. Some might say this hampers democracy, but others would point out that it safeguards against more ridiculous proposals being put forward and ensures that there is a significant degree of support for either recalling an MLA or pushing forward a cause, such as opposition to the HST. If governments thought that any piece of legislation they put forward could easily be overturned by means of a voter-initiated referendum or Bill, that might dissuade them from proceeding with needed, but difficult, legislation. The BC Act manages to ensure that the government won’t have its legislative program hijacked by a minority of disgruntled voters, while at the same time allowing a majority of voters to potentially overturn what they believe to be misguided policy.

Related Posts:

Minority assumptions

At the outset of the most recent Canadian federal election campaign in March of this year, I wrote a post addressing how the concept of coalition government had become almost toxic in Canada. This phenomenon didn’t start this year – it dates back, as the posts states, to events in 2008. The Canadian media has not always helped on this front; there have been far too many op ed pieces dismissing the idea of coalition government as being, if not actually illegal, at least foreign and certainly undesirable (see, for example, my dissection of one such column here).

There will be a general election in the Canadian province of Ontario this October. The outcome of the previous election, in 2007, resulted in a Liberal majority government. This time around, if polls are accurate, we will end up with a hung parliament. Already we see some in the media jumping to conclusion as to what sort of government might emerge.

For example, back in August, polls were showing the Official Opposition party, the Progressive Conservatives, to be ahead slightly, with the Liberals running second and the New Democratic Party (NDP) third. Based on those current polls, the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy released an attempt at projecting a seat count for each party. The province’s Legislative Assembly has 107 seats. The Institute projected 51 seats for the PCs, 41 for the Liberals and 15 for the NDP. The news article carried on the Global News website was headlined: Laurier professor projecting Conservative minority in Ontario.

The professor projected no such thing. The only thing the Institute projected was a hung parliament. Yes, they projected that the Progressive Conservatives might emerge with the most seats, but they were still short of the 54 seats required for a majority. The Liberals and NDP together, however, would have a majority, 56 seats. Similarly, the PCs and NDP together would be in an even stronger position, with 66 seats. The Institute made no attempt to determine what form of government would emerge, they simply projected that no party would win a majority. It was Global News which unilaterally decided that this meant the only possible outcome was a PC minority government.

More recent polls have shown similar results, sometimes with the Liberals slightly ahead in the seat count, but still short of a majority, sometimes the PCs and Liberals are shown to be in a dead heat. And the media never fail to trumpet minority government. Most recently, for example, a new poll has the Liberals and PCs tied at 35% each. The story’s headline: Massive poll finds minority looming. The first sentence of the article reads:

Ontario is headed toward a minority government for the first time in decades with the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives deadlocked, according to a major new poll.

Again, this isn’t accurate. The poll indicates that Ontario is headed toward a minority parliament. It is impossible to determine what sort of government will emerge and it most certainly isn’t up to the media to dictate what form of government should emerge in the event of a hung parliament. It doesn’t have to be a minority government. It could be a majority government, if two of the parties are willing to work together and form a coalition. Or it could be a minority government that would be as strong as a majority government if the third place party agreed to support one of the other parties (and it wouldn’t have to be the party that finishes “first” in seat count). Perhaps our journalists simply don’t understand the difference between minority parliaments and minority government?

No poll has yet indicated that any party would end up with a majority. So what happens in the event of a hung parliament?

As the incumbent party, it would be up to the Liberals to determined if they have any way of commanding the confidence of the Legislature. Depending on the outcome, this might or might not be possible. If they had the most seats, but shy of a majority, it could be possible. If they finished second to the PCs, then on their own, obviously, they could not. However, this does not mean that they would have to immediately concede defeat. They could enter into discussions with the NDP and if they secured the support of the NDP, either via a formal accord similar to the Liberal-NDP accord of 1985, or by forming a full-fledged coalition government similar to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the United Kingdom, they would command the confidence of the Assembly. However, the NDP is under no obligation to work with the Liberals. They could also negotiate with the PCs, offering supply-confidence support in exchange for certain NDP policies to be implemented, or even explore coalition with the PCs. In the UK, after the May 6 2010 election, it took five days for a government to emerge, as both Labour and the Conservatives negotiated with the Liberal Democrats to see what might be possible.

My only point here is to yet again bemoan the Canadian media’s penchant for assuming any hung parliament result can lead only to minority government.

Voters in Ontario will not be electing a government in October, they will be electing a new parliament. It will be the MPPs elected to form that parliament who will determine which party or parties can command the confidence of the House. It may well result in a minority government, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be that – it will all depend on the numbers and parties’ willingness to work with each other. With polls as close as they are, a hung parliament could allow for at least six possible outcomes, not one or two.* I would simply ask the media to remember that a minority government does not have to be the only option on the table.

____________
*If the October election did result in a minority or hung parliament, depending on the actual seat numbers, any of the following types of government would be entirely legitimate. 1) a Liberal minority government. As the incumbent party, they get the first shot at trying to form a government which can command the confidence of the House. They could attempt to govern on their own even if they finished second to the PCs. If they did finish second to the PCs, this would be highly unlikely, however, since the government would be very unstable, quickly brought down on a confidence vote by the opposition and, perhaps more importantly, the optics wouldn’t look good at all. 2) A PC minority. This would be the most likely outcome if the PCs end up with the most seats, but shy of a majority. However, it too would be unstable and easily defeated by the opposition parties (see 1985). 3) A Liberal minority with formal support from the NDP (à la 1985). While not officially a majority government, it would act like one since two parties combined would command a majority of the seats. 4) A Liberal-NDP coalition government, which differs from option 3 in that the NDP would actually be part of the government, with some cabinet posts going to NDP MPPs. 5) A PC minority supported by the NDP (see point 3). 6) A PC-NDP coalition government. These last two are less likely than their Liberal-NDP alternatives simply because there is a wider ideological divide between the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives than there is between the NDP and the Liberals. I would add that there even exists the possibility of cooperation between the Liberals and PCs (again, not likely, but certainly entirely legitimate. This could even include a “grand coalition” between the two parties). I just want to stress that the media, political parties and voters needs to stop limiting discussion to minority government only since that is not the only option available.

Related Posts:

On party membership

I read a very interesting piece on declining membership in political parties in the United Kingdom.

The numbers are rather astounding. According to the author, Brian Wheeler, just over 1% of the UK population are card-carrying members of a political party, which Wheeler indicates is low by European standards, but alas, fails to provide any comparative figures from other European countries. Further down the article, there is a sidebar chart:

PARTY MEMBERSHIP

  • 1951 Conservative 2.9m – Labour 876,000
  • 1971 Conservative 1.3m – Labour 700,000
  • 1981 Conservative 1.2m – Labour 277,000
  • 1991 Conservative 1m to 0.5m – Labour 261,000 – Lib Dem 91,000
  • 2001 Conservative 311,000 – Labour 272,000 – Lib Dem 73,000
  • 2011 Conservative 177,000 – Labour 190,000 – Lib Dem – 66,000 (Source: Estimates based on party reports and House of Commons Library)

In the 60 years from 1951-2011, we see that membership in the Conservative Party has declined by roughly 94%, while Labour’s membership has dropped by about 79%. The Liberal Democrats have fared better, losing only about 28% of their membership between 1991 and 2011.

I have tried to find party membership numbers for the main federal parties in Canada (Conservatives, New Democratic Party, and the Liberals), but these figures seem to be protected by the national secrets act. (Update: following a membership drive in the lead-up to a leadership convention, the NDP now has 128,351 members across the country. Update 2: At a press conference on 16 January 2013, it was stated that the Liberal party as about 55,000 members and 45,000 “supporters” – a new category with slightly different rights than members.) The best I’ve come up with is a reference that “between 1 percent and 2 percent belong to parties on an ongoing basis”, which is from a book published in 2010 (but I don’t know how old the actual statistics are). A report on parliamentary reform from 2008 claims the same thing:

Of  the eight to ten per cent of Canadians who were engaged more robustly in election campaigns, only about 1-2% per cent were consistently active members of a party, placing Canada at the bottom of the list of Western democracies.

One and half percent of Canadians would be roughly 500,000 people being actual party members, and that number would be spread over how many parties? There is no way to know if whoever came up with that figure looked at only the main federal parties or if they also included membership in smaller fringe parties as well. It is unfortunate that parties in Canada are not more forthcoming with information concerning their membership numbers.

Wheeler advances a number of reasons explaining why people are less likely to join a political party today than they were 60 years ago. These are:

  • The public have grown cynical and disillusioned with politicians.
  • We live in a more individualistic age (Why rely on political leaders to speak for you when you can do it yourself on Twitter or Facebook?).
  • Politics itself has become too boring and managerial – the ideological red meat loved by the “party faithful” is in short supply.
  • There have also been profound changes in the way Britons spend their spare time, since the days when the local Labour, Conservative or Liberal club was at the heart of the community.

All these are probably very true, but I also quite like a reason advanced by a reader in the comments section:

  • People have a wide range of views covered by different political parties. The differences between the main three parties are not as great as they were 20 years ago.

There are two key points made here. First, most people don’t fit into a nice little ideological box – they may agree with one party on economic issues, but prefer another party’s approach to the environment, and yet another party’s stand on key social issues, etc., therefore joining a single party isn’t an option. The second point addresses the phenomena that has occurred in both the UK and Canada (and probably elsewhere as well): the main parties themselves have been moving away from their more rigid ideological positions and more towards the centre, in order to attract a wider range of support beyond their traditional base vote. The main consequence of this is that it does end up blurring the lines between the parties, to the extent that many won’t see why there is any real reason to join one party rather than another.

The Wheeler article notes some of the initiatives the UK parties are undertaking to address declining membership, and these include moves to open up the party to non-members in key areas such as candidate selection and policy development. I don’t know of any such moves among Canadian political parties (and if anyone does, please let me know), but as I discussed in an earlier post, holding open primaries is something that I think parties here should definitely consider embracing.

I can’t see party membership numbers, either in the UK or here in Canada, increasing. If anything, these numbers will continue to decline over time. Since, traditionally, it is a party’s membership which decides key things such as choice of party leader and policies, that means that unless our parties find ways of dramatically reversing these declining membership trends, those decisions will be taken by a smaller and smaller group of people. This will only serve to further alienate parties from the  majority of citizens since the policies and leadership of the party will be the reflection of an increasingly small number of people.

This will have ramifications for government as well, since ultimately, everything about our parliamentary system ends up being decided by a very small group of people – party members. Persons who want to put themselves forward as a candidate for a certain party are, like the party leader, chosen by party members only at candidate selection meetings. This means we end up with local candidates chosen by a minority, because they appeal to that minority. Then a party ends up forming the government, with a leader initially chosen by party members only, and MPs initially chosen by party members only (and many, if not most of them elected with only minority support in their constituencies), and they implement policies decided by party members only. Is it really any wonder why people then become so disillusioned with government?

The UK parties are at least trying to address this reality. Canada’s parties need to start doing the same.

_______________

(Note to readers: if anyone does have more precise figures for membership of any Canadian political party, I would appreciate it if you could use the Contact form to provide me with that data.)

Related Posts:

Speaker Bercow and accusations of bias

British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow annoys many MPs. There have been a rash of articles over the course of the past year hinting at behind-the-scenes plots to get rid of him. Having regularly livestreamed proceedings from the UK House of Commons, I find it difficult to assess why there is such animosity towards Speaker Bercow.

Reasons oft-advanced is that he is arrogant and overbearing, and that he hates the Conservative Party. It is this last point that raises some eyebrows. Bercow was a member of the Conservatives, until he became Speaker of course. Like all MPs elected Speaker in the UK, once elected to the post, Bercow resigned his party membership in order to maintain the highest degree of impartiality. And is perhaps because he does strive to be impartial that some Conservative MPs think he now “hates” the party.

Recently, the Daily Mail ran an article claiming that Bercow reprimands Conservative MPs twice as often as the does Labour MPs. This conclusion is based on figures compiled by Rob Wilson, the parliamentary private secretary to Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who counted the number of times Mr Bercow shouted “order” at MPs since the general election in May 2010. He found that Conservative members were admonished 257 times compared with 109 times for Labour MPs. The article quotes Mr. Wilson saying: “Those MPs who have suggested bias in the Speaker’s handling of the Commons would feel vindicated by these figures.”

Of course, there was no suggestion anywhere that perhaps, just perhaps, Conservative MPs were called to order more often because it was deserved.

Conservative backbench MP Douglas Carswell addressed some of the complaints made against Speaker Bercow earlier this year. He dismissed the claims that Bercow was biased:

Bercow’s biased, complain others. If by that you mean he shows favour to one side of the Commons chamber or party, that is demonstrably not true. If anything he can be tediously even handed.

What bias Bercow does undoubtedly have is one which favours backbenchers against the frontbenches - and in support of the legislature over the executive.

Under Bercow, even tiddly little backbenchers like me can force ministers to come before the Commons and answer urgent questions. It makes their life difficult – and keeps them on their toes.

Commentators have observed the way in which this Parliament is more rebellious than others. One of the key reasons for this is the way the Speaker calls amendments. Under previous Speakers amendments tabled by backbenchers that the government might have found inconvenient would almost never get called. Now, there is every chance that they will.

I suspect that is precisely why part of the Tory hierarchy has taken against Mr B. It is because the legislature is slowly getting off its knees, no longer lying prostrate before the executive, that some inside the government remember fondly the days when Whips anointed Speakers – and Speakers behaved accordingly.

This is the impression I have from watching proceedings in the House of Commons. If Bercow is biased, as Carswell notes, it is towards the legislature at the expense of the executive. He is helped in that role by some of the new procedures that were voted on by the House in the dying days of the previous Parliament, such as the creation of a Backbench Business Committee, new rules for electing committee chairs and choosing committee membership, etc., which have also strengthened the legislature vis à vis the executive. But Bercow has also appeared more willing to make use of existing rules, such as Urgent Questions. His predecessor, Speaker Martin, allowed only two urgent questions during his last year as Speaker; Bercow has granted over 60 in the first year of this new Parliament.

If the legislature is being strengthened at the expense of the executive, it is natural that the party forming the executive would perceive that as bias against them. Once in power, a party develops a sense of entitlement; having that undercut doesn’t always sit very well.

This is not meant to downplay many of the other criticisms levelled at both Speaker Bercow, and in particular, his very out-spoken wife. However, the charges of “hating” the Conservatives, and bias in the Chamber are, I believe, undeserved. The rules have changed, voted on and adopted by the House itself, and Speaker Bercow is simply applying those rules. Perhaps some MPs belonging to one of the parties forming the government believe they are entitled to more of a free ride in the House. Speaker Bercow disagrees.

Related Posts:

On Members’ attire

Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): I pay tribute to all the public sector workers we rely on time and time again, and in particular those in Staffordshire. Over many months, I have had letters from serving police officers concerned about the Winsor report and the knock-on effect on morale, and about A19 and losing senior officers. Now they are concerned about the fact that having been called on at our time of need—out on the streets, putting themselves in the firing line—they are having their leave cancelled and having to give up holidays due to overtime requirements. It was an hour and a half before we heard the words “Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary”, and we have heard nothing about Mayor Boris Johnson’s view about policing cuts. Will the Prime Minister finally get to his feet and address the loss of 16,000 jobs?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether we need an inquiry into safety in the House, Mr Speaker, but someone seems to have stolen the hon. Gentleman’s jacket.

I accept that we are asking police officers to do a difficult job and, yes, we are asking them to undergo a pay freeze, as other public sector workers are doing, but we are giving them the backing they want by cutting paperwork and enabling them to get out on the street and do the job they want to do.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s concern, but I assure the House that nothing disorderly has happened. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) was perfectly in order. He was focusing not on sartorial matters but on violence, and he was perfectly in order. We will leave it at that. I ask the House to try to rise to the level of events. (Source: House of Commons Hansard, 11 August 2011)

This exchange took place during Prime Minister David Cameron’s ministerial statement on the civil unrest which had occurred in the United Kingdom earlier in the week. The fact that a Labour MP appeared in the House of Commons sans jacket caused somewhat of a stir. Despite the overall seriousness of the subject being debated, ConservativeHome still felt it noteworthy to blog about Mr. Flello’s perceived lack of disrespect for House rules.

The blog post’s author, Matthew Barrett, cites Erkine May, the “bible” of Parliamentary procedure:

This seems to be very much the opinion of Mr Speaker Bercow. Erskine May specifically says:

“The Speaker has also stated that it is the custom for gentlemen members to wear jackets and ties.”

It appears that Mr. Barrett doesn’t have the most current edition of Erskine May, which was published this year. In the 24th edition, it states:

It remains the custom for gentlemen Members to wear jackets and ties, but the Speaker has not enforced the practice in all circumstances. (p. 451)

Examples cited of Speakers not enforcing this practice pre-date Speaker Bercow, and so contrary to comments made by readers and Mr. Barrett’s insinuation, this isn’t simply the opinion of Speaker Bercow, who has been criticized by some for shunning the Speaker’s traditional garb and wig. Here is one such example from 1989:

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) :On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard you call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is the third time in the past half hour that you have called him. We are in danger of a precedent being set as not only is he not wearing a jacket when you have called him, but he has his shirt sleeves rolled up. Will you please ask him to withdraw from the Chamber until he is properly dressed, or not call him again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I know that Mr. Speaker has dealt with this matter on a number of occasions. He has requested normal dress in the Chamber, but he has never said that it is an absolute condition for an hon. Member being called. He has merely deprecated abnormal dress. I call Mr. Nellist.

The Canadian House of Commons has a similar tradition. As we learn from House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd ed.), p. 603-4:

While the Standing Orders prescribe no dress code for Members participating in debate, Speakers have ruled that all Members desiring to be recognized at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. Current practice requires that male Members wear jackets, shirts and ties. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. The Chair has even stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. Although there is no notation to this effect in the Journals or in the Debates, a newly-elected Member introduced in the House in 2005 wore traditional Métis dress (including a white hooded anorak bearing an embroidered seal emblem) on that occasion without objection from the Chair.

In certain circumstances, usually for medical reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards allowing, for example, a Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House instead of a jacket.

Interesting to note that Members who are in the armed forces can wear their uniform in the Canadian House of Commons, but Erskine May states that “the wearing of military insignia or uniform inside the Chamber is not in accordance with the long-established custom of the House.”

New Zealand and Australia also have specific guidelines governing proper attire for their elected representatives. In the Australian House of Representatives, while the standard of dress is left to the individual judgement of each Member, the ultimate discretion rests with the Speaker. In 1983, the Speaker explained that his rule in the application of this discretion was “neatness, cleanliness and decency.” In 1999, another Speaker noted that Members traditionally chose to dress in a manner similar to that generally accepted in business and professional circles. It was generally accepted that the standards should involve “good trousers, a jacket, collar and tie for men and a similar standard of formality for women” but that he would not apply these standards rigidly. For example, should the air conditioning fail, it would be acceptable for male Members to remove their jackets. Clothing with slogans, however is not generally allowed (House of Representatives Practice, p. 157).

In New Zealand, while there are no fashion codes prescribed, the Speaker normally takes issue with any Member not dressed in appropriate business attire. However, the Speaker regularly polls male Members regarding their attitude to wearing a jacket and tie in Chamber. (Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, p. 125)

Related Posts:

Page 8 of 33« First...678910...2030...Last »