If a week is a long time in politics, then two weeks of our elected representatives dominating the newsstands with their duck houses, moats and mortgages, seems like an eternity. The toll on the Labour party, let alone politics in general, is plain to see. Two MPs have been suspended from the PLP, more could face NEC questioning and there is a seething anger growing at grassroots level, evidenced by over 200 activists signing a statement calling for much stronger action to be taken on MPs who have brought the party into disrepute. The situation hasn’t been helped by many of our parliamentarians dragging their feet in self-denial when faced by justified public anger.
The aphorism, justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done, is apposite here. If, as many of our MPs seem to agree, the system of expenses is flawed, so their judgement in working within that system should be open to question. It is simply not good enough to argue that acting within the rules, which were devised and regulated by MPs themselves of course, should protect the office-holder from censure. To get parliament back on its feet, the country will demand strong and honest leadership, with action taken swiftly and decisively. Recent reforms to the expenses system are welcome, but it is hard to see how the public, or party activists, will be willing to wait until the autumn for Sir Christopher Kelly’s final reckoning.
Increasingly, activists are asking what Labour is for. It is getting harder and harder to coax members out on the doorstep when they know they are likely to be used as a public punchbag. But progressives are a naturally optimistic breed, and in spite of the portending gloom, we should use the current crisis to forge a new era of democratic renewal. A start has been made by over 100 Labour parliamentary candidates who have signed up to five pledges on the Progress website. They promise to ‘subscribe to high standards of integrity, transparency, accountability and financial economy’ and not to seek office for ‘personal gain’. But we can go much further than this. In our cover story Progress chair Stephen Twigg shows how.
It is unlikely that there will be another opportunity when the public mood provides such legitimacy for reform of our democratic structures and the relationship between citizen and state. This means we need to act quickly to channel public will for change into a fully elected House of Lords, a referendum on changing the voting system, proper devolution of power and financial responsibility to local government, coupled with the requisite slimming down of the number of members of parliament, a challenge to the over-dominance of the executive by giving more power to select committees and debating the idea of using primaries for parliamentary candidates as a way of re-engaging the public in the democratic process. When you are stuck in a ditch you should look to the stars for inspiration, and so Labour must fix itself on future ideas as a way of keeping the party united and willing to put up a fight at the next election.
And as our three feature articles in this issue show, the next election is by no means in the bag for the Conservatives. First, the electoral system makes it difficult for the Tories to win a clear majority in parliament. Even the oodles of Ashcroft money being spent on key seats do not seem to give them a massive advantage, so activists should not entirely despair in the face of continued poor polling results because doorstep activity will count for something at the next election.
Second, as Charles Clarke points out on p16, Cameron has not yet ‘sealed the deal’ with the electorate because he is weak on policy and there are fissures in his party hiding under the veneer of successful rebranding. On Europe, spending on public services and tensions between security and civil liberties, the Tories face stark questions which they are not willing to face up to, and which Labour must expose and then drive a wedge in. This will also require Labour to be clearer about how we will close the fiscal gap, where we will find efficiencies in public services and which areas of public spending we will protect and why. Voters will see though dividing lines based on Tory cuts vs Labour spending; we need something more sophisticated than this.
Finally, the Tories haven’t changed as much as they would like to think, which is why Cameron had to act so hastily to estrange those MPs who claimed for moat cleaning and duck houses – they reminded the public that his party includes people who continue to live outside the real world. On p20 Andrew Pakes takes a look at the crop of new Tory candidates and, if anything, they seem more Eurosceptic, more anti-abortion and more pro-marriage than the old Tory wets. They aren’t necessarily toffs, but they aren’t very compassionate either. Labour needs to work harder at showing these contradictions between Cameron’s preferred brand, and the reality.
The last few weeks have cast a dark cloud over our democracy, but if Labour grasps the opportunity to reform our institutions and way of doing politics, there might yet be a silver lining to hope for.
The question has to be why has labour not grasped that opportunity; it promised so much and we find that, there is little difference. Sadly all we get is an attack on the wanting to have that sophisticated debate:
A number of commentators believe that the whole scandal relating to MPs and their expenses is bordering on hysteria, others point to the fact that MPs are getting sorted and the leaders are doing their best to sort it all out. One comment says that we all may be the losers. Under the present system I believe that there is some truth in all the comments.
First, why is it when anyone wants to sort out problems, sensible and constructive debate does not work; and they have to resort to drastic action. If we all use the excuse that everyone is hysterical, then that will be seen for what it is; a tactic to divert attention away from the problem, in this case, it is the rotten systems and a considerable number of MPs who have been given free licence to spend money with being held to proper and independent account. They have never had it so good!.
The only hysteria I have seen being whipped up, is an MP appearing on television stating that everyone couldn’t bear it, and some were suicidal.
Second, as with all leaders they will want to sort it their way, no listening, giving an idea that they are really there for you etc etc. If it was getting sorted, then why is it being reported that a number of MPs are asking to be given a seat in the lords? This doesn’t sound like radical reform to me. Why haven’t they said that the power of the whips will be taken away; it should be illegal for anyone to force any MP to vote against conscience or the will of the electorate; Most MPs can justify why they vote against their constituents, others it seems are more focus on advancemnt and self-interests. Where are they leading us; to another gravy train; different sponsor this time. Refurbishing the coaches doesn’t make it any slicker. You are sending us the wrong signal..
Finally, if we are all going to lose, then now is the chance to take on these bellyaching individuals (how many jobs can you resign from and get a pay off, it isusually your month’s money plus holiday pay) and show them that a new planting season must begin. We must sow as many good seeds as possible, so that a good harvest results in sorting out how a truly representative system of the people which is open and honest (as it can be, after all they are only human) seeks to make our country and the wider world a safe and better place to live in.
So make it a gardener’s world and change that path, don’t let these leaders off the hook and get changing now, to do otherwise is to lose the opportunity and to do our country an injustice. We need radical reform at all levels of government and within the cvil service, other public financed organisations, get rid of unelected quangos etc etc…
Make Westminster more than a best at all shows and no substance of true democratic and free principles, cut the spin, cut the number of MPs and and make it work for the good of all, be consistent, if you don’t treat them all the same then you will be seen as putting up sacrificial lambs and dodging the issues by keeping on your favorites; all about self-interest and not justice! If you really want to make our country great again and bring honour into politics, show courage and determination, if you have a strong case then you have a chance, but remember you all have been found wanting when caught out over false promises, seeking to undermine our civil liberties and freedom to information!
Be bold, don’t take those holidays and put the houses in order; it might go some way to backing your claims that you wish to serve the public; that being an MP is all a vocation etc etc.
Here is to a better future!
Dr Bailey wrote: “Why haven’t they said that the power of the whips will be taken away; it should be illegal for anyone to force any MP to vote against conscience or the will of the electorate…”
I am so sick of this trite and naive argument. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of our system, the executive-in-parliament. As so often, simple first principles apply.
Attention is always given to Freedom of Information, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press (not by chance they are the most important to our 4th Estate scribblers) yet we take Freedom of Assembly for granted. Since politics is collective action to organise a fair and efficient society, it follows that to do it properly we must act in concert. There cannot be 60 million political parties (ie direct democracy). We need to band together with like-minded people with whom we broadly agree. It is our hard-won right to do that as we please (provided we are obeying election, anti-discrimination and other laws). Our representatives represent us; they are not delegates. How could they be? Parties offer a programme for government and the electorate makes its choice. The party with the largest number of seats gets to control the levers of government (including the legislative programme) not for 4 or 5 years but only for as long as it can command a majority in Parliament. Parliamentary group discipline is the most important means by which the people get what they voted for. In the same way that 60 million people can’t all be their own government MPs can’t follow every issue. They specialise, they need a leadership to lead them.
The whips are there primarily to organise the business of the House and conduct negotiations between the parties on logistics. They don’t instruct anyone. They inform MPs of the way their party is voting (they all can’t understand every issue); they spot talent; they support and train MPs, they co-ordinate the collective action of the party. It is true that they point out the downside of rebellion, but ultimately each vote is for each MP to decide. To do away with the whips would be like removing the controller from a taxi firm or the executive chef from a restaurant. It would be chaos.
As for conscience, why it is necessary to vote against your party to vote with your conscience? Why do people who have an easy familiarity with the concept of collective responsibility in their own home and working lives suddenly condemn it in politicians. Many MPs vote with their party because they believe THAT is the conscionable course of action. Politics, as life in general, is about negotiation and compromise not blustering to the end, inflexible and without a care for the views of others. It is also about persuasion and debate. Some MPs are elected thinking one way and are persuaded by argument that another is preferable.
And finally, the nonsense about “force”. No one forces MPs to do anything, especially these days. The modern MP, especially on the Labour side, rebels more than at any time in history. Between 1951 and 1959 not one Tory voted against the Tory government on a 3-line whip. Even in the first Blair parliament there was routine voting against the Party. Of 408 Labour MPs that finished the 1997-2001 Parliament, 212 of them had voted against the Government on a 3-line whip. That is immense.
And what on earth could “voting against the will of the electorate” mean? There are wide and diverse views in every constituency. Any MP’s vote is bound to leave some happy and many unhappy. Is Dr Bailey suggesting a weekly local plebiscite to bind the vote of the MP for the coming week’s divisions? Of course not. The MP is trusted to assess the arguments and the evidence, including which way his or her party is voting, before going one lobby rather than another.
Can people please start to calm down? It remains the case that in this country if you don’t like your MP you can vote them out. You can even stand for Parliament yourself. I hope that we get a huge crop of so-called independents standing next year including some high profile celebrities. Come on Simon Heffer, Joanna Lumley, Esther Rantzen, Kelvin McKenzie, don;t just huff and puff in the press about it. Put in a nomination form if you think you’re up to it. Your celebrity might see you onto the Green Benches but you’d be knackered in 6 months. Then you might discover that politics is not as easy as you think.
The problem is the centuries worth of morality coded in legislation, which is like an ultra-tight and tiny straitjacket that the vast majority of the public cannot fit into. The shape of it and the style of legislation, largely punitive with fines or imprisonment be it from failure to pay council tax, to missed CSA payments to speeding tickets plus media application of moral purity means the ordinary Jo(e) will always fail to measure up. Thus need not apply.
People were not angry at the thought of the expenses per say, as it is human instinct at times to work the system to benefit; however, in this context, politics and government, the ordinary Jo(e) has looked to Labour and its right wing style of government and made a judgement call that they have moralised, right wing style, and said you – the government – would have clobbered us for it, so you can all clear off.
It isn’t democratic renewal that is just required alone, it is a reexamination of morality in binary right / wrong terms to a more process driven collection of right/wrongs that is experience-led with an empirical approach to legislation-framing, one that is more interventionist and rehabilitating than severely punitive.
That’s why people cracked up, because Labour has been tough on crime and not its causes. The unfairness of that backed up by compartmentalising over personal benefit would be okay if they had legislation that allowed more compassion to the public.
This moralistic straitjacket of criminal justice legislation means at times only purist cranks can apply or the self-righteous and in the end they get found out too. As the Telegraph has shown.
But as to useless morality, a fine example of out of touch legislation this article from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8074001.stm
Or, more germaine here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7576948.stm
So, it’s unauthentic governance which puts people off from going forward for office because they cannot stand up to this putative moral rectitude that those in office now have even failed to live up to; yet have legislated other painful acts of punitive criminal measures for the plebs to suffer under.
It’s not just about democratic renewal, it’s about a government that creates authentic acts and measures not just simplistic moralistic ones with which the media has now hoisted them – the MPs – by their own petard.
Only more compassionate and sophisicated governance with an eye to maintaining personal privacy will encourage more authentic people to come forward. As the potential of name and shame media-led humiliation based on purist moralism is a complete no-no to the vast majority of the ordinary public. Who live not in binary right wrong world but react to and live life on experience, which sits outside this binary right/wrong option choice.
Thanks.
…just to add that Gordon Brown is a man of faith and often says that what people did is ‘wrong’ but surely in terms of his Cabinet why is it that this right/wrong approach wasnt adopted immediately there in relation to expenses? Because if certain behaviour is *unacceptable* is must be *wrong*, thus using this right/wrong train of thought has an outcome which is: in/out. Should certain people not now be out of his cabinet, rather than in?
I imagine people are still there because Brown has made a judgement call based on his experience of certain people and can’t himself apply just a right/wrong option, he has used past experience and judged people on their skills in other areas. You surely begin to see the need for applying this sort of leniency to the public? Or so you would imagine. It’s time to end right/wrong morality.
Basically the UK is changing, people no longer subscribe wholsesale to religous *beliefs* which is what much of the legislation is framed on. Blair and Brown appear at times to be Christian Democrats yet encourage more freemarkets and internet. The Internet is an autonomous zone where people make their own minds up freely about what to browse, buy and experience in. Therefore they are encouraged to move away from subscribing to beliefs and use their own conscience to do things they want. That’s freedom for you.
Therefore, we must have a parliament that reacts to this.
It is bizarre that Blair took the UK to war on *beliefs* that even when Ming Campbell asked the PM to debate he wouldn’t because that would require divulging infomation that other people could use and experience in order to make their own minds up, probably differently to the PM’s. Yet it is the men and women who experience the battles and must fight this war for that cause but were refused a parliamentary debate on it themselves, or at least those that voted during that election period. I am not a liberal but a Labour member, and proud of it, this is not a liberal case but a progressive one! This Labour government is going because it ossified by using beliefs, for example Iraq, this totally against what the public believed in. Now the expenses scandal has completely snapped the electoral connection. Big lessons to be learned.
We must move away from prescribed *belief-led* approaches to *believing* in best practice based on experience be it scientific or more compassionate and personalised feedback and therefore hopefore more realistic and authentic governance. Thanks again.
The MPs have failed their own integrity test, if they have failed it why doesn’t the public deserve to be treated better rather than facing a continous moral beliefs clobbering that even the MPs themselves cannot live up to. That’s the flip side to democratic renewal, proper legislative renewal and intelligent government using a smart and scientific civil service.
The headline for this article sums up the degree to which we are being diverted by the press and media, and those who have interests in it, from the real debate. I disagree that ‘Labour must use the crisis in politics to forge a new era of democratic renewal’. This is not just about politics. Labour should use the events of the last 8 months, not the last 3 weeks, to forge a new era of what is finacailly acceptable, what is fair. The Telegraphs publishing of MP’s expense claims came just weeks after calls for the ‘captains of banking’ to repay pensions and pay off’s worth millions to the public purse. This banking collapse offered the first opportunity in years to challenge the ever widening gap between the richest and poorest. I think it is no accident that we are now watching left wing parliamentarians waving checks for paltry sums in the hundreds and at most thousands whilst the ‘m.b.a. boys’ who walk away with the millions are no longer news. Even the cleaning of a moat is, in comparison, insignificant. PLease stop the defense and martyredom and use the opportunity to demand regulation and scrutiny across all sectors in proportion to the wages bills, bonuses and expenses claimed and damadge done to the public purse!
I want and expect my reprasentative MP’s to lead this debate back into the wider agenda. Financial sector Directors and Boardrooms must be soooo grateful to their MP’s right now as they fill the front page on which they were so recently headlined.