Last night's news that Alan Duncan has been demoted from Shadow Leader of the House of Commons to Prisons Minister suggests that the expenses hangover is still lingering.
He could possibly have chosen his words more carefully and been savvy to the fact that in the existing febrile environment a camera may have been working its media magic.
But perhaps Duncan's biggest mistake was allowing his private remarks to become public when others have not.
That is not to say that many MPs do not share Duncan's views. He is certainly right to allude to the fact that the House of Commons runs the risk of becoming a Chamber of suspects and that the Parliamentary stewardship that has seen this nation through so many of its darkest hours runs the risk of ending or being fatally undermined by knee jerk reactions to the expenses situation.
Monday, 7 September 2009
The right man?
The appointment of a spokesperson by Speaker John Bercow lends increasing weight to the theory that his appointment may have been a politically motivated misstep. This misstep can be ill afforded at a time when everyone needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
The key question still remains unanswered: why does Bercow need a Speaker when no other Speaker has?
The key question still remains unanswered: why does Bercow need a Speaker when no other Speaker has?
Friday, 14 August 2009
Comatose consensus
Our National Health Service is one of Britain's key institutions.
How many people would have died without the hundreds of helping hands across hospitals all around the country? How many births may there not have been?
We should be proud that this country is committed to providing a health safety net to its people. But we should not let sentimentality about the past obscure the reforms necessary for future success.
Reform will not come by name calling or by foreigners intervening in a key domestic policy matter. Reform will only come when we accept the absolute truth of what choice in the provision of health care in modern Britain means.
It means that we should not all be shepherded into a stategarchy. But similarly it does not mean that we move to a system where you pay or die. That is morally and socially repugnant. There is such a thing as a middle road. This middle road is to allow those who wish to pay for care to do so without removing a penny from the National Health purse. Who loses?
Similarly we must move away from the ABBA-isation of our policy processes. We must move to active prevention of preventable diseases rather than relying on the responsiveness of one organisation. Why should a doctor be responsible for one’s unhealthy habits?
We must ensure that the NHS does not suffer from a brain drain. We need the brightest and best doctors and nurses to provide care to our people. We must pay these people a commensurate salary. Our emphasis as a society must be on the practitioners and not the pen pushers.
But how we define health care also has to change. Healthcare is not just about cancer and heart disease. It is also about mental well being and social care. How we treat these elements also says a lot about our social morality.
Above all else the debate about the NHS’s future cannot end come the end of the present “war of words”. In fact we should see it is the beginning of ending the comatose consensus that has existed since the NHS’s conception in the rubble of 1948 Britain.
How many people would have died without the hundreds of helping hands across hospitals all around the country? How many births may there not have been?
We should be proud that this country is committed to providing a health safety net to its people. But we should not let sentimentality about the past obscure the reforms necessary for future success.
Reform will not come by name calling or by foreigners intervening in a key domestic policy matter. Reform will only come when we accept the absolute truth of what choice in the provision of health care in modern Britain means.
It means that we should not all be shepherded into a stategarchy. But similarly it does not mean that we move to a system where you pay or die. That is morally and socially repugnant. There is such a thing as a middle road. This middle road is to allow those who wish to pay for care to do so without removing a penny from the National Health purse. Who loses?
Similarly we must move away from the ABBA-isation of our policy processes. We must move to active prevention of preventable diseases rather than relying on the responsiveness of one organisation. Why should a doctor be responsible for one’s unhealthy habits?
We must ensure that the NHS does not suffer from a brain drain. We need the brightest and best doctors and nurses to provide care to our people. We must pay these people a commensurate salary. Our emphasis as a society must be on the practitioners and not the pen pushers.
But how we define health care also has to change. Healthcare is not just about cancer and heart disease. It is also about mental well being and social care. How we treat these elements also says a lot about our social morality.
Above all else the debate about the NHS’s future cannot end come the end of the present “war of words”. In fact we should see it is the beginning of ending the comatose consensus that has existed since the NHS’s conception in the rubble of 1948 Britain.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Primary colours
Open primaries seem to be in vogue. To sure the Conservative open primary worked splendidly in Totnes and gave the Conservative candidate a whiff of Westminster which she might otherwise not have had.
But let us be clear: open primaries are not and should not be seen as a panacea to fix all of Britain’s political ills.
Cost is a concern but it comes way down the list. Why have an open primary? That question must be answered before they are rolled out across the country.
All of those involved in politics have encountered the wall of disinterest, suspicion and scepticism at some point (and if you have not you must share your secret!)
But these feelings cannot be banished by a wave of the reform wand. To some extent open primaries are a knee jerk reaction to the lingering expenses situation. There is no way that the Totnes "experiment" would have occurred were it not for the revelations in May and June. But reform is not and cannot be, or become a fashion accessory.
We must avoid the temptation to jump on the Open Primary bandwagon but more importantly must move away from this culture of mistrust, second guessing and rubbishing of those who govern us. For if we don’t we shall rue the day.
But let us be clear: open primaries are not and should not be seen as a panacea to fix all of Britain’s political ills.
Cost is a concern but it comes way down the list. Why have an open primary? That question must be answered before they are rolled out across the country.
All of those involved in politics have encountered the wall of disinterest, suspicion and scepticism at some point (and if you have not you must share your secret!)
But these feelings cannot be banished by a wave of the reform wand. To some extent open primaries are a knee jerk reaction to the lingering expenses situation. There is no way that the Totnes "experiment" would have occurred were it not for the revelations in May and June. But reform is not and cannot be, or become a fashion accessory.
We must avoid the temptation to jump on the Open Primary bandwagon but more importantly must move away from this culture of mistrust, second guessing and rubbishing of those who govern us. For if we don’t we shall rue the day.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Fixing Britain's Political Grid
Cast your minds back to May 3rd 2009. This was the first day of the so-called "Expenses-gate" when the lights across Westminster went out in Britain's worst ever political blackout and stayed off for weeks.
Since then we have heard numerous platitudes, various diagnoses and a Parliamentary Standards Act aimed at "restoring public faith and confidence in the system".
Yet none of this will fix Britain's political grid in the long-term. There is only one thing worse than bad policies and bad legislation. That is knee jerk policy-making and legislating. The Parliamentary Standards Act was a classic example of the bar being put on the stable door after the horse has bolted, and a rotten bar at that.
Those men and women who govern us need to realise that we do not restore public trust and confidence in the system by creating a culture of mistrust and confidence complex in the corridors of Parliament itself. That is the danger we face.
The recess is a prime example of where meaningful reform can be executed. The propagandistic move by organisations such as 38 degrees has the reverse effect to that which they are seeking. Our MPs should not be chained to the Green Benches for 365 days of the year. But nor, should they not be sitting for 82 days of the year.
A balance needs to be struck. MPs should be able to scrutinise the programme presented by the government for longer than they currently are. The Parliamentary Standards Act was a prime example of this. The Bill was commended to the House and reached Royal Assent within 7 days. That is an absurdly short turnaround time for such an important piece of legislation.
This has to be changed. Reducing the length of the recess would mean that we can put an end to late sittings and late votes.
At the same time there should be more Opposition Days. More time should be given to Private Member's Bills. PMQ's should be extended to an hour on a Wednesday. This would allow more backbench MPs (who are the backbone of the Legislature) the chance to question and indeed challenge the Executive.
There should be a minimum attendance rate introduced for MPs. If you have ever watched the five minutes after an important vote (or indeed PMQ's) you will have seen how quickly the chamber empties. That cannot be good for our democracy. Of course one of the reasons the chamber may empty so quickly is that backbench MPs feel sidelined. So a "dual carriageway" policy needs to be invented and implemented.
In terms of MP's salaries it is quite simply wrong for our MPs to have to hang around the salary bin. Their salaries should be increased by 50% and all expenses abolished. MPs should have an office supplement of £10,000 and that should be the end of it. Salaries and the office supplement should be increased commensurately for Shadow Cabinet members, Cabinet members and Ministers.
Whatever structural changes are made to the House of Lords in the medium to long term, we cannot allow Secretaries of State (other than the Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor) to be from the Red Benches. We did not build in House of Commons supremacy in the early 20th century just for it to be reversed a century on.
Above all those who govern us should not be brow beaten into forgetting that they have much to be proud of. Lives have been been vastly and practically improved over the decades. We must not lose sight of that light in the current darkness.
If we do we shall rue the day.
Since then we have heard numerous platitudes, various diagnoses and a Parliamentary Standards Act aimed at "restoring public faith and confidence in the system".
Yet none of this will fix Britain's political grid in the long-term. There is only one thing worse than bad policies and bad legislation. That is knee jerk policy-making and legislating. The Parliamentary Standards Act was a classic example of the bar being put on the stable door after the horse has bolted, and a rotten bar at that.
Those men and women who govern us need to realise that we do not restore public trust and confidence in the system by creating a culture of mistrust and confidence complex in the corridors of Parliament itself. That is the danger we face.
The recess is a prime example of where meaningful reform can be executed. The propagandistic move by organisations such as 38 degrees has the reverse effect to that which they are seeking. Our MPs should not be chained to the Green Benches for 365 days of the year. But nor, should they not be sitting for 82 days of the year.
A balance needs to be struck. MPs should be able to scrutinise the programme presented by the government for longer than they currently are. The Parliamentary Standards Act was a prime example of this. The Bill was commended to the House and reached Royal Assent within 7 days. That is an absurdly short turnaround time for such an important piece of legislation.
This has to be changed. Reducing the length of the recess would mean that we can put an end to late sittings and late votes.
At the same time there should be more Opposition Days. More time should be given to Private Member's Bills. PMQ's should be extended to an hour on a Wednesday. This would allow more backbench MPs (who are the backbone of the Legislature) the chance to question and indeed challenge the Executive.
There should be a minimum attendance rate introduced for MPs. If you have ever watched the five minutes after an important vote (or indeed PMQ's) you will have seen how quickly the chamber empties. That cannot be good for our democracy. Of course one of the reasons the chamber may empty so quickly is that backbench MPs feel sidelined. So a "dual carriageway" policy needs to be invented and implemented.
In terms of MP's salaries it is quite simply wrong for our MPs to have to hang around the salary bin. Their salaries should be increased by 50% and all expenses abolished. MPs should have an office supplement of £10,000 and that should be the end of it. Salaries and the office supplement should be increased commensurately for Shadow Cabinet members, Cabinet members and Ministers.
Whatever structural changes are made to the House of Lords in the medium to long term, we cannot allow Secretaries of State (other than the Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Chancellor) to be from the Red Benches. We did not build in House of Commons supremacy in the early 20th century just for it to be reversed a century on.
Above all those who govern us should not be brow beaten into forgetting that they have much to be proud of. Lives have been been vastly and practically improved over the decades. We must not lose sight of that light in the current darkness.
If we do we shall rue the day.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Phone tapping, politicians and the public interest
Last night's revelations about the bugging of former politicians and others and the consequent row deflects us from the real issue.
Phone tapping is required in the thwarting of terrorism. But should journalists be using it? Absolutely not. A law must be passed with appropriate speed to ensure that this is the last row of this nature.
Trying to find a scapegoat is the easy option. But it is nothing more than a delaying tactic and should therefore be resisted wholeheartedly.
Phone tapping is required in the thwarting of terrorism. But should journalists be using it? Absolutely not. A law must be passed with appropriate speed to ensure that this is the last row of this nature.
Trying to find a scapegoat is the easy option. But it is nothing more than a delaying tactic and should therefore be resisted wholeheartedly.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
It’s the economy, stupid
That’s the reason being given for the mothballing of plans to part-privatise the Royal Mail. The question however has to be is this the conditions in the finanical economy or the political economy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
