Parliament unfit for purpose? Maybe Mr Clegg has a point
I continue to find, in talking to people, that it is the disrepute into which parliament has been dragged by the peers and MPs’ expenses scandal that dominates politics over and above party rivalry.
Hence Nick Clegg’s call today to cancel the Queen’s speech this week may have a stronger resonance than at first might appear. Clegg wants to use the last few weeks of this parliament to reform the political system rather than waste time debating a legislative programme that will never be enacted.
History may view with some disdain the failure of the political classes to recognise that the expenses scandal is less about usury than about the implosion of an overall parliamentary system seen by many as “unfit for purpose”.
The continued election of parties who manage to garner perhaps a third of the entire potential national vote and then govern with “absolute power” will surely be regarded as past its sell-by date.
Adversarial politics fought out in a chamber that dictates a sword and a half’s length between speakers from government and opposition may be seen too by historians as beyond the ridiculous.
There are huge constitutional challenges facing Britain, let alone the economic issues that accompany them. The idea that MPs took three months of holiday, then luxuriated in the state opening of parliament with less than six months to go to a general election, beggars belief.
I am depressed by those comments in my Lords Snowblog of last week, that we are in danger of letting in “terrorists” and the rest if we go too far with reform. I believe quite the reverse.
To add to matters, I have learned that the Labour party is now going through its ranks of peers to determine where their “principal residence” is. This after years of wholesale abuse of the system in which lords and ladies of all persuasions have claimed distant holiday homes to enable them to get the accompanying unreceipted travel expenses.
I have also learned that “arrangements” have been made to allow serving ministers in the Lords to claim a residence out of town “for necessary respite”, retrospectively protecting ministers and law officers who may have claimed for such provision.
Maybe Mr Clegg has a point.
Related posts:
- Constitutional reform: questions for Mr Brown
- From Speaker to Sri Lanka, yesterday in Parliament
- Expenses, recession, war will dominate the election
- Dishonoured honourables and the honours to come
- MPs' expenses: there is much murkier gravy to come
There are no comments on this post
The political world we all live in, is rife with corruption and hidden agendas. The problem with us British is that it is a fairly new feature. New meaning that it hasn’t really hit the headlines as much as it has this century. Our government have always kept certain issues well away from the peoples mouth’s but are starting to find it hard with all these new forms of communication.
We must all work towards a new form of governing our country. A form, which is primarily in the interest of education, medical treatment, serious environmental awareness and last but not least, dialogue to avoid violent conflicts. The time is long overdue.
adzmundo CND
“We must all work towards a new form of governing our country. A form, which is primarily in the interest of education, medical treatment, serious environmental awareness”
And what about generating the money to pay for all of those goodies? Or are you going to magic that out of thin air?
Although I am not a LibDem supporter [heaven forbid!] I do think Nick Clegg has a valid point about the Queen’s speech. Perhaps more fundamental is that the fiasco the speech will be highlights the problems – and that is really too gentle a word – that arise from vesting the right to call an election in the hands of the PM. This parliament should have been put out of its misery months ago. Instead Brown clings on like grim death.
The decision on when to call an election should be taken away from the PM. Perhaps there could be a special committee of the Privy Council with no current politicians as members. Alternatively – and perhaps a better approach – would be to have 4 year fixed term parliaments.
Nick Clegg (and Jon) do indeed have a valid point. The ‘interference factor’ of the expenses fiasco, both Commons and Lords, threatens to disable much of our legislative process, and specifically any remaining public trust in it, if it is not resolved quickly and effectively.
Indeed, it is likely to have a significant effect on the forthcoming election result by encouraging either widespread abstention or disproportionate support for fringe parties, neither of which would be good for democracy.
It does seem bizarre to waste scarce parliamentary time on futile procedures while the ‘elephant in the room’ remains unresolved.
I’m not often so closely aligned with Mr Clegg but, in this case, he’s absolutely right – but will that change anything ? It doesn’t normally.
Just changing from genetics to politics, then blogging to swimming.
Isn’t that the problem JON…nothing done properly.
You want revolution, fast change. Most agree that there needs to be change and I myself was down when I thought of staying in the same old rut.
I then go onto different websites and look at the anger , violence and proposed methods for change, not purely in house reforms, but in many areas of political -type strife, then it really does scare me. Extreme attitudes need tempering. The general public by enlarge are not predisposed to thoughtful , rationale change.They want a hanging. An English style French revolution is far beyond simple protest which you advocate.
For the time being I advocate ,speak no evil,see no evil and hear no evil and let change emerge as it will.
Speak no evel , hear no eveil – that is the attitude those in power love . The MP/LORDS exs scandal is a samll item – who is running these so called democracies – eg UK /USA/ROI etc etc – it sur aint the politicians – its the guys who give them the money to be where they are – and those big Capitalists etc – do they care about ordinary citizen health , education etc – — not chance – we are fools to put up with it .
Just to add .. I am not willing to give a cross ref . , because venom as far as I am concerned can find it ‘s outlet else where.
Perhaps there is a time for less government,therefore less expenses and much less chance of corruption.Then there would be less interference by big brother in our daily working lives.
Lets face it , every day that parliament sits they are going to be introducing more and new legislation.Taking control of more aspects of our being .With what purpose? .More ways to screw us.
What is the purpose of parliament? Supposedly to represent our views,which they lamentably fail to do
Perhaps the way forward is for parliament to become a talking shop, discussing their projected way forward and when they have decided on some idea they wish to become law , then offer it to the British people by referendum .Then they would be truly democratic and our vote would become meaningful
Private sector company runs on the basis of getting the best individuals to run the company via its Board. Picked based on qualifications, expereince and track record to run specific functions in line with strategy.
Generally speaking, there’s no real adversarial situation in a Private sector company, everyone is pointing in the same direction. Adversarial methods never work so lets have more consensus.
Why cant we run the country on a similar basis to that of the Private sector. Elect MPs through proportional representation, appoint Ministers (from the enrire pool of MPs) who are qualified to manage the various depts (i.e. a qualified health professional for health, a qualified education professional for education etc) regardless of political pursuasion. Ministers collectively define strategy,
Private sector Board of Directors also work normal hours 48 weeks a year with 4 weeks off for vacation. So whats so special about the politicians!
Re the expenses. As i said on Friday just carry out the same review and implement the same new system for everyone in Government.
Clegg is on the right track but we have to think outside of the box, radical change needed.
its a nice idea but unworkable .In a private company an unelected cartel run it with the pure motive of profit.The workers are mere fodder to provide that profit to enhance the lives of the bosses and maybe shareholders.Very animal farmish .The problem with proportional representation is nothing worthwhile gets done as there are too mant diverse political opinions
Back from swimming, lunch, then a walk up the hill, nevertheless was thinking whilst swimming.
I thik it is important for you to clarify which aspect of the snow blog on Lords’ expenses made you feel depressed.
1) Do you feel depressed at the thought that vindictive , highly emotionally charged beings , with an intention to destroy might replace the system we have? or
2) Does the opposite apply and you would welcome a nasty and robust revolution ?
Then one would have to consider what is meant by nasty.
E.G a blogger used the word vile to apply to a chap in Asda who wouldn’t serve a customer. That same word has been applied to those who impart torture and abuse. Isn’t there something wrong in general verbal commuication.
Also isn’t it frequently the case that politicians either through a lax attitude to their research or for the purposes of constructing an argument take comments out of context. Casuistry is an all too common tactic.
The present system of Lords’ expenses was bodged up by this Labour government to enable them to persude sufficient life peers to accept appointmnet so that their botched job of Lords’ reform might work until they could agree amongst themselves on some sort of real and permanent Lords reform. Labour decided to attract the new life peers without offering them proper pay; they were given the right to unquestioned expenses instead.
Under this system, the governemnt expected peers to claim in ways that look and are ridiculous, as well as contrary to the Principles of Public Life that the government endorsed. When peers did so claim, as their Whips and officials advised, the government looked the other way.
The reform is still unfinished. The disgraceful system for making the temporary reform work has been rumbled. The next development, which Labour are frantically trying to avoid, will be public awareness tha the scandal is general, and of the governments’ doing.
Having read the Nicks Clegg’s piece in the Independent this morning, he raises a a very interesting and honest view of the current state of British politics, one which I find somewhat refreshing that a leader of a major party (and the only real opposition). That this comes on the back of Clegg’s call for the summer recess to be forfeited to sort this issues out, shows that whole sale political reform is at the heart of the Lib Dem party.
The Lords is a house above the law and reason of any rational person and parliament seems still to cling to the probably relevant hope that the people will be more focused on the new series of “I’m a Celeb” to remember the whole expenses scandal existed so they can get away with minor reforms, cause heaven forbid parliament enact any real substantial change.
I’m fully behind the wholesale political reform that Nick Clegg is proposing as he is right that parliament isn’t fit for purpose. I would like parliament to look at the role lobbyists and how they affect democracy, but again that would affect the MPs gravy train and hence would never any real debate.
I find it amazing at a time we are fighting wars for no reason, not till the Americans tell us one, that what really vexes people is the expenses so called scam.
I’d put it behind: the now casual corruption of our political system (food labelling being a great example): The PPP/PFI scandal: the economic mismanagement, did not prick a bubble now wants to reflate it: we may have tortured and killed people for the mere gratification of our troops in Basra: nil social mobility.
The middle class would rather see the boat sink discussing whether the steward had been nipping at the whiskey than keep the vessel afloat.
This crass naval gazing has become an obsessive tabloid story. The kind of story the media love as it is clear who the villains are. With added betrayl due to some ridiculous feeling of somehow MPs are public servants who have their wages paid by us we can be super sanctimonious.
The obsessive train-spotting on this issue reflects the importance of storyline over story. Over rational considerations. Sanctimonious journalists shouting down people over expenses would be funny in any other scenario.
He is right. Just as an example just look at the new speaker who was to clean-up politics and then, despite being warned spent a fortune of refurbishing the speakers apartments.
They still have their snouts in the trough. Brown seems powerless to do anything – being weak he no longer has the authority to push the “right thing” through his party who have their snouts in the trough and like it there. Cameroon will only say anything if there is some good spin or PR as he is currently powerless to actually do anything (plus he has some MPs who are also “doing very nicely out of us taxpayers thank you”).
They seem to speak the words but want to keep their benefits. For example, the massive pay-off for MPs stepping down – even if stopping it ever happens, it will not be until after the next election to the current snouts will all make sure they get it – but it is still our money they are taking.
And politicians wonder why politics has become so despised by the public.
I agree. Something has got to change, but I’m not sure how that change is going to come about. Some of the options are rather unpalateable, but change is desperately needed. The system, the establishment, call it what you will is failing us badly. Just look at the mess the UK is in if you’ve any doubt about that…
The big question then should be: What can the electorate do? How do you change such an entrenched system, where the major parties want to maintain the status quo?
One problem is the welfare state. A side effect is the apathy it breeds…that is until it is taken away.
As long as people get their benefits, they won’t complain. And professional people are mainly interested in keeping their jobs and homes, not MP expenses.
The BBC is an example of rotten, unchanging government. Here’s a quango that now runs contrary to democracy, free choice and an open market. Yet, because the political establishment depends on the Beeb or fears it, the unjust license fee remains.
And so will all other archaic things British that politicians feel are useful to their needs.
And the big question renains: What can people do about it?
Every Parliamentarian is now telling us that the allowances and expenses rules ‘is a lousy system and needs reform’. Implicit in this, is the Peers and MP’s defence that it is the rules that are bent, not them ! Well, these rules were in place for many years before the Freedom of Information Act, and The Telegraph, exposed what all these Parliamentarian piggies have been up to. Does anyone recall a single MP or Peer questioning the system before the recent newspaper exposes of greed and rapacious duplicity ? No — me neither !
My 2010 diary has just arrived. The first page is allocated for me to note all my ‘important addresses’. Strange, there is nowhere for me to record my ‘main residence’ – all I can remember is that it’s a little place in the Cotswolds, that my 3rd cousin owns. I wonder if the House of Commons and House of Lords diaries have an extra line for this vital information ?
Boo hiss, the MPs/Lords are fiddling the expenses. We all boo/hiss together. How comfortable to share a common boo-factor.
Bit less black +white when it comes to Afghanistan.
Should we stay or should we go. Discuss.
Or perhaps it’s just easier to discuss MPs/Lords expense claims (which could be sorted in one fell swoop if any normal civilian had one iota of input into the runnings of this bedevilled country).
Oh sorry…there I go again…much easier to discuss expenses, isnt it?
Has anyone read N P Walsh’s blog today- brave/naive Afghan interpretors left protection-less by UKForces? Not one comment yet on that blog.
Are we too ashamed of Britain to comment or is it that we feel too disenfranchised from the military decisions made by this country?
Surely it is a given that these interpretors deserve our help + protection?
I also believe Nick Clegg is accurate. I share your disappointment in the comment regarding terrorists doing well if we cause more disruption on this issue. This looks more like how a strict controlling parent might deter a child from what is deemed as misbehaviour, but in actual fact is refreshing creativity.
Adversarial politics is indeed ridiculous and I believe should be at the heart of reform.
This is by way of a thankyou to C4 .
My views, and I have a first degree in philosophy and a Master in ethics have been disregarded by many.
(I talk of those qualifications in the knowledge that others who do not hold academic qualifications have informed opinions as well.)
For as long as I remember my views or side of a story , have been dismissed without even an acknowledgement that I exist as an autonomous person with an opinion.This has distressed me greatly for years,. Even in Court I have not been listened to in serious matters.
No time has been given for the likes of me ,because it is not the majority view in Manchester and the powers that be don’t have time to listen to a mere inferior.
These blogs might not be read, but at least I can put my view into a public forum without ,the immediate wave away of the hand which signifies ‘..go away , we dont want to listen to you. then following on with a snigger or roar of laughter.
Thankyou C4 for allowing me this luxury.
MArgaret i think i noted i agreed with your point of view on one blog
[...] Parliament unfit for purpose? Maybe Mr Clegg has a point – [...]
Perhaps we should look at what kind of system we have.
Lords in the commons? Aren`t they supposed to be elected?
No written constitution. (So politicians get to say what freedom and liberty is in GB).
Read the US history from the Declaration of independence to the US Constitution. It was all ratified by the people. The Constitution is LAW to the politicians in USA. In GB, we still have politicians owing allegiance to the monarch, not the people.
To get better, the people had better do the changing, as politicians are just continuing a charade which has run from 1066.
A written constitution would be a start. Independent people writing rules for the nation, as the US and French did in the 1700s, and as emerging countries still do today. If liberty and democracy is worth fighting for in other countries, isn`t it ironic that these concepts are set aside by government in our own country?Perhaps some respected people, independent of government could set up a Constitutional Convention, and work on the implemetation of freedom and liberty in the country most in need of it today…Great Britain.
Jon, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Open Primaries, not as a carbon copy of the American system but with financial capping.
Would this facilitate much needed diversity and a breath of fresh air to who represents us? http://www.openupnow.org is calling for Open Primaries as a platform of redemption for MPs and politics as a whole; a way of giving voters a choice in light of the expenses scandal. It’s also a way for MPs untainted by these issues to stand up and be counted.
At the next Election more than £70m in public money will be spent on a campaign where, in the majority of seats, the outcome is pre-determined. Wouldn’t a Parliament selected by the people be more fit-for-purpose to meet the people’s needs?
Was last night’s action in South West Norfolk highlighting a nationwide issue where local people are locked out of the decision?
The question’s now: Will constituents in places like Norfolk start demanding choice, instead of party insiders parachuted in? With disgraced MP’s reputed to receive £64k wouldn’t it be better to invest far less in open primaries and return democracy to local politics?
Although i am a Royalist and prefer the Queen to be head of state rather than a President(Imagine President Blair or Brown) I do agree with J Hill that we should have a written constitution as opposed to the current one carved out through time.
A constitution , written and voted on by the people could be the start of true democracy
For a long time I supported electoral reform and the I realised that whilst it would be fairer to political parties it does nothing for democracy. The problem is that even with electoral reform you will still have one individual supposedly representing the interest of some 60,000 people. Ridiculous!!!
to get a more democratic representation in parliament we would need to change from single to multi-member constituencies. That could also give rise to MPs being more independent of parties.
Rape of democrocy. In the Queens spech I notice there was no mention of the MP’s Expenses. The Kelly recomendations seem to be a little more then a pie in the sky or a duckhouse in the fishtank. Do MP’s really think that British Public are so stupid mmm or are we? We seem to forget all the wrongs for a few pence tax cut before an election and we made so much noice about fuel prices and now they have slowly crept up again. Maybe the General public should have expenses too that they can live off. Might be good to give all MP’s a contract of employment where it is black and white and no grey areas. I just find it amazing when powerful people steal and get caught it was a mistake or we try to change the law so it can be made legal and when poor steal they are criminals. lets not fool ourselves we still run 2 tear justice system. I wonder if the Met police would have had so many meetings with CPS if ordinary member of the pubic had been caught fiddling expenses.. We nee to audit MP’s expenses as well as thier morals. Do they know what it feels like to pay a heating gas bill like the old pensioners do and watch pennies. Delusions of work have set in when they fil expenses.