MPs are falling over themselves to reveal commitment to radical reform and satisfy what they tell us is public demand for people power, smaller parliaments, a chastened executive, fixed terms and proportional representation.
It is self-evident that the crisis over MPs expenses has precipitated the publicity drive for reforming zeal. It is also true that parliament is overdue for real change.
But this has been a Westminster conjuring trick worthy of Tommy Cooper. Into the hat went expensive rocking chairs, duck islands, wisteria clearing and some dodgy stuff with taxation but hey presto, out came a cuddly white rabbit called constitutional reform and every politician wants to take it home.
I knock on a lot of doors and in the last few weeks I’ve not met anyone who suggested that a fixed term parliament would have stopped an MP from flipping their second home or that being elected by a single transferable vote would make them think twice about buying an expensive plasma TV at the taxpayers’ expense.
Most of the voters expressing views (as opposed to abuse or apathy) have been more concerned with the morality and greed of individuals (or couples) than the constitution. That does not mean they don’t want reform but they do know it is a different issue.
The hard questions are not being answered. The cherry picking outrage of the press has done little to separate legitimate claim from dubious justification. Without a real debate about the role of an MP and some unsensationalised information about the duties of the job, the public is unlikely to have any influence on a new system of expenses or constitutional reform. This will suit some of those in office at the moment as they wait for it all to blow over so they can get back to normal. Those who want real change have to make sure it happens with public involvement and that means that politicians have to take the hit for misuse of the Additional Costs Allowance and not try to evade it.
The whole relationship between government and people needs to be aired and debated. If the Senior Salaries Review Board recommends large increases in salary to address the problem without a complete review in the public gaze, it will only leave the impression of the establishment closing ranks.
That is why MPs making pronouncements should be wary of coming to conclusions about the future shape of parliament without asking the electorate for some very basic information.
The questions should not start with ‘Do we want fixed term parliaments, primaries, fewer MPs etc. First of all: ‘What do we want from parliament and our relationship with politicians? This has to include working hours, constituency office arrangements, second jobs and homes and public engagement. Once that is established, the debate on the mechanisms can begin.
The debate has to be removed from MPs’ vested interests. The MPs’ view of what is desirable or acceptable to the public is what led parliament to the system of supplementing salaries with allowances and the tortuous justifications for claiming every penny they were ‘entitled’ to. The whole purpose was to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and that is at the rotten heart of our present system. It is imperative that none of us forget that lesson.
Party leaders who try to gain political ground by launching campaigns for this or that reform will make it harder for all politicians to regain the trust or respect of the electorate.
That means that leaders cannot choose who they want to keep or direct their fire only at party grandees who have outstayed their welcome. It means also accepting that individual accountability of MPs is what lies at the heart of our democracy, however flawed that is.
It would be hugely damaging for all politicians if the issue of constitutional reform were to be used as a distraction by MPs to avoid the consequences of their actions on one of the few occasions when ‘safe seats’ are probably irrelevant. It would also be a missed opportunity if MPs took all the decisions and asked for a rubber stamp as part of a manifesto package at the next election.
It is up to Labour to treat this one as an opportunity for real change.
Jude all very admirable, I hope they take note.
Do see me reply to the editorial
http://archive.progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=4244
Also my responses to the PPC’s pledges.
Experience of Labour’s attitude toward its members has been contempt (I know of quite a number who threw in their membership due to being led up the garden path under Blair; as I am sure that this is the same with all parties who like their support, but once they gain power and are safe, they no longer wish to hear.
I hope that a real change in attitude comes about.
However, knowing human nature, I think it will be quite a while, after all, to actually believe the mere electorate might know better or demands better of them is quite a hard pill to swallow.
I wish you well in all your endeavours; it will take a great deal of determination and courage; but keep at it!
Clegg is making it tough for a candidate in Cambourne and Redruth fighting against the LibDems (The current state of our Governemnt and the economic crisis are greater problems, of course.) But this article is wrong and wrong again. What the electors want of MPs is that they do their job of holding the governemnt to account on both the big issues and individual cases; and that MPs do that job openly and honestly.
Honesty and openness is something that the MPs have to sort out collectively for themselves. The Party leaders can help or hinder that, but they cannot do the job. Nor can electors. We threw out every single one of the guilty in 1997. Now we have another and larger crop of sleaze. MPs need to make a start by voting through Sir Christopher Kelly’s proposals on expenses sight unseen. Then they need to vote themselves a code of conduct with penalties that bite.
As to MPs job, looking after their constituents is the only part they seem to do half well. And if we had an analysis of constituents satisfaction with the way MPs handle casework, I fear that poor casework would tend to be associated with ‘safe seats’ just as dubious expenses appear to be.
On the big issues, MPs have very evidently failed to hold successive governments to account for decades. MPs collectively need to take back that very important role; and that means passing procedural resolutions that all the party Whips will hate. That and ‘safe seats’ are constitutional issues. If MPs duck them tis time, respect for politicans and politics will fall even further; more voters will turn in despair to extreme parties; and in the end popular anger with MPs will surge again even more strongly.
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 at 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. Lets 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!