It's a good question. First, a few facts. To begin, we'll borrow from Ned Franks again, who shows
here that, on average between 1945 and 2008, 37% of MPs after an election were new. More recently, that number has gone down (in 2008 it was just under 22%) but the trend is by no means straight. For example, after the 1993 election over 72% of MPs were new. In 1980 it was about 23%, in 1949 it was almost 48%.*
We know a bit about why and the reasons behind it. The first is retirement. On average, about 12% of MPs choose not to run again, which accounts for about one-third of the turnover.**
Two profs at Memorial researched voluntary turnover and found a few things. MPs with narrow victories are less likely to run again, as are those who live far from Ottawa. Quebec MPs are also more prone to turn over, perhaps because of the call to provincial politics is stronger there.
Above all, though, their research suggests that those who come to Ottawa wanting to impact public policies tend to be twice as likely to leave as those who primarily want to serve their constituents or view themselves as members of their party.
The second, and bigger reasons is electoral defeat. On average, one-quarter of MPs lose their election.** I've not seen an analysis of this, but anecdotally MPs tell me that their personal profile gets one about 5-8% of their votes - the rest is due to perceptions of the party and the leader.
So if we think turnover is a problem, we can do one of two things. First, is discourage retirement. If the Memorial profs are correct, this'll require either a small country (!) or more power to individual MPs (which has been the
direction of much of Parliamentary reform in the last generation) or some other change in party management. The provision of pensions after 6 years of service probably don't help either if you want to get people to stick around.
A second, and more powerful, route is to reduce electoral turnover. This is where it gets tricky and pretty undesirable, frankly. We could gerrymander ridings, like in the U.S., so they're safer. We could have fewer elections. We could brainwash voters.....
So is it a problem? Maybe, maybe not. It's a good thing to have fresh minds and a comparatively open political system. Furthermore, it's unclear how realistically we can change it even if we wanted to (although better HR management in politics would be a most welcome change). To paraphrase a
wiser observer than myself, I guess the real question is whether our Parliament is too transient to properly do its job.
** Again, depends on the year. See
Franks page 6.
Labels: Andrew Potter, featured, Kelly Blidook, Kerby Matthews, Memorial University, MPs, Ned Franks, Ottawa Citizen, Parliament
For most of us, how and where we spend our weekends, probably doesn't have a significant impact on our professional lives.
Not so with MPs.
Although not a specific area of our research, the MPs' personal and family lives invariably come up. One trend we've noticed, also supported by the research of Queen's professor Ned Franks, is the change in how MPs increasingly structure their work and home lives - and the impact that this may be having on cross-party relationships on the Hill.
For instance, 40 years ago it was normal for MPs' families to move to Ottawa with them. Air travel was less accessible, MPs' travel budgets were smaller and dual career families were less common. Moving was often the practical option.
The result?
Regardless of party, Ottawa became a bit more like "home," especially as all newly elected MPs (and their families) found themselves dealing with many typical family matters, such as schools, doctors and little league teams, together. Along the way, cross-party friendships often formed particularly as families socialized away from the political arena.
Today, the House suffers from what Ned Franks describes as a "weekend diaspora" where most MPs leave Ottawa on Thursday and return to their constituencies and families. One MP we interviewed said he'd hosted a dinner party at his home one evening and everyone who attended said it was the first time in their years in Ottawa that they'd been invited to dinner in the home of a colleague.
It may seem like a small change, but Franks argues that this lack of day-to-day, non-political contact could be part of the reason why the House is now a less collegial place overall. I guess it's harder to yell across the aisle when you know you may run into that person at the grocery store or at your kids' hockey game.
Of course no one is arguing for a cross-party sing along (although what a fundraising idea...) but just that this change doesn't have to be permanent. Ultimately, the work of Parliament is about people and so anything that helps MPs see a bit more of the human side of each other can only help. Labels: featured, MP Exit Interviews, Parliament, political leadership
One
reader of this blog
raised some good questions about the average Parliamentary sitting days we have here in Canada in response to last week's
post. Here's my best effort at the answers.
First, he wondered how elections skewed the figures. Ned Franks estimates that Parliament sits, on average, about seven fewer weeks (or 35 days) in an election year. Maclean's Aaron Wherry
crunched the numbers by decade, removing election years. His analysis suggests a downward trend.
Second, the reader also pointed out that this "downward trend" may not be entirely accurate as it dilutes fluctuations. The line, he argues, is more "spikey" than straight downward.
Third, he wondered if anyone knew if there were data on sitting dates pre-dating 1968, which is when the House of Commons website starts tracking. I don't know of any in one place, but there are
summaries of Canada's various Parliaments. A very quick eyeballing (i.e., not exact!) of the figures suggests "spikey" is the norm: in
1869 Canada's first Parliament sat for about 9 weeks, or 45 days; in
1909 it sat for about 17 weeks (or 85 days); during much of the Second World War, it
sat pretty much constantly; in
1956 it sat nearly 200 days.
Any aspiring number crunchers out there who want to do the more precise math?
I suppose underneath these questions are others ones, including does it matter? Do MPs have to sit in Parliament to get work done? Do the numbers of sitting days equate to a quality of outcome?
As you ponder that, give this
article, by CBC's
Neil Morrison, a read. In it, he points out that Australia's house sits for about 70 days a year and New Zealand's sat 93 days last year (although the UK's sits about 150 days).
Even in our own backyard our federal Parliament keeps pretty busy. The provincial legislatures of Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia range from 60 to 80 days per year. Over the past decade, Newfoundland averages 42 days. And voters didn't seem to mind. In 2007, it sat only 37 days, and the voters gave Premier Danny Williams the largest percentage of the popular vote since the province joined Confederation.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, Australia, CBC, Danny Williams, featured, Neil Morrison, New Zealand, Parliament, political leadership, UK
Not only is our Parliament sitting less, but it’s passing fewer bills too.
According to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, a smaller and smaller percentage of bills receive royal assent (Parliamentary lingo for becoming law). Sixty years ago, more than 96% of legislation received royal assent. During the last Parliament, it was just over 53%. While it hasn't been a consistent downward climb, it has trended in that direction:
- During the King-St. Laurent governments (1945-57), 94.6% of bills received royal assent
- Diefenbaker (1957-1963), 89.7%
- Pearson (1963-1968), 86%
- Trudeau (1968-1979), 68.2%
- Trudeau (1980-1984), 77.6%
- Mulroney (1984-1993), 83.2%
- Chretien (1993-2004), 69.2%
- Martin (2004-2005), 58.8%
- Harper (2006-2008), 53.2%
Franks isn't sure we know why this is. Perhaps there was a stronger societal consensus in the post-war years than today, or a stronger sense of national vision. The shifting political focus to the provinces may also play a part. Maybe the legislation itself is poorly crafted and rightfully hasn't been passed. Perhaps the growth in omnibus bills are forced through quickly, while a number of small, more irrelevant pieces of legislation die on the vine.
Nor is it entirely clear if this is a bad thing. There are good reasons, particularly for minority Parliaments, to reject proposals they don't see fit. The challenge for all governments, Franks notes, is to "persuade Canadians that the legislation it proposes is good for them and the country. Parliament, and voters as well, have had their doubts on this score in recent years."
So maybe it comes down to that vision thing.
P.S. Thanks to Maclean's reporter Aaron Wherry for helping inspire this blog's title.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership
MPs are spending a lot less time in Parliament, and according to Queen’s professor Ned Franks, this is a fact that long pre-dated the latest prorogue.
Franks has spent over 40 years researching Parliament, and at a recent conference in honour of political scientist Peter Aucoin he had occasion to reflect on his observations on the institution in a paper called “The Functioning of the Present-Day Canadian House of Commons.”
Overall, Frank’s view is that a series of changes in recent years have left us with a much-diminished Parliament, particularly compared to 40 years ago.
One indicator of this is the reduction in the average days per calendar year that the House of Commons sits. Over the past 30 years Parliament’s sitting days have gone down 36%. Here are Franks' numbers:
*From 1969-1973, Parliament sat an average of 163 days/year
*1974-1978, 156 days/year
*1980-1983, 139 days/year
*1984-1988, 163 days/year
*1989-1993, 115 days/year
*1994-1998, 124 days/year
*1999-2003, 115 days/year
From 2004-2008, the numbers was 105 days/year. Maclean's blogger Aaron Wherry estimates we're on track for 114 days this year.
Although elections definitely influence this (the House sits, on average, for seven fewer weeks when there's an election), if prorogation becomes an annual event, numbers could drop even more.
Like everything in politics, life is always more complicated than it seems. While we like to think MPs are lounging on a beach somewhere, the truth is that they have at least two jobs: the one in the House of Commons and the one in their ridings. If the trends Franks highlights continue, however, they suggest the House of Commons part will continue to be an increasingly smaller part of their job.
Labels: Aaron Wherry, featured, Ned Franks, Parliament, political leadership