tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/backbench-mps-10787/articlesBackbench MPs – The Conversation2022-02-10T10:32:44Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1768922022-02-10T10:32:44Z2022-02-10T10:32:44ZGrattan on Friday: Morrison’s religious discrimination package couldn’t fly on a wing and a prayer<p>Scott Morrison made three foolish and arrogant assumptions this week when he embarked on trying to push his controversial religious discrimination legislation through parliament. </p>
<p>As a result, he failed in the mission and emerged from Wednesday’s all-night sitting with his authority diminished. With time almost out before the election, this legislation, which he claimed was “very important”, has reached a dead end. </p>
<p>First, Morrison thought he could tactically outplay Anthony Albanese, wedging Labor on an electorally sensitive issue. This smacked of hubris – it is safer to think your opponent just might be smarter than you are. </p>
<p>Second, he underestimated the spine of the moderates in his own party. He was not properly tapped into his backbench, especially those in the leafy suburbs who are under pressure from independent candidates. The moderates have been acquiring a louder voice recently, which became obvious in last year’s climate change debate.</p>
<p>Third, Morrison believed he could rush a complex issue – which he’s had years to deal with – in the high-pressured dying days of the electoral term. The “I am PM – therefore I can” principle doesn’t always work in a close parliament.</p>
<p>This has been another political shambles for Morrison, already beset by bad polling, a crisis in aged care, and leaked texts. </p>
<p>NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet – incidentally, a dedicated Catholic – had some prescient words on Wednesday as the federal government prepared for votes on the religious discrimination and associated legislation.</p>
<p>“I’ve made it very clear that I don’t believe legislation in this space is necessary and I think it can end up creating more problems than it solves,” Perrottet said.</p>
<p>As well as arguing it is needed, Morrison said he was committed to the legislation because he promised it before the last election. </p>
<p>In reality, he has been substantially driven by a quest to keep or win faith-based conservative voters, particularly in ethnic areas in western Sydney. Some Coalition sources believe these votes were an essential component in his 2019 victory. </p>
<p>Albanese desperately requires these votes too – Labor identified after the 2019 election that it had a problem with them – and he certainly can’t afford to lose those already in the ALP’s camp. </p>
<p>So although many in Labor and its base didn’t want a bar of the religious discrimination legislation – Bill Shorten told Parliament “We will rue the day if this legislation passes the Senate” – the opposition leader wrangled a divided frontbench and caucus into supporting it, while pressing amendments. </p>
<p>The government’s package included an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent gay students being expelled from religious schools. </p>
<p>But that was narrower than an earlier undertaking Morrison gave and it didn’t cover transgender students. The government said it wanted a report from the Law Reform Commission before acting on them, because of what it insisted were the complexities of religious schools dealing with trans students.</p>
<p>The exclusion of transgender children turned out to be a serious flaw in the eyes of some in Liberal ranks.</p>
<p>The moderates asserted themselves, in negotiations on the package before the parliamentary debate, and in the chamber. They were driven by principle but also by their own political imperatives. </p>
<p>Some moderate critics of the bill share Perrottet’s view about the unwisdom of stirring up the religious discrimination issue. They were even more exercised about transgender students being left in limbo. </p>
<p>Morrison twisted arms and gave some sops to try to corral his followers.
Perhaps he thought when push came to shove, his authority would get him through. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/liberal-revolt-removes-all-discrimination-against-gay-and-transgender-children-176808">Liberal revolt removes all discrimination against gay and transgender children</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It didn’t. Two Liberal defectors, Bridget Archer and Trent Zimmerman, raised their heads in votes on the main bill, although it eventually passed the House of Representatives unamended.</p>
<p>It was a much worse story for the government on the bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act. Three more Liberal rebels – Katie Allen, Fiona Martin and Dave Sharma – joined Archer and Zimmerman. The five supported a successful amendment for all students – including transgender – to be protected. </p>
<p>Morrison was left flummoxed and no doubt furious. The government was uncertain how votes would go if the legislation went immediately to the Senate. For hours on Thursday it mulled over its next step. </p>
<p>It was consulting stakeholders, according to Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General Amanda Stoker. And counting its numbers, obviously, in this hostile chamber. One of its senators, Andrew Bragg, would have crossed the floor. But in fact, non-government Senate leaders had already decided late Wednesday there wouldn’t be enough time to deal with the legislation on Thursday.</p>
<p>Meanwhile the Australian Christian Lobby declared the government should withdraw the package, saying: “Taking away protections for Christian schools is a price too high to pay for the passage of the Religious Discrimination Bill.”</p>
<p>After a few hours the government shelved the package, and lashed out. Attorney-General Michaelia Cash argued in a letter to her Labor counterpart, Mark Dreyfus, and crossbencher Rebekha Sharkie, who moved the successful amendment, that the change could in fact allow – rather than prohibit – discrimination in religious schools. </p>
<p>The government said this was based on advice from the government solicitor, although the letter did not reference the advice.</p>
<p>Sharkie was unimpressed, describing Cash’s letter as a “ruse”. “Let’s see what’s behind it,” she said, challenging Cash to table the legal advice. </p>
<p>Sharkie smells the same game as the government played years ago when the crossbench rolled it to pass the Medevac law to facilitate the transfer of offshore asylum seekers and refugees to Australia for treatment. </p>
<p>The consensus is the religious discrimination package won’t get through this term. There are only a couple of Senate sitting days left (in budget week), the government doesn’t have the numbers, and the political caravan will have moved on. </p>
<p>As for now, Morrison might argue he tried but was thwarted by Labor. But that can be countered with a question and a proposition. </p>
<p>The question is: “Why did you leave it so late?” The proposition is that, regardless of the legal argy-bargy, when you are promoting anti-discrimination it is difficult to complain you have been stymied by the House of Representatives insisting on removing discrimination against trans kids. </p>
<p>This botched bid to legislate against religious discrimination has been a textbook example of poor policymaking. And that’s leaving aside the problematic nature of the case for the policy in the first place.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scott Morrison made three foolish and arrogant assumptions this week when he embarked on trying to push his controversial religious discrimination legislation through parliament.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1217322019-08-11T11:12:25Z2019-08-11T11:12:25ZView from The Hill: It’s not in the ‘national interest’ for the backbench to shut up about China<p>Trade minister Simon Birmingham on Sunday weighed into the debate over <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-must-see-china-the-opportunities-and-the-threats-with-clear-eyes-20190807-p52eon.html">Andrew Hastie’s warning about China rise</a>. Birmingham said colleagues in future should ask themselves two questions before speaking out on “sensitive foreign policy matters”.</p>
<p>These were: “Is the making of those comments in a public way necessary? And is it helpful to Australia’s national interest?”</p>
<p>On a narrow view, the warning by Hastie - the chairman of the powerful parliamentary committee on intelligence and security - about Australia not being alive enough to the dangers of an ever more powerful China was not “necessary”; nor was it particularly helpful to a government trying to manage a relationship that gets more complicated all the time.</p>
<p>But the idea that backbenchers should not voice considered views on such a major long term issue for this country shows a certain contempt for parliamentary democracy.</p>
<p>Birmingham, speaking on the ABC, said: “There are a range of ways in which any of us can contribute and we can do that with direct discussion with ministers and with leadership in backbench committees and other ways”.</p>
<p>Decoded, the message to the backbench was: boys and girls, when in public just follow the talking points we give you. </p>
<p>Amid the noisy chatter and clatter of our current politics, serious foreign policy discussions among politicians are relatively rare. But the broad community debate grows ever stronger about China and its implications for Australia - including the now-great power’s trajectory, our dependence on it economically, its reach into this country (including through investment and our educational institutions), and how we juggle our respective relationships with it and the United States.</p>
<p>New Liberal backbencher Dave Sharma entered the China debate at the weekend, with a robust thread of nearly a dozen tweets, in support of Hastie.</p>
<p>A former senior diplomat, Sharma is more steeped in foreign policy than most on the frontbench.</p>
<p>“Hastie is right to ring the bell on this issue, and to warn that our greatest vulnerability lies in our thinking, which is Panglossian at times,” he wrote.</p>
<p>Significantly, Sharma also supported Hastie’s comparison with France’s failure to comprehend properly the rise of Germany before World War 2.</p>
<p>“In WW2, we failed to realise early enough that German ambitions could not be accommodated. National Socialist Germany was not a status quo power, but we mistook it as such, or deceived ourselves that it was,” Sharma wrote.</p>
<p>Hastie’s reference to Germany had been sharply condemned on Friday by Senate leader Mathias Cormann, who said it was a “a clumsy and inappropriate analogy.”</p>
<p>But Hastie was verballed over his invoking of Germany. He wasn’t saying the Chinese and Nazi regimes were the same – he was talking about the underestimation of the threats they posed to other countries.</p>
<p>Hastie could have drawn another parallel – with the failure of countries in the 1930s to fully appreciate the looming threat from Japan.</p>
<p>Sharma noted that rising powers inevitably cause convulsions - “the challenge is to accommodate a rising power IF it is sufficiently status quo in nature that it can be accommodated. This was the thesis with China for much of the early 2000s,” Sharma wrote.</p>
<p>“But if the rising power is revisionist in nature, and cannot be accommodated within the existing order – because it fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of that order – then the future becomes much tougher”.</p>
<p>Given it was clear China’s ideological direction and ambition had become “far more pronounced” under its current leadership, “our strategy and thinking needs to reflect this shift, which is basically Hastie’s point – that we need to remove the blinkers from our eyes, recognise reality for what it is, and act accordingly,” Sharma said. </p>
<p>“This does not mean we should not be pursuing a constructive and positive relationship with China – we should be. Nor does it compel us to make a ‘choice’. But we need to be honest with ourselves about the challenges of managing this relationship and what might lie ahead.”</p>
<p>Of course Australian government policy in the last few years has been reacting to what has been seen as a heightening Chinese threat - even while the government has often been unwilling to admit as much.</p>
<p>The Pacific “step up” is all about China. So was the legislation, enacted by the Turnbull government, against foreign interference. The exclusion of Huawei from the 5G network was an unequivocal message. Australia’s intensified efforts to counter the cyber security threat have China front of mind.</p>
<p>The Chinese predictably reacted with annoyance to Hastie’s comments. But they are much more attuned to the actions Australia has taken and continues to take – measures which have been and are in the national interest. That’s the basic reason why Australia-China relations are strained.</p>
<p>The government’s trying to shut down backbench contributions to this debate is less a matter of the “national interest” than an exercise of attempted control of its MPs in its own interest. In fact it might be counter-productive for the national interest, which may require the Australian public to acquire a much better understanding than they have now of what could be increasingly difficult times and decisions in the years to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121732/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government is trying to shut down backbench contributions in the name of the “national interest”, but it is more an exercise of attempted control in its own interest.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1208462019-07-23T12:44:06Z2019-07-23T12:44:06ZView from The Hill: Morrison cracks the whip<p>Scott Morrison on Tuesday had a firm message for his troops in the Coalition party room. Don’t go freelancing in public.</p>
<p>Discipline is important in politics and Morrison is intent on trying to impose it – it’s not the first time since the election he’s made the point.</p>
<p>After he became PM in August the proximity of the poll put its own constraints on Coalition MPs (even if they were quite frequently breached). But now the rules have to be reset, and Morrison wants to whip the backbench into line early.</p>
<p>He told the party room everyone needed to be “mindful of what we took to the election and what we didn’t take”. Members shouldn’t run off on other matters, especially not publicly.</p>
<p>Backbenchers should use internal processes if they wanted to push issues - committees, approaches to ministers, the party room.</p>
<p>Going outside these processes was showing “disrespect to colleagues”, he said (a convenient high-minded pitch that probably carries little weight in the competitive environment of attention-seeking backbenchers clawing their way towards the front).</p>
<p>Morrison threw in a few examples where using these processes had led to positive results for advocates on issues, such as eating disorders and suicide.</p>
<p>Apparently he didn’t give instances of where people had been kicking over the traces.</p>
<p>He could have been thinking of Monday’s front page in The Australian where a number of Liberals MPs were urging the government to stop the legislated increase in the superannuation guarantee. One was Andrew Hastie, a prominent MP out to make a name for himself as a leader among the conservatives.</p>
<p>Then there were comments from Western Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith, who shot to prominence in the 2017 same-sex marriage debate. Smith told the Senate on Monday he thought Newstart should be increased. Liberals, he said, “should pay very, very close attention to the comments of former leader John Howard on this matter”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-centre-alliances-stirling-griff-on-newstart-120830">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Centre Alliance's Stirling Griff on Newstart</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Howard is on record favouring a rise. The government’s talking points, in sharp contrast, are full of arguments (mostly spurious) against an increase.</p>
<p>With his authority as high as it will ever be in the foreseeable future, it’s not surprising Morrison, a disciple of discipline and control, is laying down markers. The question is the extent to which they’ll be heeded.</p>
<p>There are some incorrigibles, such as Barnaby Joyce, the frustrated former Nationals leader who’s never likely to take any notice of Morrison.</p>
<p>Beyond that, the siren call of opportunity for self-promotion presented by voracious news channels can be strong for backbenchers, regardless of counselling against it.</p>
<p>And then there are issues that go to ideology. The degree to which Morrison can restrain backbenchers as the religious freedom debate heats up will be a significant test.</p>
<p>As he moves to corral his own team, Morrison’s tactic against Labor has been hyper-aggressive. The kill Bill strategy has morphed into axe Albo. A nod to bipartisanship gives way to demands this week, whatever the issue, for Labor to say “whose side they are on”.</p>
<p>This kicking the ALP when it’s down - despite the exhausted voters looking for less conflict - is partly driven by Morrison believing in the need to keep your foot on your opponent’s neck from the start. He told the Coalition party room not to underestimate Labor.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bills-banks-and-promises-heres-what-you-can-expect-as-government-business-starts-again-120589">Bills, banks and promises: here's what you can expect as 'government business' starts again</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There may have been a lot of talk about how Morrison is well set up for the next election, but he’s equally aware how quickly an opposition can come back.</p>
<p>At the moment the ALP can’t avoid looking rather discombobulated, with its policies in limbo and juggling what to support and what to oppose in parliament. It inevitably appears conflicted when it criticises legislation and then says it will back it, even though that might be the best course in the circumstances.</p>
<p>In caucus on Tuesday, Albanese called Morrison a “negative, nasty politician, where it’s all about tactics”.</p>
<p>But Albanese also highlighted his own tactics, on display in parliament on Tuesday, which have changed markedly from those of Bill Shorten. Pointed, short, no frills questions have contrasted with the more discursive, rhetorical approach under the former leader.</p>
<p>Energy minister Angus Taylor was the target, with questioning on rising emissions, nuclear power, and a controversy involving the clearing of endangered grasslands on a property in which he holds shares through his family investment company. Taylor, not a strong performer in the House, floundered.</p>
<p>It’s an effective question time approach, particularly where there are several fronts on which to attack a minister. Even when the questions are spread, the more specific they are, the greater the effort required from the government. Ministers will need to be better prepared. This is especially the case as Speaker Tony Smith is showing he is intent on being an enforcer of relevance.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-governments-biggest-economic-problem-climate-change-denial-105125">The Morrison government's biggest economic problem? Climate change denial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The opposition’s sharper tactic has the potential to improve question time, and even extract some government accountability during it.</p>
<p>Having had to sit through the pummelling of his minister, Morrison said at the end, “I would invite the opposition to ask me a question tomorrow. You didn’t do that today. Maybe tomorrow”.</p>
<p>A remark that suggested a little concern about his soft ministerial targets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120846/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Morrison is keen to whip the backbench into line early, telling the backbench to be “mindful of what we took to the election and what we didn’t take”.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812212017-07-25T13:31:28Z2017-07-25T13:31:28ZThe people who abuse MPs online<p>It is often perceived that people who abuse MPs with vile, even criminal, comments on social media fit a specific demographic: basement dwelling “keyboard warriors”, solitary white males, socially inept, often angry with a grudge to bear. But this perception grossly misunderstands the nature of abuse and the abusers themselves. </p>
<p><a href="https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/4f8bacf9-27a8-44b3-9132-dd5fa9fdf70f.pdf">Our research</a> suggests that abusers actually have closer characteristics to wider society. Our study indicates that the culprits of abuse are ordinary citizens who feel unrepresented by the current political system and inspired into abusive online behaviour by the traditional media’s negative narrative of politics.</p>
<p>When MPs met for a <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-07-12/debates/577970DD-1AEF-4071-8AE0-3E3FC6753C6A/UKElectionsAbuseAndIntimidation#contribution-DCF2BE7E-C785-4A01-91FD-E6908BC34FB2">Whitehall debate</a> on the abuse and intimidation of candidates in the 2017 general election, there were some deeply emotional accounts. Labour MP Diane Abbot, for example, <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/13/diane-abbott-reads-some-of-the-appalling-racist-and-sexist-abuse-she-receives-6775615/">read out examples</a> of the sexist and racist messages she had received over the course of the campaign. </p>
<p>The effects of the abuse experienced by MPs are detrimental to democracy. The toxic political environment brought about by abuse is partly responsible for the increasing number of MPs <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-mps-keep-resigning-72394">resigning mid-parliament</a>. Elsewhere, there have been reports of people, especially women, <a href="https://theconversation.com/abuse-of-women-mps-is-not-just-a-scandal-its-a-threat-to-democracy-80781">being put off entering political spaces</a>, or self-censoring themselves from fear of abuse.</p>
<p>These accounts reveal the harrowing nature of some of the abuse, but very little is discussed, or even known, about the perpetrators of online political abuse. </p>
<h2>Who are online abusers?</h2>
<p>The police have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/21/police-are-only-in-the-foothills-of-tackling-online-abuse-mps-told">revealed</a> that very little work had been undertaken to understand the profile or characteristics of those who send abuse to political representatives. This gap has meant that a series of unfounded cultural perceptions of who abusers are has been propagated by the media and political representatives themselves. </p>
<p>Most notably, there is the perception of online abusers being angry, white, socially-inept males. Indeed, speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle called the trolls “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/21/police-are-only-in-the-foothills-of-tackling-online-abuse-mps-told">keyboard warriors</a>” active in the middle of the night. However, <a href="https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/4f8bacf9-27a8-44b3-9132-dd5fa9fdf70f.pdf">our data collection</a> has shown this claim to be a myth. Abusers post at the same time as “regular” users. </p>
<p>Mental illness has also been referenced by some as a reason why people are abusive towards politicians. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14789949.2015.1124908">Evidence</a> from six democracies (UK, US, Canada, Australia, Norway and New Zealand) suggests a link between high levels of harassment, physical attacks, stalking, inappropriate communications and mental disorders among abusers. </p>
<p>The study concluded that it is hard to determine if mental health was a factor in political social media abuse and that this could add to the stigma attached to mental health. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324">Other studies</a> have suggested that online abusers are simply citizens who are bored, seeking attention through anonymity rather than making any political statement or threats – ranging from people who attempt to subvert online communities by trolling, to all out abuse.</p>
<p>A more worrying prospect is that online abuse is seen as a legitimate form of political action – or the only way for the <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324">disenchanted</a> to have their voice heard. This suggests that there is a failure or disconnect within the British political system to represent the needs of the people. The reaction to this by an angry public is to throw a “bomb in the works” of democracy. </p>
<p><a href="http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/24976/1/US%20Election%20Analysis%202016%20-%20Lilleker%20Thorsen%20Jackson%20and%20Veneti%20v1.pdf">Examples of this</a> form of protest potentially include the election of Donald Trump in the US, or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Indeed, rather than stating the scale of the issue of abuse of MPs online, it is clear that the motivations behind why this happens need to be better understood. From here, we can work on tackling the source of the issue, rather than the symptoms.</p>
<p><a href="https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/4f8bacf9-27a8-44b3-9132-dd5fa9fdf70f.pdf">Research</a> based on over 270,700 tweets to MPs (November 2016 to January 2017) suggests another pattern of political abuse. We detected 6,952 abusive tweets to MPs, suggesting 2.57% of all tweets to MPs were abusive. That’s 25 tweets in every 1,000. But the abuse was not consistent across the collection period. Instead, spikes could be found surrounding contentious news stories. Significant spikes of abuse followed stories about Brexit, including the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38720320">Supreme Court ruling</a> over Article 50. This suggests that patterns of abuse are topical. </p>
<p>We also found a relationship between abuse and replies to statements made by MPs on Twitter. This suggests people are seeing messages posted by MPs and are responding with abuse. Abuse, then, is often a reaction to what the abusers see on social media. </p>
<h2>Polarisation and populism</h2>
<p>If our reactionary model of abuse is indeed accurate, then perhaps the packaging of political news is a cause of abuse. Politics is now presented in a punchier, more emotive format. Increasing levels of polarisation and populism has led to a more <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/files/2014/01/fp_writeup_oct6_for_jop.pdf">extreme and divided climate</a> of political journalism. Indeed, the rise of professional “Trollumists”, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/katie-hopkins-and-the-sun-when-the-unreadable-prints-the-unspeakable-40505">Katie Hopkins</a>, is indicative of the methods some news sources are turning to to drum up clicks, social media shares and viewing figures. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"828294455732105216"}"></div></p>
<p>However, a result of the rise of more adversarial journalism is an adversarial public. Which in turn leaves some citizens angrier at MPs and therefore leads them to abuse. Media malaise is often discussed when the topic of the waning national interest in politics comes up. Perhaps it is time to address whether media malaise is contributing to a more abusive society and political environment?</p>
<p>While there will never be a quick fix for the issue of online harassment of politicians – it is clear that action needs to be taken to solve the source of abuse, rather than treating the symptoms. In this, our research suggests that a two-pronged approach should be taken. We need research to understand why people feel the need to be more abusive. And the media needs to understand its role in the cycle of abuse.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>MPs come in for a lot of abuse online. But who are the haters and is the media partly to blame for the way it reports politics?Dr Liam Mcloughlin, PhD Researcher, University of SalfordStephen Ward, Reader in Politics, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/514222015-11-29T16:18:55Z2015-11-29T16:18:55ZCorbyn leadership and Labour’s long history of rebellion and betrayal<p><a href="https://twitter.com/Maomentum_">Maomentum</a> – itself a testament to the alacrity of social media – last week <a href="https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/669792007540367360">tweeted</a>: “Every Labour leader has betrayed the party the moment he walked into Downing St”, adding: “Thank god under <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn">@jeremycorbyn</a> this can never happen again.” </p>
<p>The future’s no period for a historian – and humour always a hazard – but betrayal has long been the handmaiden of parliamentary socialism in Britain. Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, Harold Wilson in 1970, James Callaghan in 1979 and Tony Blair in 2007 all left office being regarded as having failed the party – and the more electorally successful they were, the more their reputations suffered. </p>
<p>One of Ken Livingstone’s less contentious <a href="https://www.politicshome.com/foreign-and-defence/articles/story/ken-livingstone-condemned-blair-77-comments">utterances</a> last week was that historic “anger” with Labour’s leaders <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-just-how-exceptional-is-jeremy-corbyns-victory-47500">produced</a> the anti-leader it now has. As Jeremy Corbyn contemplates yet another unprecedented circumstance, this time over Labour’s position on British involvement in Syria, he gives cause to reflect on <a href="http://revolts.co.uk/">revolts</a>, rebellion, and betrayal.</p>
<h2>Inequality and internationalism</h2>
<p>Whether in or out of government, both Labour’s right and the left have rebelled, with each side usually accusing the other of being the more revolting. Those rebellions have often related to two central tenets of democratic socialism: inequality and internationalism; opposition to the former and promotion of the latter.</p>
<p>Inequality was the cause of the greatest of all Labour rebellions – on August 23 1931, as Ramsay MacDonald and his chancellor, Philip Snowden, attempted to cut unemployment benefit, Arthur Henderson led enough cabinet rebels for the second Labour government to be dissolved. MacDonald and Snowden continued in office in a national government with the Conservatives. </p>
<p>The “<a href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/14679/Labour%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%98Great+betrayal%E2%80%99+led+to++the+brink+of+collapse">great betrayal</a>” became and remained the archetype for Labour leaders, and really only death – for Hugh Gaitskell and John Smith – has spared those who followed. The exception was Clement Attlee, who became the other archetype: of what a Labour leader should be when they walked into Downing St (that this unprepossessing messiah would be far too right-wing for those who supported “<a href="http://www.peoplesmomentum.com/">Corbyn for Leader</a>” is one of many recent curiosities).</p>
<p>The “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/7363665.stm">Rooker-Wise amendment</a>” of 1977, in which Labour MPs Jeff Rooker and Audrey Wise made changes to the budget against the will of the Callaghan government, was one of the more effective revolts in that it changed government policy (by index-linking income tax rates to inflation, an episode improbably, but brilliantly, depicted on <a href="http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/39207-this-house">stage</a>).</p>
<p>Revolts were frequent throughout the Blair governments, from December 11 1997, when 47 MPs voted against cuts to benefits to single parents; on May 20 1999 65 MPs voted against a reduction in incapacity benefit. There were many others as Labour MPs increasingly recoiled against a culture of control.</p>
<p>Internationalism was one reason for the momentous rebellion of October 28 1971 when 69 Labour MPs defied their whip and voted with the Conservatives to <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/28/european-communities">take Britain into the EEC (forerunner of the EU)</a>. It cost Roy Jenkins the deputy leadership (and probably the future leadership) and created the fault line that led to the <a href="http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/formation-of-the-sdp/">revolt of the Social Democrats ten years later</a>. Europe endures as an inducement to insurrection.</p>
<h2>Cause of conflict</h2>
<p>Rebellions are reliably triggered by war. There’s no convention that military activities should be a matter for parliamentary votes: the Suez Crisis of 1956 <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1956/sep/13/suez-canal">had one</a>, the Falklands Crisis of 1982 <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/03/falkland-islands#S6CV0021P0_19820403_HOC_27">did not</a> (though the mood of the House of Commons was taken). That doyen of Labour contrarians Tam Dalyell sought to establish a formal basis, moving a bill in 1999 to seek parliamentary approval (and even then therefore only indirectly that of party members) for any military action against Iraq.</p>
<p>It wasn’t passed, but on March 18 2003, Blair sought the support of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm">House of Commons</a> in order for British forces to participate in the military action in Iraq. He gained it, but 139 Labour MPs rebelled. That most martial of Labour premiers also suffered rebellions over Iraq in 1998, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan in 2001. Knowing the likely reaction of his MPs, Wilson hadn’t dared to consider even a token British involvement in the Vietnam War.</p>
<p>On one notable occasion, inequality and internationalism were conjoined: on April 23 1951 Wilson, Aneurin Bevan, and John Freeman resigned from Attlee’s government over NHS charges which had, in part, been imposed to help pay for Cold War rearmament. As it did for Corbyn’s, it enhanced a – frankly scheming – Wilson’s appeal as a future leader that he had rebelled. Principle had prevailed, and later that year Labour lost power and spent more than a decade in opposition, waging civil war.</p>
<p>Blair’s vote on Iraq created a precedent David Cameron felt it necessary to <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2013/august/commons-debate-on-syria/">repeat</a> over Syria, on August 29 2013, and possibly again this week. As with so many other areas, the size of a government’s majority is fundamental. Blair had enormous majorities (too large, and with them the desire for control); Cameron has only a small one (which is why Labour’s position is critical); Rooker-Wise worked because Callaghan had no majority at all in 1977. Parliament prevailed – and two years later Callaghan lost power to Margaret Thatcher and subsided into more than a decade in opposition, waging civil war.</p>
<h2>Everyone loves a rebel</h2>
<p>There’s something of a tradition on the left – and certainly in the Labour Party – of revering rebels. One of the intrinsic challenges of the Corbyn leadership was always going to be how an MP who publicly made light of how often he had himself rebelled – indeed <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18929678">thought it</a> inherently amusing – could expect discipline from what would become his backbenchers (to say nothing his <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/26/shadow-cabinet-seriously-split-over-syria-with-corbyn-in-minority">frontbenchers</a>). </p>
<p>This is why it’s critical whether Corbyn exerts leadership and seeks discipline or concedes a <a href="http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-faces-shadow-cabinet-revolt-over-syria-is-air-strikes-11364021652361">free vote</a>. Whether that leadership would be constituted by the leader or by the <a href="http://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/the-shadow-cabinet">shadow cabinet</a> is unclear, and the parliamentary isolation of leader and shadow chancellor offers at least an echo of 1931.</p>
<p>With his incendiary <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-air-strikes-on-syria-jeremy-corbyn-writes-letter-to-labour-mps-explaining-why-he-cannot-a6750421.html">letter</a> Corbyn, not for the first time, went over the heads of the parliamentary party and spoke to the party in the country. That was <a href="https://theconversation.com/corbyns-nightmare-and-why-labour-must-allow-a-free-vote-on-syria-intervention-51412">not something that was done in the past</a>: another impulse behind the “new politics”. A free vote frees Corbyn from a rebellion, but it would still be a course that had effectively been imposed on the leader. </p>
<p>So the pattern repeats itself, but this time in a dual fashion: Labour support for bombing would be one betrayal; the <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-should-resign-over-syria-vote">undermining</a> of its leader would be another. Either way, custom, at least, would have been obeyed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51422/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Labour leader has made a virtue of voting against his party line for many years. Now his party appears to be striking back.Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379322015-02-23T17:14:51Z2015-02-23T17:14:51ZThe big question about Malcolm Rifkind is where he finds the time to moonlight<p>Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary, has been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11429144/Cash-for-access-scandal-the-reaction.-Live.html">suspended from the Conservative party</a> after being accused of offering access to ambassadors for money. This follows hot on the heels of a similar controversy involving Jack Straw, another former foreign secretary for Labour. Both were caught in a sting set up by Channel 4 and The Telegraph. </p>
<p>Allegations about cash for access, cash for influence and cash for questions are a regular feature of reporting on Westminster politics. MPs and peers regularly fall foul of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7503877/Stephen-Byers-Patricia-Hewitt-and-Geoff-Hoon-were-stupid-to-be-caught-in-sting-Jack-Straw-says.html">media traps</a> designed to catch them revealing inappropriate business links or activities.</p>
<p>A quick look at the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem.htm">official register</a> of financial interests declared by parliamentarians reveals that many MPs top up their salary with directorships or continue to work elsewhere for a few hours a week – often as solicitors, lawyers or judges. The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/23/twenty-mps-declare-over-100000-from-second-jobs">Guardian</a> reported last year that 20 MPs declared more than £100,000 in outside earnings.</p>
<p>In the face of criticism, these MPs tend to follow a similar approach to each other. They deny any wrongdoing but at the same time refer themselves to the parliamentary standards commissioner, just as Straw and Rifkind have done.</p>
<p>The party leaders agree that they have done the right thing (as David Cameron did when the Rifkind scandal broke), suspend them from the party and pledge that they will introduce greater regulation or reform the rules on MPs and financial interests – just as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11429224/Ed-Miliband-I-would-ban-MPs-from-having-paid-directorships.html">Ed Miliband</a> has done in this case. </p>
<p>The final outcome of the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tories-suspend-sir-malcolm-rifkind-launch-investigation-into-cash-access-claims-1489129">official investigations</a> into the conduct of the two MPs is unlikely to be a surprise. Both will probably face suspension – something that probably won’t keep Straw awake at night, given that he is only a few months from retirement anyway.</p>
<h2>Time flies</h2>
<p>So far, so predictable. But there is something else in all of this that seems to have been overlooked in the rush to accuse Rifkind and Straw of acting improperly. The secretly recorded footage of Rifkind shows him telling the reporters that they would be surprised by the amount of free time he has. To emphasise this he reveals that he spends a lot of time reading and going for walks.</p>
<p>Most MPs would report quite the opposite. Research by the <a href="http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/A-Year-in-the-Life-From-member-of-public-to-Member-of-Parliament-interim-briefing-paper-2011.pdf">Hansard Society</a> found that newly elected MPs estimated that they spent an average of 67 hours a week fulfilling their parliamentary duties. A fifth of those asked claimed to work more than 80 hours a week. Constituency demands are increasing and the amount of emails flooding in to MPs’ inboxes is rising at an alarming rate. </p>
<p>Rifkind clearly fulfills various duties as a parliamentarian. His list of questions and contributions to debate in the House of Commons seems fairly robust and, with more than 30 years of service in the House, he should have a fair idea of what the role of MP involves.</p>
<p>And as well as being a backbench MP, Rifkind is also a member of the National Security Strategy Committee – which is currently writing its report on security strategy for the next parliament – and is the chairman of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. Both of these roles must surely account for a significant proportion of his time.</p>
<p>His entry in the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/150209/150209.pdf">Register of Members’ Financial Interests</a> shows that he is a non-executive director of Adam Smith International, Unilever and the Alliance Medical Group. He attends 30 board meetings a year in these roles, as well as attending ad hoc meetings and carrying out “occasional email exchanges”. He is the chairman of the advisory board for LEK consultants (another four meetings a year) and a senior counsellor at Dragoman, an advisory company based in Melbourne, requiring yet more meetings and email communications. </p>
<p>All told, he wears an awful lot of hats and has committed himself to a lot of additional non parliamentary work. We might perhaps then be less concerned about whether or not Rifkind’s comments suggested a breach of the rules governing MPs’ second jobs and more concerned about what he is actually doing in his primary job.</p>
<p>MPs have no formal contract of employment and there is no formal job description. This leads to discrepancies in how each views their role in parliament. They all take a very different approach to what work they should be doing and when they should be doing it.</p>
<p>We will, no doubt, see further regulations on outside incomes as a result of what we have learnt about Rifkind and Straw but perhaps we should also be asking whether it is now time to consider formal contracts of employment and hours of work for our Members of Parliament.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37932/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In his spare time, the former foreign secretary enjoys reading, taking walks and doing odd jobs.Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/352902014-12-10T06:23:19Z2014-12-10T06:23:19ZMPs could do a lot worse than play Candy Crush in meetings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66775/original/image-20141209-32168-1vunwxy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More interesting than pensions?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/39908901@N06/11386612404/in/photolist-imcnaw-fAtoQT-eXqDUA-fG2XCz-e1BSoY-e1BSxA-e6nGmH-e6nGmr-e6tk9A-e1wca4-e1BStU-e6tk7Q-e6tk9d-e1BSvQ-e6nGnv-e1wcbn-e6tk8S-e1wc9X-e6tk8h-e1BSth-e1wcbz-e1wcbR-e6nGne-e6nGor-e6nGmg-e1wc8D-e1wc4k-e6nGkM-e6nGmP-e6tk7y-e6nGoz-e6nGkX-e6nGoa-e6nGkF-e1BSs3-e1BSp3-e1wc5p-jYeKHZ-jYepvM-jYgvuA-h3egmQ-e68giR-e6dUjj-e68gb4-e6dUAN-e6dUmN-e68gfr-bME9gc-bME9tt-bME9oT">m01229</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week a rare thing happened – some members of the public felt sorry for a politician. Nigel Mills, a Conservative MP, was caught playing Candy Crush Saga (an idiotic but addictive computer game) <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30375609">during a House of Commons committee meeting</a> on pension reform. On the face of it his behaviour might seem outrageous – he was involved in deciding the fate of a crucial area of government policy that will impact the fate of all Britons. </p>
<p>And yet many of us recognise the MP’s quandry. Sitting through a long meeting about the detail of pensions is hardly riveting stuff and is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/08/nigel-mills-candy-crush-forgive-mp">likely to lull even the most focused soul to sleep</a>. We have all been forced to sit through similar kinds of meetings. Our attention wanders and to stop ourselves falling asleep we look for a diversion. Some day dream, some sleep, some doodle. Mills’ preferred diversion appears to be playing computer games.</p>
<h2>A common affliction</h2>
<p>Being bored at work is a common affliction. A survey by Gallup found that 71% of US employees are <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-workers-not-engaged-jobs.aspx">either “disengaged” or “actively disengaged” with their work</a>. This means they find little identification between their work and who they are. When this happens employees tend to find their jobs uninteresting and tedious. </p>
<p>One of the aspects of work we often find most boring are meetings. The irony is that people spend increasingly large swathes of their days in these boredom hot spots. Some estimate that employees can spend 25% of their working day in meetings. And the number is <a href="http://www.okstate.edu/ceat/msetm/courses/etm5221/Week%201%20Challenges/Meeting%20Analysis%20Findings%20from%20Research%20and%20Practice.pdf">much higher for some groups of managers</a>. Plus, the number of meetings seem to have increased in the last thirty years. About one third of the time which we spend in these meetings are deemed to be unproductive. </p>
<p>But the question of why people get bored has perplexed social scientists. Some have suggested boredom is about individual personality, where some people are more likely than others to get bored. For example, one study found that people who are highly dogmatic, less sociable, and have low levels of persistence <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886993901937">tend to become bored more easily</a>. Another study suggests that <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656697921760">narcissists are more likely to become bored easily</a>. </p>
<p>Yet personality is not the only reason why people become bored in work settings. A vital driver of boredom is the <a href="http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=discussion_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dboredom%2Bwork%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5#search=%22boredom%20work%22">nature of their job</a>. It is no surprise that people who do not have enough tasks to do while they are on the job tend to become bored. The other kind of job where people tend to become extremely bored is when they have plenty of work to do, but it is too easy and does not stretch their abilities. </p>
<h2>Disturbing consequences</h2>
<p>Boredom can have potentially disturbing consequences for individuals as well as the workplace as whole. Some studies in psychology suggest that people who are prone towards boredom are more likely to take risky courses of action. Boredom can prompt people to seek out exciting experiences through taking unwarranted risks. </p>
<p>For example, one study shows a tendency <a href="http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1990.67.1.35?journalCode=pr0">toward addictive behaviour like gambling</a> and another toward destructive behaviour like <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.1999.00631.x/abstract">high levels of risk taking and conflict with team members</a>. By taking big risks or fighting with others, people in a boring situation are trying to avoid an overwhelming sense of meaninglessness. </p>
<p>So Nigel Mills’ approach is relatively harmless. Retreating into yourself by doing other work-related tasks (like checking emails), or doing non-work related tasks (like doodling or playing computer games) is often a way of psychologically removing yourself from the boring situation – albeit momentarily.</p>
<h2>Coping with boredom</h2>
<p>A recent study by sociologist Roland Paulsen looked at how employees <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/management/human-resource-management/empty-labor-idleness-and-workplace-resistance">whose life was blighted by boredom coped</a>. After speaking to a range of people who spent over 50% of their day doing non-work tasks he found a range of tactics employees used to get through the day. What is surprising is that people seemed to apply a nascent work ethic to what we would normally consider to be leisure pursuits. </p>
<p>Some would use their day to diligently play their way through complex computer games. Others would systematically read all the articles written by a particular journalist. Still others would busy themselves preening their social network. </p>
<p>In other workplaces, there was a chronic, almost institutional, lack of work. In one – described by one employee as a “big playground for adults” – employees only spent one hour a day on actual work tasks. The rest of the time they’d spend chatting and joking over messenger, exchanging web links, discussing where to eat lunch and most of all, surfing the web for their own pleasure. </p>
<p>Some might feel affronted by Nigel Mills indulging in a few games of Candy Crush during a committee meeting. But attempting to temporarily relieve the boredom of such meetings through a relatively harmless computer game might be seen as far more preferable to the other potential outcomes of boredom: aggressively taking risk and needlessly fighting with colleagues. These other ways would have inevitably slowed down the policy process and likely lead to worse outcomes. </p>
<p>We might even see MPs playing computer games during committee meetings as a good thing. Perhaps we shouldn’t go as far as doling out tablets with games preloaded onto them or installing a member’s lounge where they can compete against one another on Guitar Hero or PlayStation. But maybe, allowing politicians to temporarily relieve their boredom through a spot of harmless Candy Crush will stop them from using the political process as an opportunity to keep themselves interested.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35290/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andre Spicer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This week a rare thing happened – some members of the public felt sorry for a politician. Nigel Mills, a Conservative MP, was caught playing Candy Crush Saga (an idiotic but addictive computer game) during…Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Cass Business School, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/275512014-06-04T05:04:14Z2014-06-04T05:04:14ZQueen’s speech: can David Cameron handle the most rebellious house since 1945?<p>The Queen’s Speech marks the start of the fourth and final session of the 2010 Parliament. Final sessions are usually relatively uncontroversial. An approaching general election has traditionally calmed things down in the Commons. Fewer MPs want to rock the boat. </p>
<p>There is usually less serious legislation to cause trouble, anyway. Why introduce controversial legislation knowing that an election called in the middle of the session will cause it to fall? Why cause unnecessary resentment among your own backbenchers? It all tended to combine to produce what Churchill once called the “<a href="http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/3rd-november-1944/3/-odour-of-dissolution-">odour of dissolution</a>”.</p>
<p>The rules of the game have changed now, though. One consequence of the government’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25445868">Fixed-Term Parliaments Act</a> is that – barring something unforeseen – this session should go the distance. With no need to curtail the session mid-way through, legislation announced today should in most cases be able to reach the statute book. This gives slightly less scope for inter-party game playing (it makes it riskier to introduce bills just to differentiate yourself from the opposition) and it raises the stakes for intra-party dissent (unhappy backbenchers can no longer keep quiet, knowing that dissolution will kill a bill with which they have concerns).</p>
<p>And rather than just one governing party binding together to face a forthcoming contest, we now have two parties, both keen to differentiate themselves from one another. The Lib Dem bit of the government will not mind doing things that infuriate Conservative backbenchers; the Conservative bit of the government will delight in doing things to wind up Lib Dem backbenchers.</p>
<h2>Rocky road ahead</h2>
<p>So this may be a rockier final session than many. And while many MPs will say they place a premium on unity as the general election approaches, their behaviour thus far in the parliament has not demonstrated any great ability to actually deliver that unity.</p>
<p>Together with my colleague Mark Stuart, I have just compiled a report on the Coalition’s backbench parties since 2010, entitled <a href="http://revolts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The-four-year-itch.pdf">The Four Year Itch</a>. The 2013-2014 session saw a Coalition backbench rebellion in 31% of divisions, topping the comparable figure for all but five post-war sessions. And the rate for the parliament as a whole (that is, 2010-14) now stands at a rebellion in 37% of divisions, meaning the parliament is on course to be (almost certainly) the most rebellious since 1945.</p>
<p>To give you some comparable examples, throughout the whole of the Thatcher and Major era backbench rebellion averaged a rebellion in 14% of divisions. During the Blair and Brown years, the figure was 19%. It is now 37%.</p>
<p>Most backbench rebels are Conservative – as are most of the very rebellious MPs – but then there are more Conservative MPs. But while numerically smaller, rebellion is much more widespread amongst the Lib Dems. Whereas just over half (52%) of Conservative MPs have rebelled, a total of 42 Lib Dems, or 72% of the parliamentary party, have now done so. </p>
<p>Indeed, once you exclude those Lib Dem MPs who are or were at some point members of the “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10436078/Parliament-needs-to-rein-in-the-sinister-growth-of-the-payroll-government.html">payroll vote</a>”, either as ministers or parliamentary private secretaries – and thus expected to remain loyal to the government, there is now not a single Lib Dem MP who has been on the backbenches throughout the parliament and who has remained loyal to the party whip.</p>
<h2>Bolshy backbenchers abound</h2>
<p>And it is not just the quantity of rebelliousness that is remarkable, but its quality. The events of the last session are a reminder of the extent to which the ferocity of backbench independence has increased recently. The one outright Commons defeat was <a href="https://theconversation.com/commons-rejects-cameron-plea-for-syria-strikes-rewrites-special-relationship-17674">over Syria</a> (which saw the largest Coalition rebellion of the session) and which was historically unprecedented. But there were also several very high-profile retreats, over both <a href="https://theconversation.com/cameron-in-crisis-as-tories-glass-jaw-exposed-again-by-huge-commons-rebellion-13884">last year’s Queen’s Speech</a> and the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10607348/David-Cameron-backs-down-in-face-of-Tory-rebellion-over-human-rights-of-foreign-criminals.html">Immigration Bill</a>, in both cases seeing the Conservative part of the Coalition forced to allow backbenchers a free vote to avoid massive rebellions. </p>
<p>Both the latter issues were driven by the muscular Euroscepticism that is now dominant on the Conservative backbenches. Rebellions by Conservative MPs in the last session over non-European issues had a median average size of just five MPs. Those over Europe had a median average of 23.</p>
<p>An often unremarked aspect of both these latter votes – as with the votes in the preceding parliament on boundary changes – was that there was no coherent government position. The Conservative frontbench abstained, the Liberal Democrats were whipped to vote down the amendments and joined Labour in doing so on both occasions. What was the position of Her Majesty’s government on the Queen’s speech or the Immigration Bill amendment? Answer: it depended which bit of Her Majesty’s government you talk to.</p>
<p>Still, if you think it’s rough now, just imagine what it might be like after the next election if the Conservatives manage to stay in government. If the Conservatives manage to get an overall majority, it is – putting it politely – difficult to imagine it will be a large majority. Ditto if they are propped up by the DUP. The only real prospect of a decent-sized majority for a Conservative prime minister after the next election would appear to be some <a href="https://theconversation.com/reports-of-the-lib-dems-demise-are-premature-27470">fresh arrangement with the Liberal Democrats</a>, however many of them are left. None of this looks like a recipe for harmony.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27551/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Cowley has received funding from the ESRC, the Leverhulme Trust and the Nuffield Foundation.</span></em></p>The Queen’s Speech marks the start of the fourth and final session of the 2010 Parliament. Final sessions are usually relatively uncontroversial. An approaching general election has traditionally calmed…Philip Cowley, Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.