Parliament needs radical, not self-serving, change

Source: The Spectator
Fraser Nelson
May 20th, 2009

It is typical of Michael Martin that his laughably short resignation statement contained a fundamental misunderstanding of parliament. ‘This House is at its very best when it is united,’ he said. The precise opposite is true. Gordon Brown and David Cameron’s places are precisely two sword lengths apart because it is intended to be an adversarial system. When the Commons chamber was bombed in 1941, Churchill rejected plans to rebuild it in a more collegiate semi-circular format. ‘We shape our buildings,’ he said, ‘But then our buildings shape us.’

Churchill understood that the slightest change in parliament, from the architecture to the rule book, alters the balance of power. And this is why, today, there is no such thing as an objective answer as to how precisely the Commons should reform. Each leader is careful to talk about the need for radical change — but defines it in a way that suits his party agenda. When one hears demands that an issue should be put ‘above politics’ it is the clearest sign that politicking of the most brutal nature is underway.

It is said of Gordon Brown that he never so much as chooses his tie without thinking how it may in some way destabilise the Tories. This desire has been much in evidence in recent days. Brown’s narrative is that the Commons has been a ‘gentleman’s club’ — and we all know which party likes such clubs. His proposal for claims on mortgage interest to be capped at £1,250 is being briefed by Number 10 as a means of countering the greed of moat-owning Tories.

For the Liberal Democrats, radical change means proportional representation. This would elevate them from the ‘none of the above’ party to kingmakers. When Labour ministers like Douglas Alexander and Alan Johnson float PR it is on the calculation that a Lib-Lab ‘progressive’ axis will yield a surer return to power. David Cameron’s calls for an early election are delivered with the passion of a man with a 20-point opinion poll lead.

But to ask why Westminster was held in contempt long before the Daily Telegraph exposed all the champagne flutes and Jacuzzis takes us on to harder terrain. MPs have, for example, voted their powers away to Brussels and the Celtic fringe, so it should be no surprise that the public has lost respect for them. Elections are focused on a handful of swing voters in swing seats. So it should be no surprise if so many voters have no interest in parties not interested in them.

Radical reform would mean, for example, repatriating control of England’s legal system with a Bill of Rights declared senior to anything in Strasbourg. It could mean mandatory reselection after eight years to stop idle MPs taking safe seats for granted. Constituents could be given power to recall an MP, especially one who has betrayed them by defecting to a new party. Several such devices could be deployed to make MPs rest far less easily in their beds at night, but no Speaker is likely to be elected on a manifesto of introducing them.

There is talk about how the coming election for Speaker will be an open contest about a new system, not just a new person. A fine aim, but I realised how futile such hope is when I was stopped by a policeman when returning from Members’ Lobby to my desk in the Commons press gallery on Tuesday. The officer said he had just been instructed not to allow journalists through certain corridors — presumably so reporters could not see which MPs are lobbying whom. MPs who have spent years perfecting the art of House of Cards-style chicanery will be loath to let such skills go to waste now.

Reform of the House of Commons may take the traditional format: a decoy message for the public with the real agenda worked out in private. The proposal to have MPs’ pay set independently is a classic example. It is hard for MPs to vote themselves generous pay rises, which is why they started to believe that it was OK to fiddle their expenses to make up the difference. Far better for MPs to have pay rises foisted on them. And the Prime Minister, after all, is a master of setting up supposedly independent groups that do exactly what he wants, from the Monetary Policy Committee to the health spending reviews.

Advisory boards, citizen juries, listening exercises — there are 101 ways to give the appearance of reform while doing nothing. This, after all, is what politics is all about. The MPs who want radical reform are shouting it from the rooftops, but are outnumbered by those who whisper that the press is exaggerating public outrage. As one MP told me, ‘We are seeing the mob, and it is not pleasant. But the mob moves on.’

But the problems of Britain’s electoral system, it seems, will not move on. Take Glasgow North East, Michael Martin’s seat, where there will be a by-election this summer. It is the perfect example of a modern-day rotten borough; it has a majority so large that no party thinks it worth exploring. A scandalous 30 per cent of the constituency are on out-of-work benefits. Male life expectancy in Hamiltonhill, one of its poorer areas, is 60.2 years — worse than Bangladesh, Iraq or Uzbekistan.

Yet even if the voters of Glasgow North East wanted, they could not have voted Tory or Liberal Democrat at the last election because of the convention that the main parties do not oppose the Speaker. So its constituents have been disenfranchised by the same parties who will soon descend on the seat professing a sudden and profound interest in them. Several primary schools are being closed in the constituency at present, a fate that tends not to befall marginal seats. Glasgow North East is what happens when voters are taken for granted.

These parts of Britain have become invisible to our political system, their people too poor to stand a chance of crossing the £199-a-week threshold ministers use to decree that someone has been ‘lifted out of poverty’. Little wonder that so many do respond when a fringe party, [like the British National Party**], comes to the tower block and ask them what they think. With such despair about Westminster and so few proposals for reform, [they**] could hardly ask for a fairer wind.

There is, though, one potential candidate for Speaker who has devoted his political life to such people; their cares have been his concerns. Frank Field has accomplished so much as a backbencher that he may be reluctant to occupy the Speaker’s chair. But real reform can only be brought to Westminster by someone with no interest in its cliques and cabals and someone who has always thought outside its narrow intellectual parameters. If Westminster wants real change, not synthetic change, Field must be dragged to the chair.

[** ed. slander edited by blog author]