The Commons: a club where members set the rules
All my working life, the Commons has been a daunting and intimidating place – a place where I had no place.
I have never been a “lobby correspondent”, although I have a journalist’s pass. Yet even with that, and even as an assiduous voter, the Commons has never felt a place that I had any justified connection to.
It has always struck me as remote, antediluvian, mysterious and closed.
I am beginning at last to understand why. It is the most exclusive and “Masonic” of clubs. A club that elects its own boss, sets its own rules and pays its own expenses.
There’s only one tender thread that sustains it and that is us: “we, the people” and our cash. Yet unlike the US Congress, we are not the people. We are the subjects.
It has been obvious all my working life that the Commons could not sustain the technological, personal, global revolution through which we as humans are all passing. Today it seems to be obvious to many more people.
It’s a sentiment handsomely reflected on this blogsite by many strongly felt, articulate comments. Yesterday many believe the speaker, Michael Martin, spectacularly fail to understand what is happening to his place, his role, and his future as “Capo di capi” of the House of Commons.
This crisis over expenses is about the fundamental democratic settlement that we have with those we elected to look after our state and our society. We have worried about its capacity to make judgements over war, we have worried about its capacity to cope with the global meltdown.
And now we not only worry, but more than understand its incapacity to look after itself. Does the democratic settlement requires rebuilding from the bottom up?
Related posts:
There are 33 comments on this post
That was a very unimpressive episode from the Speaker yesterday. It’s a real mess and when you get a reaction like that from the man at the top, it’s really disappointing. problem in comment box.
At the next election, many MPs will lose their seats. They will thus no longer require a 2nd home to fulfil their parliamentary duties, and can revert to living in their constituency homes.
As all these expenses seem to have been neatly itemised, perhaps we, the taxpayers, could ‘repossess’ the various TVs, beds et al. that MPs purchased with public money, and no longer need… they could be made available to the new intake of MPs… just a thought.
Why can’t the MPs live in halls of residence at Westminster where they can do the work they are meant to do. There must be many dossiers for them to read and understand. Where will they get the time for this?. Also no expenses will be required if halls of residence are available for use on the nights where their government business keeps them in London.
I think so. I think all changes have to come from the bottom up. To me, that is the most sustainable way of changing a system. After all, the MPs are there to serve us – not the other way around. And, because we ‘fuel’ them with our tax money, we have got every right to demand a good service – and a service we can trust.
As I mentioned in my own blog, not only does this lack of trust endanger our current society. It presents a danger for the future as well, in that honest politic wannabees will now hesitate becoming involved in this murky, secret world.
We need people with visions, with causes they honestly believe in. But, given the reputation members of the House have at the moment – who would want to become an MP? I definitely wouldn’t!
Plus – we must not forget to scrutinize the Lords. (You’ve started – please finish!) And – how is the claiming situation on the Local Authority level? Within the Church of England? Royal family?
So much ‘murkiness’ to investigate… so little time.
One of the biggest problems for me about his whole episode is that I haven’t seen a glimmer of true remorse or shame in any of the offending MP’s eyes. They are embarassed to have been caught, and are hoping to pass this chagrin off as repentance but for anyone with half a brain, it simply isn’t convincing.
We are dealing with people so far removed from the majority of the public in terms of lifestyle and economics that I think they have stopped seeing us as people. They are unashamed to have defrauded us because they truly see themselves as being of a different class, owed by life different things; a nice clean swimming pool or leaf-free moat is their right as part of the establishment.
If this were Soviet Russia, they would be called Dachas not second homes, and our anger and protests would be just about as ineffective.
..and while we are upgrading our government, can we also finally pension off our outdated, pointless and expensive monarchy? Surely a historical foundation of bullying, theft, murder, warfare and oppression can only secure a job for so many hundred years.
There should be a medium sized comfortable property in each constituency that is gifted to the current encumbent. Much like the vicarage scheme operated by the C of E.
To me, the House of Commons looks like a boys’ public school complete with prefects – boozy, boorish, loutish and loud.
Wholesale reform is needed. We said the same about the City. Any chance of either being reformed?
Whether it’s pre 1980s or 2009 and beyond, ordinary people in the UK are generally detached from politics and the Houses Of Parliament. We see the Speaker Of The House on TV, as just another cog in the elite wheel of the ‘Boys Club’. Politicians and their connections with wealthy influential people, including royalty, arrogantly go about serving themselves and devising a system that protects their manipulative wrong doings from scrutiny or, prosecution. Their crowning glory is usually to attain a ‘Sir’ title, via their ‘connections’.
The hatred people feel towards these kind of people is imeasurable. They are far far worse than terrorists and have ruined peoples lives.
The rich should always be kept in check as history has shown. They exert the worst effects on peoples lives, via their unrelenting greed, corruption and manipulations.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins really explains why most humans care not about society and serve only themselves.
“The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins really explains why most humans care not about society and serve only themselves”
That’s not even close to true. The book does quite the opposite and explains how human traits such as altruism came to be part of our genetic code.
Any system that believes itself to be completely closed will always get a rude awakening when environmental influences eventually disturb the system – which is precisely what has happened so spectacularly in the previously revered halls of Westminster. The integrity of the Mother of Parliaments has been well and truly hoist by its own petard – a self-hung parliament.
I have no problem with paying for legitimate expense claims, but if the taxpayer is funding the interest on an MP’s mortgage and paying for all the furnishings on their 2nd homes surely these should be classified as “government property” and profit arising from the sale of 2nd homes should go back to the govenment to help fund the next round of expenses. MP’s should not be allowed to keep these profits. So wherever they nominate their 2nd home this should be government property so maybe people like Jaqui Smith would have second thoughts as to which house she nominates as a second home.
Wouldn’t a system where MP’s simply get paid more solve the problem? The system should be weighted to those who are furthest away from london and have to do the most travelling. This would solve many of the problems.
Im sure MP’s would then travel second class etc if it was there own money being spent.
It is quite obvious now that our elected officials cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs let alone the dire situation this country faces. There are so many problems we are faced with these days, Environment, war, economic meltdown, social justice, to name but a few. We simply cannot afford to take our chances with people who time and time again demonstrate a complete lack of judgement on such delicate issues.
It is disgusting the way the British electorate have been duped over and over by these select lucky “few” whilst the rest of the country hurtles headlong into an ever uncertain future, You could almost argue a case for military intervention if only to save us from them, however the ideal of democracy is the only true path we can follow.
And so it MUST follow that a complete reform of the British political system is the only way out of this mess we are in starting with fully democratically elected representatives, the abolition of the lords, complete transparency in all aspects of public life and the harshest of penalties for those found to abuse the system under whose rules we must all abide by.
None of these MPs seem to realise that what they claim as expenses is equal to the national average wage, a point also overlooked by media commentators who tend to earn rather more themselves. The national average for female workers is less than the MP’s expenses! Most of us dream of getting a good job that pays that much!
My suggestion is that all MPs in need of London lodgings be given a 1 bed flat on a Council estate, furnished with a one time £5k allowance only usable at Argos. Then they’ll be one with we, the people and if they want something different they can pay for it themselves like the rest of us.
I understand the significance of the issues covered by Jon both in his blog and on Ch4 news. I think it is clear that the problem of anomalous expenses can and will be fixed, and that natually, the solution will be imperfect, just like the electorate, our leaders, and the arcane system we seem to be stuck with. Can we move on to another news item please?
a masonic club , bang on jon. they are all masons, there is a masonic lodge underneath the houses of parliment, tony blair is a 33rd degree mason, 70% of the police force are freemasons. this country needs to wake up immediatley. by the way there are 28 police programs on the tv running at the moment,thats with real life footage, ive got a list of them all and thats not including the police dramas, talk about mass manipulation. trying to brainwash poeople and make out they are heroes and look at the way they battered people at that protest a few weeks ago.
I can’t help but notice the irony of all this cash washing around for MPs to spend on televisions, gardens, swimming pools, dung etc at a time when they consider a 7p an hour rise in the minimum wage – in October – is sifficient.
Just for one month, let them live on £5.80 an hour with no perks, no free travel, no subsidised bars and restaurants, and no expenses. We might then see some realistic policies.
And it’s not just MPs. Many of the people running our largest companies have their snouts in the perks trough as well, but are conent to boost their bonuses by laying off ordinary people.
It was interesting to hear on the radio this morning that ordinary people working in manufacturing have been much harder hit by the recession than those in financial services who helped create it.
As the song says ‘It’s the rich as gets the gravy it’s the poor as gets the blame.’
John Snow on Channel 4 News tonight is the first journalist I have heard to say that ordinary people fiddling the system would be put in gaol. No one else has dared to even say this. I watch him every night because he says what the man in the street thinks instead of skirting around the issues with these thieves and liars we call politicians.
thank you Jon for grilling Theresa May on the 7 o’clock news tonight, and any other Ministers for the expense scandals. You are asking all the questions that we taxpayers want answers to. How is a swimming pool or moat or manure a relevant expense for mp’s for doing their jobs? As employees or company directors, any expenses must be “wholly and necessarily incurred” for the business. So why does a rule apply to us and a different rule apply to mp’s???? You were very right to give the example or a fictitious woman cheating on benefits to feed a child. MP’s should set an example, not take an advantage of the money we pay in our tax. Thanks for anchoring the programme, you are doing an excellent job.
Well done John.. the interview with Ms May was well managed. Its good to see you dealing with the tension between what is happening with MPs expenses and the so called fraudulent claims for benefits. Your example was a mother claiming benefit for a child…. Well done!!
I watched your interview today and the woman just looked smug and patronising. As always avoiding the point of your questions, made me feel good things about the French revolution.
Over recent days MP’s have been saying how ‘wrong’ the expenses system is and how there is a need for reform.
At what point did the ‘light shine’ or the ‘dawn rise’ on these now enlightened people. When they saw large amounts of money been credited to their bank accounts did they say ‘my this system is wrong?’ Was it when they were ‘flipping’ between houses did they think ‘this can’t be right? Or was it when they lost the cover of the FoI act and they knew they were about to be exposed….sorry, am I being synical?
Yours, a civil servant who gets £36.75 per 24 hours to stay & work in London when he is away from his main home….thats for accomodation, travel & food by the way!
‘Antidiluvian’ is a wonderful word, and very appropriate for the torrent of MPs who are suddenly apologising for ‘oversights’ and ‘misinterpretations’ of the rules that they created.
The only reason they are reacting in this way is that they have been found out. The actions of David Cameron and others are not going to change the situation.
People who have no ethical standards, or who do not understand the immorality of their actions shouldn’t be in parliament in the first place. They should be got rid of immediately and replaced with people with consciences, who blush if they utter a porkie. Which reminds me, Why do more and more MPs look like Orwell’s pig Napoleon from Animal Farm?
Well done John Snow, the best interviewer around.
Interesting article in Newcastle Journal today bods, 5 years ago in Wooler (small town in Northumberland) a cash machine malfunctioned and started paying out twice the required amount because the wrong banknotes had been installed. Queue stretched around the block so they say. I wonder how many of you squeaky clean screamers would have joined that queue? After saying that I don’t think the thatcherite tories can be bettered for sheer audacity in their expences claims.
Great interview last night – you expressed the genuine shock that many people feel. And the frustration at the apparent refusal to admit anything *that* wrong has been done!
(A) MPs cannot use the excuse of “ it’s within the rules” to justify excessive ( even potentially fraudulent) claims
A poorly educated single mother could not claim off the state 100% more than she incurred for an Expense, without appearing in Court.
She would not be allowed to pay it back to escape punishment 5 years later – just before she was exposed.
John please ask why should Jack Straw be treated DIFFERENTLY ?
(B) Do MPs now understand the meaning of the word ADDITIONAL in “Additional Cost Allowances”?
You should not claim for food in a Bacon Sandwich or toothpaste in your MP House, if the same cost would have been incurred in your own constituency home.
The media must question off-setting personal savings, when ADDITIONAL public expenses are claimed.
( C ) MPs see “it’s within the rules” as a logical defence.
So why do they unfairly victimise those who follow UK rules and decide to live outside the UK because of its unfair anti-family, anti family wealth creation tax system – as per the recent venom over “tax havens”
Regarding second homes – a simple solution is for each constituency to have a designated house in the capital with a set allowance for furnishing etc.. This is handed on from the outgoing MP to newly elected member. The problem is that it is simple – something that seems to be out of the remit of the people who are elected to govern us ‘honourably’.
Yet another area, which I imagine would be harder to control, but possibly even more destructive (as opposed to “merely” exploitative), is MPs’ second or subsequent jobs as advisers, consultants and directors. The second jobs are at least declared in the register of members’ interests, but still do not prevent them from voting on matters in which they have clear conflicts of interest; the subsequent jobs are completely unchecked.
Phrasing it generically to avoid accusing anyone in particular… An MP could bribe a company to give him a high-pay, low-effort job by voting to support a policy or law that would benefit that company (say, the partial or full privatisation of a public service). The beneficiary company could bribe an MP with the promise of a high-pay, low-effort job if they were to vote appropriately. And the whole system would be underwritten by the taxpayer, because the taxpayer would cover the increased costs of the partially or fully privatised service (and suffer the decreased quality), and the profits from that service would cover the MP’s salary adviser/consultant/director.
All this talk about ‘within the rules’ is hypocrisy. However, what about the person or persons responsible for interpreting the ‘Green Book’ and for approving or not approving MP’s claims? Doesn’t this smell of a foul conspiracy to defraud, and aren’t they at least as guilty as the worst MP, and perhaps even cumulative guilt?
This scandal has precipitated much debate about the nature of our ‘democracy’ and calls for a reformation of the way we are governed. Is it not then hypocritical and equally dangerous for the pundits within our media to now openly discourage voters from supporting the BNP? Whatever your view, democracy must MEAN democracy.
Since I settled down in the UK over 20 years ago, Jon Snow has shown to us all that he, unlike many politicians and civil servants/officials, understands and believes in the meaning of INTEGRITY, HONESTY and DEMOCRACY.