Carney’s Liberals win in Canada a decade on from Trudeau’s promise to abolish FPTP

Before the return of Donald Trump, Canada’s Conservative looked set to sail to power in 2025, ending a decade of Liberal rule. But a maverick president and his trade war have shifted the dial dramatically, resulting in Liberal Mark Carney returning as Prime Minister, having called an early election just weeks into the job. The Conservative leader even lost his seat.

There are of course significant geopolitical implications flowing from this development as the world grapple with an emboldened President Trump, but it’s important to examine Canada’s election through the lens of electoral reform.

The flaws of First Past the Post exposed once again

Like the UK, Canada uses the unrepresentative First Past the Post system to elect MPs. As in 2024’s UK General Election, Canada has been given a parliament that doesn’t fairly reflect how people vote.

The Liberals have likely won just shy of a majority of seats on around 43% of the vote (although with some places still counting a majority government is still technically possible). Their vote share is the party’s largest in decades but that doesn’t legitimise the country’s unfair voting system and shouldn’t lead them to winning almost half the seats available.

The Conservatives have in fact won a vote share roughly proportional to the number of seats they won, but that is a rarity in FPTP politics and doesn’t mitigate the fact that millions of Canadians voted Conservative but are without direct Conservative representation.

Then there’s the NDP. The party have suffered at the hands of their former voters turning on them and backing Carney to oppose Poilievre and Trump. The party has been reduced to just 2% of seats on 6% of the vote, significantly fewer than if seats matched votes.

Of course, while the NDP stand across Canada and Bloc Québécois in only one province, the parties won similar vote shares but notably different numbers of seats (the Bloc doing better by winning over 20 seats).

Two wrong-winner elections

Carney’s win follows two elections (2019 and 2021) where the Liberals under Justin Trudeau won the most seats, forming minority governments, but on fewer votes than the Conservatives.

While Canadians have avoided a third wrong-winner election in a row, seats overall still don’t match votes and voters are stuck with single-member ridings where MPs can’t fairly represent all their constituents.

Canada’s missed opportunity for Proportional Representation

Most campaigners for electoral reform across the English speaking world will know that Trudeau famously promised to abolish First Past the Post ahead of the 2015.

His party leapfrogged from third to first-place, forming a government with a majority of seats, then U-turned, making no effort to reform the voting system despite a decade in power.

Frustratingly, as in the UK, First Past the Post remains in place to this day. Voting reform didn’t even get a mention in Carney’s 2025 manifesto.

Canada, like the UK, has a strong case to give FPTP the boot and embrace Proportional Representation.

(IMAGE: licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license)

Dual mandates ban passed unanimously in Scottish Parliament

By Richard Wood

The Scottish Parliament has today (Tuesday 17 December 2024) unanimously passed amendments to ban dual mandates, also known as double jobbing, in Scotland. The amendments were proposed by Graham Simpson MSP who has been pushing the issue for sometime.

The changes will not be immediate. But regulations are set to be introduced in 2025 followed by consultation ahead of a ban in time for the 2026 Holyrood elections.

A win for Scottish democracy campaigners

This is a major win for improving Scottish democracy and effective representation that almost happened by accident.

Dual mandates are ultimately unfair on constituents who deserve full-time dedicated representatives at Holyrood. Not part-time MSPs.

Had Stephen Flynn MP not announced his intentions to double job, we have to wonder if we’d be here?

READ MORE: Why we need to ban dual mandates

Dual mandates ban by 2026 backed by the Scottish Government

By Richard Wood

Rules preventing MSPs from also holding seats in Westminster are now almost certain to come into force.

The Scottish Government has backed a ban proposed by a Conservative MSP and supported by a Green MSP.

After Graham Simpson MSP retabled his amendments to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill, the Scottish Government has worked with him to table new amendments which state that “Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a draft of a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations which (a) make provision to the effect that a person is disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament if that person is a member of the House of Commons.

What does this mean?

Simply put, it’s a victory for the campaign to ban dual mandates though there’s still some time before the ban is implemented.

Dual mandates are bad for effective representation. Constituents deserve representatives working full-time for them in parliament. Not part-time MSPs.

What next?

If the amendments pass, the Scottish Government will be introducing a consultation in 2025, with a ban set to come into force ahead of the 2026 elections if all goes to plan.

Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill set to return on 17 December 2024

By Richard Wood

The third stage of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill will be debated on Tuesday 17 December.

This potentially gives an opportunity for MSPs to ban dual mandates, disqualifing MSPs from holding seats in Westminster at while representating constituents at Holyrood.

Graham Simpson MSP retabled his amendment to do this after the furore over Stephen Flynn MP planning on holding a dual mandate until 2029 if elected to Holyrood in 2026. So far, his amendments (one relating to the Commons and one the Lords) are the only ones that have been tabled, with the deadline on Tuesday 10 December for further amendments.

MSPs deserve to debate these proposals and should ultimately vote to ban dual mandates once and for all.

Are dual mandates banned in Northern Ireland for MLAs and MPs?

By Richard Wood

When an MP holds another elected role, such as MSP, they are said to hold a dual mandate. As with second jobs more generally, this is problematic as constituents deserve full-time representatives. Not part-timers.

The issue has been in the spotlight again with SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn planning to hold a dual mandate if selected to run for the Scottish Parliament in 2026 and ultimately become an MSP – until rescinding his bid on Thursday evening.

Momentum is building against dual mandates in Scotland but other parts of the UK already have dual mandate bans in place.

Northern Ireland is one of them.

What are the rules on dual mandate bans in Northern Ireland?

The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 legislated to explicitly prevent members of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLAs) from also being MPs. It also bans MLAs from being members of the Dáil Éireann (TDs) in the Republic of Ireland.

The Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 takes this ban further, outlining that councillors cannot be MPs, MLAs, peers of members of any other legislative body.

Momentum is building against dual mandates following Stephen Flynn’s bid to enter Holyrood in 2026.

MPs and MSPs should recognise this and legislate to ban dual mandates in Scotland.

Image via Pixabay

Momentum is building against dual mandates – here’s what I’ve asked my MP to do

By Richard Wood

Westminster has an opportunity to ban dual mandates to prevent MPs and peers from also serving MSPs at the same time.

More immediately, the House of Commons’ Modernisation Committee is looking at improving working practices, standards and conditions, with a remit that includes second jobs. This gives a clear opportunity to improve our representative democracy and abolish dual mandates once and for all.

Below is a copy of the text I used to write to my MP on the matter. I am also submitting evidence to the Modernisation Committee.

Feel free to use my letter as the basis for your own contact.

Whether it’s Stephen Flynn in the SNP, Douglas Ross in the Conservatives, or any future Labour or Lib Dem MPs hoping for dual mandates, double jobbing is bad for effective representation of constituents.

Email to MP: abolish dual mandates once and for all

Dear [NAME] MP

I am writing to express my concern about dual mandates held by Members of Parliament and peers in the House of Lords.

Voters deserve full-time MPs to speak up for their constituencies in parliament. Not part-timers. That is why I believe MPs shouldn’t be able to hold additional full-time roles in the Scottish Parliament or the London Assembly, and be restricted from holding elected roles in local councils.

MPs cannot be members of the Senedd in Wales or Stormont in Northern Ireland in addition to their Westminster roles. Why not the same for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly?

Please write to the Modernisation Committee to represent my views and call on them to recommend that the law is changed so MPs are unable to hold additional elected roles, as part of their remit looking at second jobs for MPs.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to you raising this matter.

Are dual mandates or “double jobbing” banned in Scotland?

By Richard Wood

The issue of dual mandates, which is when a politicians holds two political positions at once such as MP and MSP, has risen its head again.

Currently, there is only one dual mandate holder in the Scottish Parliament: Katy Clark of Scottish Labour. Although in fairness to Clark, she is on leave from her duties as a member of the House of Lords so in practice she essentially holds a single mandate. The problems with the unelected House of Lords are a whole discussion on their own.

But SNP MPs Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins have both put forward their names to stand for Holyrood in 2026 and remain MPs.

It is worth highlighting here that the SNP criticised the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross for holding both positions until the 2024 UK General Election when he lost his Westminster seat.

No matter the party, dual mandates are wrong.

Simply put, voters deserve full-time MPs. Not part-timers.

Are dual mandates banned in Scotland?

In short, being an MP and MSP is not mutually exclusive as shown by Ross holding a dual mandate until earlier this year. Dual mandates are not banned in Scotland.

That said, momentum is building against them, particularly following Flynn’s 2026 election announcement.

Either the Scottish Parliament or Westminster could legislate on this by setting out the qualifying rules for MPs and MSPs.

There’s already precedent for this in the United Kingdom with both Westminster and the Senedd setting out rules on dual mandates.

The issue of dual mandates is one that should be addressed right now while the impact will be limited. They need banned before 2026.

Will Holyrood or Westminster get there first?

Image via Pixabay

MSP retables amendment to ban dual mandates by 2026

By Richard Wood

A ban on MSPs also being able to serve as MPs has moved one step closer thanks to Conservative MSP Graham Simpson’s retabled amendment to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill.

The amendment follows SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn announcing his intentions to stand for Holyrood in 2026 and hold a dual mandate until 2029.

Simpson initially tabled the amendment at stage 2, but didn’t push it after being offered a potential consultation on the matter in the future. He will now retable at stage 3 following the momentum building against “double jobbing” in recent weeks.

Holyrood Magazine reports that Scottish Labour and the Scottish Greens would back the amendment. Liberal Democrats have said in the past they would support a dual mandates ban.

What’s wrong with dual mandates?

The roles of MP and MSP are full-time positions. Voters deserve full-time dedicated representatives. Not part-timers.

The case for a dual mandates ban is one of principles and practicalities. For effective representation to happen, not to mention travelling between three locations and handling casework directly relating to two layers of government, MPs and MSPs should focus on the day job of representating constituents in one clear capacity.

Dual mandates should be banned.

What next?

The BBC reports that a vote on the amendment could come before Christmas 2024. If all opposition MSPs unite on the matter, then a dual mandates ban could become a reality.

Parliamentary Business Minster Jamie Hepburn has said he supports a consultation on the issue but there’s a chance the legislation wouldn’t come into force until after 2026 if parliament went down that route.

Analysis

This shouldn’t be a party political issue. Whether it’s the SNP’s Stephen Flynn, the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross or Labour and Lib Dem MPs and MSPs past, dual mandates fail to meet the standards required to deliver effective representation.

And yet there’s a clear party political slant to the way this is coming about – opposition parties coming together amid an SNP divided on this issue due to one of their own paving to double job despite past party opposition.

It’s also worth highlighting that this probably wouldn’t be happening had Douglas Ross retained his seat in Westminster, as well as his leadership of the party.

Perhaps this change in this way is inevitable with dual mandates not currently being widespread across different parties and Scottish politics being so divided.

That said, a dual mandates ban will be welcome. MSPs should vote for this when the time comes.

Unlock Democracy backs campaign to engage with Modernisation Committee to clean up politics

By Richard Wood

Unlock Democracy has backed my motion to engage with the Modernisation Committee on issues including second job restrictions for MPs and creating job descriptions for parliamentarians.

The Modernisation wants to hear from people about what additional ideas they have for work it could take forward, covering the strategic aims of: driving up standards; improving culture and working practices; and reforming Parliamentary procedures to make the House of Commons more effective.

Policy Motion 1: Working with the Modernisation Committee

Proposer: Richard Wood

Seconder: Rebecca Warren

The AGM notes:

The Government has revived the House of Commons Modernisation Committee. This is a cross-party committee of MPs that will consider ‘reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices’.

The Committee’s remit overlaps with aspects of Unlock Democracy’s ‘Cleaning Up Politics’ campaign, such as setting limits on MPs’ second jobs and establishing a job description for MPs. Cleaning up politics was ranked as Unlock Democracy’s second most important campaign by supporters in the 2023 Annual Survey.

Unlock Democracy has started establishing a relationship with the Committee. Director Tom Brake questioned the Committee’s chair, Lucy Powell MP, at the Labour Party Conference about the Committee’s work on MPs’ second jobs.

The Committee has agreed to circulate our paper on MPs second jobs, and has invited us to respond to their call for views from stakeholders later in the year.

The AGM welcomes that:

Unlock Democracy has identified this Committee as important for achieving many of our campaign goals

Unlock Democracy has begun building a relationship with the Committee

Unlock Democracy has compiled a list of campaign asks for the Modernisation Committee to consider

The AGM calls on Unlock Democracy:

To respond to the Committee’s consultation with stakeholders

To get in touch with MPs on the Committee with suggestions for improving the House of Commons’ procedures and standards

To involve Unlock Democracy’s members and supporters in efforts to influence the Committee

To work with other organisations in the democracy sector, where beneficial, to influence the Committee.

What does the Electoral Reform Society say about dual mandates in Scotland?

By Richard Wood

Dual mandates are back in the spotlight again with two sitting SNP MPs, Stephen Flynn and Stephen Gethins, preparing possible bids for joining the Scottish Parliament as MSPs.

Both Douglas Ross (Conservative) and Katy Clark (Labour) have held dual mandates in this parliamentary session at Holyrood.

Double jobbing is bad for representative democracy as the roles of MSP and MP are full-time jobs in and of themselves. Constituents ultimately deserve full-time representatives not part-timers.

Momentum is shifting on the issue with the Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Appointments Committee discussing the matter only last week in relation to the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill: Stage 2. The Modernisation Committee in Westminster also has scope for discussing the issue in its remit on outside employment.

What do the Electoral Reform Society say on the issue?

The Electoral Reform Society, formed in 1884, campaigns for democratic rights and a democracy fit for the 21st century.

The organisation submitted the below response to a request from the Scottish Parliament’s petitions committee in 2023.

Being a councillor and an MP or MSP seems reasonable over a
temporary transition period. However, we are concerned that given the limitations in the capacity of MSPs, ‘double jobbing’ adds an extra strain. Therefore we would like to see the legislation here brought into line with The Senedd where the rules are that when a member is elected and holds a dual mandate they either have eight days to resign as a sitting MP, or they have to take a leave of absence from a seat they hold in the Lords, or if a Regional Councillor they can remain in post provided the expected day of the next Regional Election is within 372 days.

Having a full-time paid job in the Lords, Commons or Holyrood should be mutually exclusive, and we would advise against MSPs being allowed to hold a dual mandate. There are no clear advantages to voters or to the
operation of democratic institutions and one big disadvantage – the
capacity of an individual to fulfil the responsibilities of both roles. Such
an allowance seems to be in the interests of politicians rather than those they represent.

The Electoral Reform Society is right to support abolishing dual mandates. It also recognises the need for a short grace period for MPs or MSPs to pick where they wish to represent their constituents before being removed from the parliament they reject.

Image free via Pixabay