Calgary — The tax handouts for political parties created by former prime minister Jean Chrétien have relieved taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars, relieved the Bloc Québécois of having to fundraise, and cursed Canadians to a life of never-ending election campaigns — but getting rid of them, as the Conservatives want to do, is likely unrealistic, says a new study co-authored by a former Tory campaign manager.

The report by Tom Flanagan and David Coletto, to be released today by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, concludes that while the Conservatives continue to promise to eliminate the $1.95-per-vote allowance Elections Canada doles out to federal parties every quarter, any attempt to end the program is bound to leave party organizations financially “crippled,” without the ability to make up the lost funds through fundraising.

“Given all the difficulties, this may not be the time to try and replace the system,” says Mr. Flanagan, a political science professor who formerly served as Stephen Harper’s chief-of-staff and national campaign manager for the Conservatives. (Mr. Coletto is his PhD student.)

Although the Conservatives would suffer least were the subsidy cancelled (they earn the largest portion of their revenue from small, individual donations) – suggesting that their motive could have been partly animated by a beggar-thy-neighbour instinct – history shows Conservative fundraising support won’t always be so strong, Mr. Flanagan warns.

See FUNDING on Page A8

“Things change. You shouldn’t really design systems around temporary conditions,” he says.

One of Mr. Chrétien’s final policy flourishes in 2003 was to drain corporate and union donations from party politics, as well as tightly cap individual donations, replacing the money with public funds tied to each party’s vote-count in the previous election. “More public contribution to meet the requirements of every party is a very small price to pay in order to have a very substantial reform of political financing,” Mr. Chrétien said, arguing that his reforms – pushed through amid opposition from within his own caucus and little consultation with other parties – would “make all the political parties less dependent on contributions from the industrial sector” and avoid American-scale election spending.

Mr. Harper, once elected, added yet more donation restrictions under 2006′s Accountability Act. But the Tories remain opposed to the public allowance.

“We believe that political parties should support themselves with people who voluntarily donate to whichever party they wish to support,” Steven Fletcher, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, said in August. A Conservative proposal to cut the funding in November 2008 galvanized opposition leaders into a coalition aimed at unseating the minority government.

While Mr. Chrétien’s policy advisor, Eddie Goldenberg, had promised that public subsidies under Bill C-24 would be revenue neutral when held up against the donations that parties would be forfeiting, in reality, all parties are collecting far more today from their Elections Canada cheques, even after inflation adjustments, than they ever did before.

Parties now collect, on average, roughly 50% more from public funds than they gave up under the new limits on corporate, union and large personal donations, the study calculates: The Bloc Québécois raised less than $1-million in corporate donations in the four years prior to C-24, but collected more than $12-million in public funds in the four years after.

“The Bloc has all this dough; they never have to fundraise again,” says Stephen LeDrew, a Toronto radio host who, as president of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2003, publicly battled Mr. Chrétien over the reforms he called as “dumb as a bag of hammers.”

Though the study examined potential alternatives to the quarterly allowance – a return to capped corporate and union donations, more generous tax write-offs for individual donations, and an American-style “check-off” system, allowing tax filers to indicate on their return whether they want to direct some public money to their favourite party – they all would fall considerably short of replacing the subsidies upon which political organizations now rely, the authors calculated.

It’s little wonder parties have become hooked on the subsidies to the point where removing them now could be devastating, Mr. LeDrew says. “Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Taxpayers’ money is the mother’s milk with a drop of scotch in it.”

As it happens, one unforeseen result of party organizations enjoying such a steady, lucrative cash flow, Mr. Flanagan says, is the emergence of a “permanent campaign” model, with party organizations now keeping their war-rooms open, keeping up voter identification campaigns, and increasingly running ads targeting opponents between election periods: a “campaign virtually all the time.”

Still, Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of the Ottawa-based advocacy group Democracy Watch, says that, compared to all other models, the taxpayer allowance is the best system for keeping moneyed influence out of politics. “There isn’t a more democratic way to do it,” he says.

And with no ready alternative, the Tories might be better to stick merely with adjusting levers in the existing system, Mr. Flanagan suggests: they could look at reducing the $1.95 per vote allowance, allowing small businesses to contribute, or readjusting tax credits for individual donations. “Changing it now is going to be harder than passing it.” But he’s firm that whatever alterations they have in mind should not be undertaken without a consensus among the major federal parties. “I think it’s bad policy to do any of these changes unilaterally. This is where the Liberals got us on the wrong track; the Liberals pushed through their changes.” The Conservatives have only followed suit. And while gaming the election system in their own favour may be any party’s natural instinct, Mr. Flanagan says, it’s no way to run a democracy.

National Post

Independent MP versus Party members

Posted By KAREN BEST CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER ST. CATHARINES

Posted 1 year ago

http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1241487

An independent member of Canada’s Parliament has the same rights and resources as any other member but may have limited ability to influence decisions.

If elected as MP for the Haldimand-Norfolk riding, independent candidate Gary McHale will have a seat in the House of Commons and has the right to vote.

Because an independent is not aligned with a party, the MP is not as connected to things, said a Brock University political science professor.

Political party members have access to party-financed services including staff and research resources, said David Siegel in an interview with The Chronicle.

An independent will be given an office in the East Block and has the same funding and staff as any other member. He would not be discriminated against, he added.

How a back bencher can affect a vote will depend on the composition of the house, Siegel n the past it has been shown that one vote can be very important, he added referring to independent MP Charles Cadman.

In 2005, his vote in support of the Liberal budget prevented an election. He died of skin cancer a few months later.

According to a Feb. 2008 Toronto Star story, Conservative officials Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley, who is married to Diane Finley, met with Cadman two days before the non-confidence vote. In a joint statement, the two men stated that as campaign officials they could help Cadman with a Conservative nomination and campaign.

Based on a quote in Like A Rock: the Chuck Cadman Story written by Tom Zytaruk, The Star quoted Cadman’s wife as saying her husband threw two Conservative representatives out of his office after they mentioned a $1 million life insurance policy if he became a member of the party before the vote.

So if the new government is a minority, again a sole independent vote will be very important, pointed out Siegel. In the case of a majority, no one on the minority has much influence, he added.

As a member of Parliament, an independent has the ability to make a case for a meeting with cabinet minister and will be looked at differently than a request by an individual, Siegel said. While able to get the ear of a minister, an independent does not necessarily get what they want, he added.

During the daily 45-minute question period in House of Commons sessions, a protocol is followed, he explained. The leader of the opposition is always recognized first and then the speaker goes through the smaller party members. Any member can pose a question if they get the attention of the speaker, said Siegel.

All members of Parliament have a certain station so if McHale is elected he will be able to get more attention than the least member of the New Democratic Party, he noted. Also an independent does not have to follow a party line, he added.

Even so, Siegel was not sure how much of a pressing case an independent may be able to make. A member of the governing party will have more success with Cabinet especially if a riding is at risk, he added.

At a recent all candidate meeting, McHale said politicians are watching how the campaign is unfolding in Haldimand Norfolk and waiting for the decision. Siegel said the import of the riding is best illustrated by a visit from a party leader. They tend to show up in ridings where a sitting member needs a boost to their campaign, he noted.

When he heard that Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty visited Caledonia, he said that was fairly important given his status.

Siegel said Liberal leader Stephane Dion would come to a riding where a party member could be close to a win. Dion was expected to visit Brantford on Oct. 10.

The professor said it is well known that land claims are a significant issue in this riding and was not surprised to hear Dion or Harper had not visited Caledonia. “Party leaders don’t want to step on a mine field,” he noted.

In an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of independents and political parties, Siegel said an independent is one voice out of 308. Parties were formed as a way of organizing debate and when 50 or 155 have a position that carries more weight than one person, he stated.

Overall, the professor could give no examples of historic differences, other than Cadman’s vote, of significant impacts made by an independent.

At the Dunnville candidate meeting on Oct. 2, McHale debunked the impression that an independent could not accomplish much. By asking questions, he said he can draw media attention and bad press is something politicians fear. Once it is out, the government will act to avoid embarrassment, he p>Since he launched the Caledonia Wake Up Call website in the summer of 2006, McHale has done 500 interviews with media from across Canada. He told the audience he will make sure the riding’s issues will be heard across the country too.

In a retorting remark, NDP candidate Ian Nichols said people rarely see an independent asking a question because the cameras are no longer rolling at that point. Liberal candidate Eric Hoskins agreed with McHale’s success in getting media attention on Caledonia but added that it was different getting to the government.

Among the advantages of having a political party and a caucus is that one voice is turned into many and can influence the direction government takes, skins. He suggested that voters make a decision to keep McHale in Caledonia where he has an important impact instead of sending him to Ottawa where his impact will not be so great.

Allowed a rebuttal, McHale asked, “If the parties could have helped for two and a half years, where have they been?”

As for party politicians, Liberals are too worried about votes in another riding and don’t care about this riding, he added.

In his closing comments, McHale pointed out that Premier Dalton McGuinty and OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino mention his name often. “I’m an average person. If I wasn’t effective you wouldn’t have heard about me,” he stated.

Not about to let that go, Hoskins said McHale provided a convincing argument not to vote for him and that the independent candidate had a very good understanding of a specific issue.

In Siegel’s opinion, an MPs first obligation is to the country but with an interest in getting elected they also pay attention to the riding.

In an exploration of bail conditions, he was told by The Chronicle that McHale was charged with mischief that did not occur during a Dec. 2007 smoke shop protest. He was arrested later and released but bail conditions banned him from entering a large section of Haldimand County including Caledonia and York. Those conditions were lifted for the campaign but will be reinstated on Oct. 17.

Declining to comment on legal issues, Siegel spoke in generalities. In some ways, MPs are not like the average person because they can make statements on the floor of the legislature without worrying about libel and slander, he explained.

“It would be an interesting test to see if those kind of bail conditions could be against the MP,” he added.

As far as criminal records, they do not prevent a person from running for office and it is up to the people to decide, Siegel said.

I am pleased to mark my return as a regular contributor to the Calgary Herald by announcing my simple plan to save Canadian democracy. I begin with the following question: why can’t we solve our problems in this country?

I answer with the following proposition: our problems are not being solved because our ancient political system and institutions were not designed to confront the complex and fast-moving problems of to-day’s world.

Our 800-year-old British parliamentary system was based on the notion that the election of constituency-based independent members of Parliament, free to vote their conscience on any issue, would form a floating majority which would carry the day on any particular issue.

It worked. Over time, common ground was found, majorities coalesced, solutions were identified, votes were taken, problems got solved and the shifting coalitions moved on to address the next issue.

The advent of political parties in the 18th century (which continues to this day) and the subsequent loss of the independence of the MP to vote his or her conscience has upset the notion of the ability of the roving or floating majority in a parliament, made up of independents, to find their way to a solution.

You simply can’t bolt the political party concept of a republican political system onto the original, inherent independence of the MP in a British parliamentary system, and expect it to work.

Ford parts don’t work on GM cars, DVDs won’t work in a VHS, an LRT won’t run on the CPR main line, Jarome Iginla’s creativity would never work in Jacques Lemaire’s soul-destroying “neutral-zone trap,” and the dictatorship of the modern political party will never mesh with the original independence required of a member of Parliament.

The day they invented the government whip was the day the independence of Parliament died.

As a result, polarization solidifies, solutions are not found, citizens increasingly feel their parliaments are not relevant, voters drift away, turnout drops, young people won’t engage and a dwindling band of Parliament Hill denizens — politicians, bureaucrats, media, bartenders — tend not to notice that they are laughing with each other in an echo chamber made up of themselves, alone.

It isn’t working, the voters aren’t laughing. People need faith that their members of Parliament matter, that their political institutions work, and that solutions are actually achievable.

Right now, Canadians look at Parliament Hill with a combination of despair and contempt.

There is a way out of this.

Here is a hint: during the last election for the president of France, there was all manner of parties that had a candidate on the ballot on the first Sunday of voting.

However, only the top two would go on to a winner-take-all vote on the second ballot, seven days later — the second Sunday of voting.

Voila!

That is what we must do in Canada, in all 308 ridings.

On the first Monday of the next federal election, say, May 10, 2010, we have an election as usual, with everybody on the ballot.

But seven days later, on May 17, 2010, we have a runoff election between the top two, in all 308 ridings.

Think of the implications:

-We would be much more likely to have majority parliaments again (where things can get done), because those who finish second on the first round of voting get a chance to close the deal seven days later;

-We would be much more likely to have MPs from the Green party in Parliament, for example, because their strong second-place finishes in many ridings won’t go to waste, simply because their organization is wide, but not deep.

-The Bloc Quebecois, whose separatist obstructionist presence continues to frustrate the aspirations of a federalist nation, would be doomed by the federalist vote coming together on the second round of voting.

-Every MP would be elected by a majority of the voters in their riding.

-And imagine — Canadian elections would actually be exciting, stretching over a period of eight days, and produce parliaments that are a more true reflection of the voting intentions of the people.

Radical.

Rod Love is the former chief of staff to former premier Ralph Klein.

OTTAWA — The House of Commons on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation enabling the provinces to harmonize their sales taxes with the federal GST, clearing the way for Ontario and British Columbia to implement the HST this summer.

The federal HST bill passed by a vote of 253-37. Only the NDP opposed the legislation.

Both Ontario and B.C. plan to combine their provincial sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax on July 1.

Economists estimate that combining the tax will save businesses in Ontario billions, because firms will no longer have to pay tax on inputs such as materials and supplies. But the tax has outraged some consumers, who will see a rise in the amount of tax they pay on items such as gasoline in Ontario, and phone and cable bills in B.C.

Eighty-two per cent of British Columbians and 74 per cent of Ontarians oppose the tax, according to a recent Ipsos Reid survey commissioned by Canwest News Service and Global National.

The public backlash has put considerable pressure on MPs from Ontario and B.C., exposing cracks in the ranks of both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

This week, Conservative MP Dona Cadman, who represents the riding of Surrey North, said she would vote against the federal HST bill. Cadman did not attend the vote on Wednesday evening.

Other Tories were expected to fall in line with the government, but some are clearly not happy about it. “I don’t get a vote on the HST, and you know that,” said Larry Miller, the Tory MP for the Ontario riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, after leaving a meeting of the Conservative caucus on Wednesday.

Chief government whip Gordon O’Connor declined to comment Wednesday when asked if Ms. Cadman would be disciplined for breaking party ranks. “That’s an internal matter and I’m not going to discuss that,” said Mr. O’Connor, meaning that Conservative MPs would be expected to vote with the government.

Earlier this week, Liberal MP Keith Martin, who represents the B.C. riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, said he would not show up for the vote. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff announced last week that his party would support harmonization, as the Liberals did for years while in power.

Asked why Mr. Martin was allowed to miss the vote, Mr. Ignatieff said before the vote that it was a “disciplinary matter.

“We have maintained the unity of the caucus on the HST, and I’m very proud of the way that caucus has reacted to a difficult and tough decision, which we think is the right one,” the Liberal leader told reporters.

Earlier Wednesday, the Ontario legislature passed a bill that enables a 13% HST to be come into effect. The enabling legislation passed by a vote of 56-29, with both the provincial Conservatives and NDP opposed.

“Jack Layton respected the term “democracy”. The latest polls show that only a minority of Canadians have any faith in the long gun registry, and the vote reflected that. I’m sick and tired of party whips telling our elected M.P.s how to vote. They are supposed to represent their constituents in Ottawa, not represent Ottawa interests to their constituents. I’d suggest that a good many M.P.s stood to lose their seats if they’d taken party advice and voted against the legislation to abolish a deeply failed system.”

_______________________________

“Not much room in Gerald Caplan’s world for elected members to accurately represent their constituents’ views. It’s called democracy.”

________________________________

“Voting along “party lines” is undemocratic; the idea that a constituents representative would disregard their wishes because his or her party mandates they should vote a particular way is the most dictatorial part of Canadian politics. The position of party whip should be abolished, and MPs should be accountable to the people that voted for them.”

Gerald Caplan

Layton betrays the faithful

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton speaks during an emergency debate in the House of Commons on Monday, November 2, 2009. The Canadian Press

By allowing a third of his caucus to vote in favour of killing the gun registry, the NDP Leader leaves a bitter taste with a core constituency

Special to The Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 6:08PM EST Last updated on Friday, Nov. 20, 2009 6:17PM EST

Check out the comments on this article.

The bitter divisions over the long-gun registry are by no means over. When the House supported the bill to abolish the registry, it left significant numbers of Canadians feeling betrayed and wondering how to vote in the next election.

Many of us lobbied publicly and privately against passage of this bill. The Liberals and New Democrats in Ottawa heard in no uncertain terms from a large, spontaneous alliance of their own political supporters and potential supporters. Trade unions, feminist organizations, NGOs, ordinary women, social activists of all kinds, women like Suzanne Laplante-Edwards whose daughter had been murdered by Marc Lepine in the Montréal massacre – all pleaded with both parties to stand united to defeat the bill. It did no good.

That the Conservatives voted unanimously for the motion was hardly a surprise; everyone knew it was really a Harper government initiative from the get-go. But the government couldn’t pass the bill without the support of some opposition MPs; that’s why they made it a private member’s bill. It worked, even more successfully than they expected. Everyone expected a squeaker. But thanks to 18 Liberals and New Democrats, the bill sailed through by a comfortable 164 to 137 votes.

Both the Liberals and NDP allowed their members a free vote on the grounds that such is the custom with private members’ bills. But that was just a charade. Since this was obviously a government-driven bill, both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton could have insisted on a party vote. That neither even attempted to keep their dissidents in line has deeply shaken supporters of both parties. They wonder what to do now (other than lobby hard again in preparation for committee hearings on the bill).

Clearly most of us who opposed the bill are not Conservatives. Few believe in the government’s “law ‘n order” initiatives. That the Harperites have even repudiated the Canadian Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association, strong advocates of the long-gun registry, is seen as proof that the Conservative agenda is really based on politics, not public policy, playing to the Conservative base rather than attempting to strengthen Canada’s justice system.

As for the Liberals, while there is some disappointment, it seems of a muted kind. Gun control advocates, like most Canadians, have watched Ignatieff and found him wanting. Pulling his caucus together on this issue would have been a pleasant but unexpected surprise. In fact most gun control supporters believe Ignatieff was perfectly happy to have eight of his members bolt from their peers to reassure rural Canada that the Liberals hadn’t lost touch with their sensibilities.

Which leaves the NDP, where a full third of MPs broke ranks with party policy and voted to abolish the long-gun registry. It’s clear that many NDP loyalists and many others sympathetic to the party were bitterly disappointed both by the number of breakaways and the failure of Layton to rein them in. The subsequent excuses have merely poured salt in these wounds.

After the vote, a number of these people, many of them women, wrote Layton directly to express their deep disappointment. Normally, Layton is known to welcome such direct contact. I doubt this was one of those occasions. When he eventually responded, it was with a form letter that infuriated his correspondents even more. Many found his position completely unacceptable, even reprehensible.

“We believe all Canadians support gun control,” Layton wrote. “But the long-gun registry is a contentious issue that Stephen Harper has exploited to divide urban and rural Canadians. … It didn’t have to be this way. He could have shown real leadership. He could have helped bridge the divide. Instead, he betrayed you and millions of others who support the registry.”

In fact, not one of these women felt betrayed by Harper; they expected nothing more from him. They feel betrayed by Jack Layton and the NDP. They are outraged that Layton had the chutzpah to accuse Harper of failing to show real leadership when he allowed a third of his own caucus to vote against the party’s position. Some think he should be punished for the hypocrisy and opportunism of this stance. (Others think he needs better advisers, much as Ignatieff did. How could his staff allow such a dumb message to be sent?)

But if you can’t vote for Layton, or even Ignatieff, and of course not for Harper, do you just stay home? Many of those who passionately supported gun control are activists; they believe in political action. And most would never forgive themselves if they sat out the next campaign and helped Harper win. So they’ll probably swallow their bitterness and return to the fold. But they won’t be proud of their party in the same way. When you back a party that will likely never form a government, pride in its principles and actions is really all you have.

Gerald Caplan is a former national campaign director for the New Democratic Party and author of The Betrayal of Africa

MP mailings flood Canadian homes

Some are nasty, and the grammar ain’t, like, so hot

October 16, 2009

Bruce Campion-Smith

“So much for party unity.

Just a few weeks after being named leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak has a caucus spat on his hands.

Outspoken Tory Bill Murdoch is slamming his colleague Norm Sterling for suggesting that municipal politics should have a party structure.

Mr. Sterling’s comments were published in an Ottawa newspaper a week ago.

Mr. Murdoch, who now serves as the party’s rural and northern affairs critic, says he completely disagrees with Sterling and that municipal politicians should remain non-partisan.

The feisty Tory was booted from caucus last fall for suggesting that then-leader John Tory find another job, but returned to the fold in April after Mr. Tory resigned.”

Timothy Garton Ash

From Thursday’s Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Jul. 11, 2009 04:44AM EDT

Unless I’ve missed something, Britain has not just emerged from a war, revolution or declaration of independence. Such are the exceptional circumstances that are usually needed to produce a constitutional moment.

And yet – incongruously precipitated by revelations about British MPs claiming expenses for items such as a little wooden house for ducks on a duck pond – there is a widespread acknowledgment that Britain’s political system is in a profound crisis. Earlier this week, I heard Dominic Grieve, the opposition spokesman on home affairs, say this crisis could put in question “the foundations of the legitimacy of the state.”

There is no agreement about the solution. Many in the political class still appear to believe that patchwork repairs will be sufficient. They are wrong. Britain does not need a revolution, but it does need a great reform. There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that is so grossly overcentralized and has such an overmighty executive, restrained only by judges implementing the country’s Human Rights Act, unelected lords and journalists.

In theory, Britain has a sovereign Parliament. In practice, as Mr. Grieve told a meeting at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London, the recent history of Parliament is that of its increasing subordination to the executive. Labour MP Tony Wright agreed: Here is a Parliament that, in practice, refuses to be sovereign since “the main objective of members of the legislature is to join the executive.” The electoral system, he added, is really about choosing a government, not representatives of the people.

Britain’s task, therefore, is to create and sustain a constitutional moment, without the historical circumstances that usually give rise to one. This requires exceptional initiatives from above and from below, from Parliament and from the people. At the moment, there is too little and too much from both sides. There are innumerable proposals, speeches and initiatives, but it is wholly unclear how any of this will come together to produce change.

What has emerged from above is pretty minimal. The House of Commons will clean up its act on expenses. This fall, a select committee, chaired by Mr. Wright, should propose some significant improvements to the way the House conducts its business. There is also, once again, a serious discussion about electoral reform. Alan Johnson, a strong contender to be Labour’s next leader, restated his proposal this week for an election-day referendum on the “alternative vote plus” system – the one recommended a decade ago by a commission headed by Roy Jenkins, the former Labour minister and European Commission president, but then shelved by the Blair government.

Meantime, the game called politics continues being played on the country’s television screens. But how many Britons feel these are their representatives? The intermediate levels of democratic participation are either weak or non-existent, unlike the flourishing local and regional democracy of America and much of continental Europe. Yes, once every four or five years, the British voter can help to “kick the bastards out.” Then a new bunch will head to Westminster, and go on playing the same game the same way.

Outside the walls of Parliament and its attendant TV studios, there’s a plethora of new initiatives fizzling off in all directions. Tonight, for instance, there’s a rally in Westminster’s Methodist Central Hall, organized by the Vote for Change coalition with music by Billy Bragg to stir enthusiasm for electoral reform. The Unlock Democracy campaign has a draft bill to empower a citizens’ convention to decide on reforms. There’s 38degrees.org.uk, which aims to create a British online community for change.

A mighty popular mobilization is essential. Without pressure from below, British politicians will sink back into their bad old ways. But there are some hard questions to be answered. How far can popular anger at the political class be translated into sustained participation in a movement for constitutional change? Won’t such civic energy as there is be dissipated among all these diverse initiatives? In what sense can any of them claim to speak for “the people”? (A convention of randomly selected willing citizens, as pioneered in British Columbia, would go some way to meet that objection.) And, at the end of the day, how can all this be translated into legislation in Parliament and into the specific motion for a referendum?

At some point, sooner rather than later, what’s needed is a body that’s a two-way bridge between Parliament and the people. Mr. Wright, the Labour MP, has suggested calling it a “democracy commission.” It should have some people on it who really know what they’re talking about when it comes to Britain’s half-written constitution and complex political system. It should have representatives of the political parties. And it should include a student, a blogger, a couple of civil society activists – and why not some members of the general public, chosen by lot?

This cannot be a delegation from Westminster that travels around the country, graciously listening to the humble petitions of Her Majesty’s subjects, and goes on to produce compromise proposals from which the government of the day then chooses the bits it wants to push through a subservient legislature. Nor can it just be an independent citizens’ initiative from below, without the political authority to place demands before Parliament.

Neither Parliament alone nor the people alone can do the business. Only a novel kind of creative interaction between Parliament and the people can give Britain the constitutional moment it needs.

Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University.