Floor Crossing: A Sort-Of Defence
No one loves it, plenty of people hate it, but switching sides is a necessary evil in a flawed system.
Opinion writers aren’t meant to offer tepid defences of things. We’re meant to be strong and certain. I’ve always thought the admonition to be stupid, since some things thoroughly deserve a sort-of defence. Floor crossing is one of those things.
On Wednesday, former Conservative member of Parliament Matt Jeneroux left his party to cross the floor to the Liberals. Previously, he said he would leave the Commons. His move strengthens the governing side’s standing in the legislature, putting them within reach of a majority and, in the meantime, buttressing their “working” equivalent of one. Since their election last year, the Liberals have maintained popular support, at once navigating and leveraging the threats from Donald Trump and the United States against Canada’s economy — and sovereignty.
Jeneroux’s crossing marks the third departure from the blue to the red side in the life of this parliament. As he left, observers drew their battle lines immediately. As always, differences of, ah, opinion were split between those who mark the switch as an act of conscience — and thus honour — or a betrayal, cynical and self-interested or otherwise. Parties, including the Conservatives, who bemoan such a move rarely remind us that when it’s them receiving a defector, the former explanation is a given. It’s all conscience and honour. When it’s a matter of losing a member, it’s always a betrayal. Politics and all that. Pointing out the double standard, the hypocrisy, is barely worth the clicks and clacks of the keyboard strokes.
Floor crossing is permitted. It’s a longstanding practice in the Westminster system and any party is welcome to tempt and admit crossers or to turn them away as they wish. As a voter, you might like crossings or not, but they’re perfectly legitimate and well within the boundaries of the rules. You might prefer a crosser stand down instead of leaving their party and run in a by-election. That’s a fair preference given the terms on which members tend to be elected — voters tend to cast a ballot thinking of party affiliation or leader over the local candidate themselves.
As reasonable of an ask as that may be, whatever our intentions when voting, we return individuals to be parliamentarians. We should expect and want them to exercise their judgment. Indeed, for all the complaining we do about MPs being trained seals or nobodies or whatever, when one finally decides to think for themselves, we get awfully worked up awfully fast. This tension captures how voters tend to be torn between wanting their MP to be a representative exercising judgment but also a delegate responding to the preferences of the individual. The job cannot be captured as a binary, though. It’s often a little of each, here and there, which suggests that individual member judgment is in fact paramount.
In our system leaders dominate parliamentary life. The tendency isn’t new, but it’s been growing since the 1960s and has really gotten out of hand. Floor crossing allows individual members a bit of leverage against the all-powerful centre. This is the best defence of floor crossing. Ideally, it wouldn’t be necessary, since members could work through their issues within their party or, worst-case, leave it and sit as an independent. The latter choice would remove or at least limit any perception of quid-pro-quo or any sort of personal gain from leaving one’s party. Sounds nice. But given the central role parties play in our system, it would also limit the member’s capacity to get things done during their time in office as they face constrained resources and a hard limit on roles (e.g. committees). Moreover, what if the member comes to truly, madly, and deeply believe in the value of being a part of a different party?
The upshot of this conundrum is that there is no ideal outcome. Whether you support floor crossing as a rule (or in particular circumstances) in any form or whether you’d prefer a different set of standards or rules, each position reflects or emphasizes a different set of values, priorities, or concerns. Parties or individual members? Solidarity or independence? Discretion and judgment or a close, enduring, delegate-style commitment to the electors who sent you to Ottawa (forgetting, of course, all those electors who cast a ballot while thinking of another candidate or party).
All told, I support floor crossing, if somewhat weakly. Within the system we have, it allows individuals to exercise their judgment, an act which is all-too-often in short supply. Moreover, it allows those same members to have a bit more control over their leader and — perhaps more importantly — the office of the leader. It’s a pity that a crossing undermines the will of the electorate, at least to an extent, but that’s the trade-off. If voters don’t like it, and they often don’t, they can make their displeasure known at the next election. The system will survive to disappoint another day.
How dare you offer a nuanced opinion! Everything should be black and white. /s
The point about constrained resources really stands out. When an MP sits as an Independent, they effectively lose their voice under the Standing Orders (the rulebook for the House). I was looking at committee rosters recently. Independents are almost invisible in the actual legislative work. Crossing to a major party is often just a survival tactic to get access to the microphone again. It looks like pure opportunism to voters, but the parliamentary records show it is often the only way to get work done.