The Good Old Days?

"The King (George III) responded by giving (Henry)Fox the unofficial position of 'cabinet councillor and his Majesty's minister in the House of Commons'. His duty was to obtain a majority vote to approve the peace treaty (with France). How he did it would be no concern to the King, but he would have all the resources of the Crown at his disposal.

Fox vigorously attacked his new assignment, using the resources of the Crown to bribe the members of the House. He offered them places in the government, commissions in the military, or chairs in the universities. If such favors for themselves or their families failed, he offered money. John Almon wrote, 'The royal household has been increased beyond all former example. The lords and grooms of the bedchamber were doubled. Pensions were thrown about indiscriminately. Five and twenty thousand pounds were issued in one day, in bank notes of one hundred pounds each. The only stipulation was, Give us your vote. A corruption of such notoriety and extent had never been seen before.' According to Walpole, 'A shop was publicly opened at the Pay Office, whither the members flocked, and received the wages of their venality in bank-bills, even to so low a sum as two hundred pounds for their votes on the treaty'"

This account is to be found in Arthur H. Cash's biography 'John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty.' I've been enjoying this fascinating book about a hero of the fight for liberty in eighteenth century England. I will soon be at the point where his support for the American Revolution is described.

We might think that some MPs have not conducted themselves well in recent years. We may bemoan the way that governments are able to push legislation through with the force of their majority - but things have been worse in the past. Sometimes people paint a very rosy picture of parliaments in former days. The truth is that Westminster has seen some appalling behaviour. I'm glad to say that much of that behaviour is now illegal. Despite the view of MPs as sheep following the orders of the whips - MPs today are more prepared than ever to vote against their party. [The work of Lord Norton and Philip Cowley establishes this.] During the 1950s there was a whole session in which no backbencher voted against their Government - nowadays rebellions are frequent, and very few MPs have no record of 'rebellious behaviour'.

Sheeplike MPs?

"Gutless and feeble, today's politicians are too willing to do what their political masters tell them; terrified to follow their own consciences for fear of what might happen to them, they can be led by the nose to vote for almost anything put before them".

Many might agree with this comment about the sheeplike nature of MPs in the House of Commons. Actually this quote appears at the start of a book by Philip Cowley in which he goes on to say "like so much received wisdom, it is almost entirely wrong."

The classic texts on rebellions by MPs were written by Robert J Jackson (Rebels and Whips); Philip Norton (Dissension in the House of Commons 1945-74; Dissension in the House of Commons, 1974-1979; Rebels and rebellions: Conservative MPs in the 1992 Parliament[Joint Article with Philip Cowley]) and Philip Cowley (Revolts and Rebellions: Parliamentary Voting Under Blair (2002); Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority (2005)).

Philip Cowley now runs an extremely useful website on Commons rebellions. It can be accessed here.

Senate & House Voting Behaviour

In the excellent blog "Congress Matters" (which I read as part of my daily reading for current legislative matters), David Waldman explains the different practices for "rebelling" in the two Houses within Congress.

He wrote in the blog -

In the House, when the [Democratic] leadership needs to move legislation that might be a tough vote for members from conservative-leaning districts, they let it be known that certain of their number will be free to "vote their districts." But it's a very rare event that legislation is simply pulled at their behest.

Now, most of that is due to the nature of the way the House functions versus the Senate, of course. But it's important to point out: House members are considered to be doing the "safe" thing in voting against important legislation if the think their districts "demand" it. And sometimes, if the whip count is solid, they get a pass on the rule, too. But voting against the rule is looked on with considerably less favor. (Or at least, it used to be. These days voting against the rule for no particular reason other than to lower the percentage of votes one casts in support of the leadership has come into limited acceptance.)

The point, though, is that House members are considered to have adequately protected themselves if they vote against legislation that ultimately passes despite their vote. But move to the Senate, and suddenly that's not enough.

Maybe that's because so many people know enough about filibusters and cloture voting to know that there's at least the option available to Senators to stop legislation they oppose this way. But filibusters have become far too common of late, in part because of changes to the way they're conducted. "Painless filibusters" have long since replaced the real thing, and unanimous consent agreements requiring 60-vote thresholds have made things even easier.

The failure to distinguish between procedural and substantive voting in the Senate is akin to the failure in the House to make the same distinction with regard to motions to recommit. And though much of the difficulty with those motions was removed by the rules change earlier this year that eliminated the "promptly" instruction, it remains a weapon potent enough that it continues to hold DC voting rights hostage.

The distinction between voting againgst the party on a procedural motion and voting against the party on the substantive issue is important when considering members' behaviour in Congress.