Barbara Stewart's bill to reduce the number of MPs from 120 to 100 has been drawn from the members' ballot, and so will come up for its first reading sometime over the next few months. She has said that the bill is in response to the referendum back in 1999, requesting that the number of MPs be reduced to 99.
However, I definately do not support it. Currently there are 120 MPs, meaning that the government itself generally only has around 50-55 MPs (as we have minority governments for some time now). There are generally around 20 cabinet posts (21 at present), as well as a number of ministerial posts outside cabinet (8 at present), plus several parliamentary under secretaries as well (not sure how many, but probably only a couple).
So that is already about 30 MPs of the 50-55 available. Now remove the Speaker, one or more of the deputies/assistance Speakers, and about 8 select committee chairs. This leaves only about 9-14 MPs with no extra responsibilities (even less if you remove the 6-8 deputy select committee chairs as well).
Obviously we run into some problems if the number of MPs is reduced to only 100.
There are two problems with this. First of all, the executive can roll the caucus. The government caucus is supposed to be a check on the executive, to show the Parliament will not always support the government's plans. However, due to the numbers at present, the executive (who are bound to support cabinet decisions due to collective responsibility) can out-vote the rest of caucus.
Secondly, we all know that not all MPs are created equal. Some are far more effective and hard-working than others. However, with a small Parliament it is very difficult to select a very competent cabinet - there simply isn't enough choice available. At present, the executive starts to look very thin on the ground after you get a bit over half-way down. If you reduced the number of MPs this would increase the problem.
So I don't think the number of MPs should be decreased. In fact I would support an increase, preferably as part of a move to a bicarmal system, but more on that another day.
However, I definately do not support it. Currently there are 120 MPs, meaning that the government itself generally only has around 50-55 MPs (as we have minority governments for some time now). There are generally around 20 cabinet posts (21 at present), as well as a number of ministerial posts outside cabinet (8 at present), plus several parliamentary under secretaries as well (not sure how many, but probably only a couple).
So that is already about 30 MPs of the 50-55 available. Now remove the Speaker, one or more of the deputies/assistance Speakers, and about 8 select committee chairs. This leaves only about 9-14 MPs with no extra responsibilities (even less if you remove the 6-8 deputy select committee chairs as well).
Obviously we run into some problems if the number of MPs is reduced to only 100.
There are two problems with this. First of all, the executive can roll the caucus. The government caucus is supposed to be a check on the executive, to show the Parliament will not always support the government's plans. However, due to the numbers at present, the executive (who are bound to support cabinet decisions due to collective responsibility) can out-vote the rest of caucus.
Secondly, we all know that not all MPs are created equal. Some are far more effective and hard-working than others. However, with a small Parliament it is very difficult to select a very competent cabinet - there simply isn't enough choice available. At present, the executive starts to look very thin on the ground after you get a bit over half-way down. If you reduced the number of MPs this would increase the problem.
So I don't think the number of MPs should be decreased. In fact I would support an increase, preferably as part of a move to a bicarmal system, but more on that another day.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: