“Good evening Mr Haw!” I said cheerily as I wandered past the assorted tents and placards still disfiguring the east side of Parliament Square; but the legendary peace campaigner studiously ignored my outstretched hand. I thought this just a touch rude, but reasoned afterwards that he must have taken me for a member of the ruling classes. An easy mistake to make – I was, after all, most finely tailored from head to toe for the latest in a series of blogger interviews, most kindly organised by the Millennium Elephant, this time with the leader of the Liberal Democrats himself, Nick Clegg! Here’s all I remember of the evening:
Jo Christie-Smith asked Nick about our much-heralded “narrative” and, on a related theme, Helen Duffett questioned Nick regarding our media profile, or rather lack of it. To reinforce the point, Helen produced a pair of “media goggles” with a red lens on one side, and blue on the other – the point being that the media tend to view politics in terms of a straight divide between Labour and Conservative, thus marginalising the Liberal Democrats. Nick acknowledged the problem and assured us that we have people on the case in Cowley Street, but I was heartened to learn that he is not obsessing over the media. Nick says he doesn’t even read the newspapers every day, and tends to think that their influence is on the wane.
Somewhere along the line, Nick and I got into a mild disagreement over David Cameron. I quite like Cameron, seeing the deeply reactionary forces on his backbenches as being more of the problem as far as the Conservatives are concerned. But Nick is not remotely impressed with Cameron, whom he regards as superficial and deeply conservative, notwithstanding some obvious movement towards a place of sanity which has taken place under his watch. I will naturally bow to Nick’s better judgement, but a brief survey of some voting figures from last week serve to highlight the point I was trying to make:
The evening before we saw Nick, David Howarth and Evan Harris were busy seeing off the oppressive, defunct, and frankly embarrassing crime of “blasphemy” in the House of Commons. The division was never in doubt; nevertheless 57 MPs voted in a desperate attempt to retain blasphemy legislation in the 21st century – virtually all of them Conservatives. So while both Cameron and Clegg were among the Ayes that evening, it would appear that at least a quarter of the Conservative parliamentary party are completely mad! In short, there is a rich seam to be mined here, if only Liberal Democrats could be persuaded to openly embrace a more radical secular agenda. But I digress!
Paul Walter wanted to know whether, what with Labour steadily losing confidence by the hour, there might be any scope for applying pressure on electoral reform for Westminster. Nick was adamant that he has no intention of flirting with Labour on this, or indeed any other issue. But Jo wanted to know why we are so bad at fighting PR elections (echoing a point made recently by Jonathan Calder). The sad truth is that proportional representation in Scotland, Wales, or London has not thus far led to a dramatic change in Liberal Democrats fortunes. The reasons may be various, but some aspects of the recent mayoral elections might give us pause for thought:
For example, Helen may want to get away from the red and blue “media goggles,” but how are we to prevent the media from asking the obvious (and entirely legitimate) question as to where one is intending to cast one’s second preference vote? Brian Paddick resisted this up to a point, but was unable to avoid letting out a few hints along the way, before eventually “declaring” for the Left List after the close of poll (the less said about that the better). Helen also spoke on the tube home of a large number of erroneously filled ballot papers at her local count. It may be a shade condescending to suggest that not all of the electorate can get their heads around the system, but it may also be a shade true.
Gavin Whenman asked Nick what single law he would like to see repealed. After a short pause, Nick responded “ID cards,” and Millennium gave the air a little fluffy punch. But I have a serious reservation about our position on ID cards, so it was time for me to challenge Nick as to why he has stated that, when the moment arises, he will refuse to surrender information to the ID card database, taking his case to court if necessary. Put bluntly, he has promised to break the law. I put it to Nick that, in the abstract, this was undermining of the rules of the game called democracy, in which we are surely all engaged in order to bring about whatever change we desire.
Nick conceded that a number of people from within the party had cautioned him against breaking the law. But he nevertheless stood firmly by what he has said in the past, holding up the example of Harry Willcock, the much romanticised figure who is said to have brought down the previous ID card scheme (a hangover of World War II) with the immortal words, “I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing!” Harry did not actually win his case (how could he? – he was clearly in breach of the law), but the judge’s remarks are thought to have hastened the end of the scheme which came about in 1952.
This is all well and good, but Nick Clegg is leader of the Liberal Democrats, whereas Harry Willcock was just a dry cleaner (nothing against dry cleaners – they do a fantastic job). I can’t think of any precedent for a party leader who has appeared to endorse law-breaking, and I’m not convinced this would be an entirely happy precedent for Nick to set. Another thing that troubles me is the sort of company that we might appear to be keeping. I’m thinking here of all the libertarian fruitcakes of this world, not to mention the aforementioned “inhabitants” of Parliament Square – people who seem to have given up on democracy entirely, preferring to live in a tent to make their point.
Somewhat exaggeratedly, I described Nick’s stance on ID cards as being what I thought was his biggest mistake but, as Nick rightly pointed out, nothing has actually happened yet. The question is: do we want it to? Should Nick be breaking the law? He first set out his position before he became party leader – should he be sticking to it now? Should the baton not instead pass to the present home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne? Or should we in fact simply all obey the law like we’re supposed to do? Take a look a Nick’s video from October and see what you think.
P.S. Alix Mortimer and Linda Jack went on the vital issues of tax, poverty, and redistribution; but I’m afraid I’m having a little difficulty recalling in detail what Nick said here (and besides this article is long enough), so please refer to those respective blogs!
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Top six councils for recycling are all Lib Dem led
A reminder that the UK already uses restraint on children in the care system
"We must work together on behalf of the people" plea to all Liverpool Parties
Can we have a referendum please, Rishi?
GP services over the Easter holiday
Michael BG
Katharine Pindar
Steve Trevethan
Andrew Melmoth
90 Comments
On Cameron – obviously very intelligent. Realises the Tories will not win unless they move back to the centre, and with a little help from the media he’s managed to create a more centrist mood music without actually having any policies.
As far as I can tell, Cameron is either excremely right-wing (cf his central involvement in Michael Howard’s dog-whistle election campaign) or else he’s actually completely ideologically unburdened . . .
Well I don’t think Cameron is totally superficial. For instance, I took his visit to South Africa to be a genuine initiative, which caused much consternation among the usual Conservative suspects. But this business of Cameron being a rebel in his own party has now been picked up by James Graham and Linda Jack. I think there’s considerable mileage to be had here. Perhaps we could even poach him!
On both of the issues that you disagree with Nick on, I am on hi side, not yours. This is most troubling. I appear to have lost my “agree with Laurence” button…
It’s probably a good thing Jennie! Top tip: when you see Nick in Sheffield, make sure you bring a voice recorder. It’s very hard to remember anything otherwise. But no, you can’t break the law. That’s illegal.
Have you never broken the law, then, L?
I must confess that I have. On more than one occasion. I’ve gone faster than the posted speed limit, for example, and bought alcohol before I was legally entitled to do so.
Yes, I was a poll tax rebel. You’re probably too young to remember that! But I regret it. I don’t think it’s a very grown-up way to proceed. MPs like Bernie Grant went to jail over the poll tax, but they never got any support from Neil Kinnock. Law-makers cannot be law-breakers, he said. And I think he was right!
“I don’t think it’s a very grown-up way to proceed”
Rosa Parks broke the law and things changed. “Bad laws were made to be broken“, as the good Doctor (Who) said, and I think he’s right.
Sometimes the wrongness of a law needs to be highlighted by breaking it repeatedly (and taking the consequences), as it gets a lot more media attention than grumbling and writing to MPs and the press.
The ID register on a centralised “secure” database is wrong—it’s bad politics and it’s a bad idea, so given that legitimate opposition in the House is harder as the media is ignoring it, refusing to deal (and taking the consequences) is the only other way to proceed.
“people who seem to have given up on democracy entirely”
Hardly—exercising the right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy, and doing so publicly in a central location is a fundamental freedom that I admire Haw for sticking to—I think he’d be better off going home now, but I respect his right to be there (and have actively supported him on occasions as well).
Breaking the law is acceptable as long as you’re prepared to accept the consequences. Nick has said he is, and I am as well. I do hope it won’t get to it though, I think the policy is doomed.
“I quite like Cameron, seeing the deeply reactionary forces on his backbenches as being more of the problem as far as the Conservatives are concerned”
I’m inclined to sort of agree with you there—I think Cameron is a Whig, not a Tory, and while his background means he is slightly out of touch, he’s not an enemy-of-the-blood like the Cornerstone headbangers are.
Really must get that post written. *adds to list*
Rosa Parks broke the law and things changed.
Yes, I would have been right behind Rosa Parks (I hope), so I’m not talking about some absolute principle here.
Breaking the law is acceptable as long as you’re prepared to accept the consequences.
I don’t think that can be right. It rather suggests that if I draw up a spreadsheet weighing the pros and cons of not paying my car insurance, including possible fines or even terms of imprisonment, and decide that I’m marginally better off breaking the law, then that’s OK. It’s not really OK. Surely we’ve got to have a really good reason to break the law – not just that the law in question is a “bad idea.”
I do hope it won’t get to it though.
Me too. I really don’t want to see Nick up on a charge of sedition. Mind you, it would be great publicity!
An interesting account of the interview. Regarding Cameron, as with Boris Johnson I tend to veer on the side of the debate that he is essentially completely unprincipled and will say anything that gets him votes. What he believes in is largely irrelevant; the public likes him regardless. I do agree that more attention should be focussed on the mad (Nad), bad and dangerous fools on his backbenches.
He’s been damn lucky and on the occasion that his luck has run out he has crashed badly (c.f. last summer’s grammar schools debacle). There’s always a chance that something else will come along and derail him and sooner or later I suspect something will. The question is, a) will it happen before he gets installed as Prime Minister and b) with Gordon Brown doing so poorly, will anyone notice?
I do agree that more attention should be focussed on the mad (Nad), bad and dangerous fools on his backbenches.
I would love to see us open up on Mad Nad. There’s a slight problem though. On Monday night, there were six of our own MPs alongside her. So here’s another question for Nick: should he not be (two-line) whipping the HFE bill to help drive in the wedge?
Clegg released his expenses today didn’t he? £7k on carpets… how does that work out?? Can you ask him about that one next time there’s an interview??
Miranda: no, he didn’t spend £7k on carpets, as indeed the expenses document makes clear.
“A willingness to accept the consequences” almost, but does not quite, capture the difference between civil disobedience and common criminality. Being arrested, possibly charged, possibly convicted and then possibly fined and/or jailed are not the unfortunate by-products of an act of disobedience but are actually the outcomes the protestor is intending. The civil disobedient is highlighting what she holds to be an unjust law by deliberately breaking it, and deliberately bringing the criminal justice system down on her head. Mr Boyce’s insurance example would be nearer the mark if, having decided not to insure my car in protest at, say, having to subsidise the poor driving of others, I immediately went straight round to the local police station and handed myself in.
Much though it pains me, because in general I dont much like Conservatives, I have to admit I feel that there maybe some genuiness to Cameron….i picked up on his voting record too and it is very much at odds with the overwhelming bulk of the Conservative Party. A good line of attack would therfore be to point out that you are electing the Conservative Party to govern not David Cameron individually and that support for his approach doesnt seem to be widespread even amoung his own MP’s.
I think BoJo is more obviously an opportunist and that is why he was muzzled.
Just as a postscript I would say that the genuiness of Cameron lies mainly on his position on social issues where his instincts are probably leftwards of the Tories as a whole…where he strikes me as fake is on the economic issues especially crocidile tears about the 10p tax….
Aren’t we all being a bit something about the 10p tax though? Presumably the government levied it because it needs the revenue. The £2.7 billion compensation package is going to have to come from somewhere too. But if we agree that Cameron is probably the best thing about the Conservatives (and I know it isn’t saying much), then it doesn’t really make much sense to attack him. We should attack the weak spot which is not Cameron, but the tension between Cameron and the rest of his party. James mentioned grammar schools and there’s bound to be more stuff like that before the next election. We just need to bring it on a bit.
Thanks for your post Paul. That is indeed a useful distinction.
I agree that the best line of attack is to seperate the Party from the man….as regards the 10p tax band it’s a bit much for a man whose party’s ‘flagship’ proposal on taxation is the reduction of inheritance tax (where is that money going to come from for that we wonder) to bleat on in the defence of those hit by the abolition of the 10p band (and i speak as somebody actually in the income bracket effected)…..it’s pure opportunism
I’m not affected by the 10p rate because, at present, I don’t have any income at all! Council tax bugs me a bit, and I would have thought the way it has been allowed to rise inexorably above the rate of inflation has been more hurtful to the poor over time. As for inheritance tax, I think it should be scrapped altogether. It’s an issue of justice really – the money has already been taxed – it shouldn’t be taxed again just because somebody dies.
It’s funny how people differ!
How do you propose to compensate for the loss in revenue then?? The reason I ask is it is a question that you raised in relation to the (ineffective) compensation the government offered….
I don’t have any answers I’m afraid. I merely observe that everyone wants first rate public services, but of course we don’t wanted to be taxed too much, so . . . eventually something has to give.
“The £2.7 billion compensation package is going to have to come from somewhere too.”
Borrowing. The last governemnt to borrow to cut taxes to win an election was the Tories in 1992. Worked out well for them in the medium term.
At least they were borrowing to cut taxes as we headed out of an economic downturn though!
Can you really blame Mr. Haw for refusing your proffered handshake?
Particularly when you describe his protest materials as “disfiguring the East side of Parliament Square”.
Well I hadn’t yet written that at the time. But I’m sure Brian would defend to the death my right to describe his protest in any way I please.
The sad truth is that proportional representation in Scotland, Wales, or London has not thus far led to a dramatic change in Liberal Democrats fortunes.
Don’t agree at all with that statement in Scotland we were in Government for 8 years and managed to get a great number of Liberal Democrat policies implemented. Something we’ve been able to emphasis in campaigning for other elections that we have got ideas that have already affected people.
Yes we’re currently in opposition but isn’t that the nature of the beast.
Well in Scotland, we have 16 out of 129 seats, or 12.4%. That’s half the 25% polled recently in the local elections. What I don’t understand is why we aren’t in government now. The price was democracy – in the form of a referendum which it looks like is going to happen anyway.
I have to say I have a lot more sympathy for the decision by the Scottish Lib Dems not to go into coalition with the SNP, where we would have been open to the charge of performing the role of village bicycle, than I have with the decision of the Welsh Lib Dems not to do a deal having been out of power for four years there. Minority parties that inveigle themselves into permanent government tend to ossify. Much healthier to go into opposition every once and a while.
I’ll never understand why it is that we are expected to form coalitions when Labour and the Tories were in exactly the same position as us yet were under no such pressure.
Laurence, our Scottish vote is always much smaller, at around 12%, from way before PR—we get more seats up there because it’s concentrated (Several of our safest seats including CK’s). 4 parties up there, the vote splits weirdly, the SNP in many ways appeals to some of our core voters on many of their non-independence policies.
But overall, you’re right, we’ve perfected seat targetting and limited resources to good effect under FPTP, but that translates really badly to any PR system. We’d need to completely redo the strategy, but that requires resources we don’t have for the small number of elections we’ve got using different systems 🙁
The annoyance that we’re the best campaigners under a syste we like the least isn’t lost…
Oh, Stephen—the idea Laurence I think is alluding to is that we lose votes under FPTP due to third/4th party squeeze, people don’t want to ‘waste’ their vote so the bar chart effect is reversed in a lot of constituencies.
If you’ve an electoral system without that squeeze, we should pick up more and more votes. I think the reason we don’t is partially we haven’t adapted campaigning techniques yet and partially that in Wales and Scotland Plaid and the SNP pick up more votes we could normally get—the non-Labour ‘left’.
Yes, it’s ridiculous to compare Scotland with the English local elections because we don’t have the SNP down here. So please forget I said that!
But surely the point is that Lib Dems are all in favour of coalition government. But we won’t go into government with the SNP because we are a unionist party. But why are we a unionist party? Don’t we believe in radical decentralisation? I would have thought Scottish independence would be perfectly compatible with Lib Dem thinking. Of course, it will always be down to the Scots in the end.
“The ACA is paid to reimburse MPs for necessary costs incurred when staying away from their main home for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties.”
“Service & Maintenance £7,007.63”
“The Service and Maintenance cost in the breakdown covers extensive repair work that needed to be carried out on Nick Clegg’s Sheffield home. The property was bought in early 2006 and was in a neglected condition where the kitchen, living room and garden were in need of one-off repair work to make the house fit for normal use.
A summary of the work is below:
Supply and fitting of carpet, flooring, blinds and curtains
Repair of garage
Replacing light fittings
Plastering and decoration of living room
Supply and fitting of pipework
Plastering and tiling of kitchen wall
Repair and maintenance of garden”
So this is “necessary costs incurred when staying away from their main home for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties.”???
Now… I’m sure he does use his home for his parlimentary work. And I’m sure most other MPs are claiming the same kind of thing. I can’t help feeling that if it were any other industry sector… (whilst he might be paid more for doing the same kind of leadership role in another sector in the first place) there’s no way someone would be able to claim this kind of stuff on their expenses.
IE… if the MD of a large company was claiming this stuff- would the board find it justifiable?
I do realise the majority of people in parliament claim every penny they can… but is this not some of what disenfranchises voters and creates apathy.
Most people get paid a salary and have to use that to pay for maintainance on their home- regardless of whether they use it for work purposes! To the ordinary tax payer, they look at what they earn… they look at what MPs earn… then they look at these kind of expenses… and the amount they pay in tax themselves… and they conclude that they don’t want to vote for the whole system… let alone anything else!
Its a hard one. I can’t say there’s a person who wouldn’t claim everything they can get, and I dare say this is a great deal more conservative than what the majority claim.
It is good that if we make statements saying everyone should publish expenses, then we follow through on them. In the long run, yes, it would provide greater transparancy- which could help rebuild some trust amongst the public. But I wonder whether in the short term, it could have the opposite effect.
Interesting. I’m more raising the question than arguing any particular point.
Have any ldv members been able to ever claim that kind of figure for maintainance and repairs on their home from a commercial employer?
Do we think that voters will be more re-engaged by the transparancy of more MPs publishing their expenses… or more disenfranchised with what is actually paid for in those expenses? (I’m sure the majority of MPs from Labour & Tories have far more tenuous things listed).
Have any LDV members been able to ever claim that kind of figure for maintenance and repairs on their home from a commercial employer?
Er . . . no. I agree, it doesn’t look good at all.
Actually, one of my ex-housemates was relocated to the States entirely at her employers’ expense. Over there she is living in a fully furnished, rent-free apartment and on top of that got a pay rise for her trouble (the current exchange rate doesn’t hurt her either). And she is just a junior exec.
So no, as a matter of fact, compared to the private sector that level of home allowance is small fry.
Welcome to the real world.
James is right, it really does depend on sector, but a few friends of mine have gone through apprenticeships and training courses with merchant banks, and had everything paid for accommodation wise and assive salaries—relocation expenses and accommodation paid for isn’t uncommon in bigger private sector operations.
The editor of the Daily Mail gets a town appartment the rental value of which is more than an MPs salary as part of the job package.
Is it right that MPs get all these things? Well, they always have done and it’s part of the package—I think it should be reformed and clearer, but this isn’t an abuse.
I’d rather up their salaries and remove all but essential expenses, and have them buy London accommodation held in trust for the area they’re representing (ie it goes to the next MP), but the current system is a lot more open and honest than it was before.
But most companies relocating you will pay for one home surely… not two…
Wrong again. To take my ex-housemate, she is profiting from a policy that assumes she will retain a house in the UK.
In the big bad world out there, trust me, there are far more executives and company directors getting big fat perks than there are MPs in the House of Commons, and all of them earn far more than MPs.
By all means let’s reform the system but as Mat says above in such a situation you will have to consider the idea of MPs being paid more in their basic income.
There is no suggestion whatsoever that Clegg has abused the system (a la Derek Conway and, er, another big shout out to James Gray – remember him Mr Cameron? He’s still on your backbench in case you haven’t noticed). He’s used the system. And he is voluntarily being more open about it than most other MPs. It is a sorry state of affairs when we start criticising politicians for being honest, obeying the rules and looking after their families (and no Mr Conway, one out of three isn’t good enough).
Its not so much of a criticism of being honest and looking after one’s family. More of how the general population percieve their taxes to be spent, and thus how this impacts on voter apathy.
Like I said, I think his figures are probably very conservative compared to most of Westminster. But most of the UK population do not work in Westminster, or for companies that rehouse them to the states expenses paid. £23,500 was the figure sited by the BBC in January for the average income people in Britain would be recieving this year. To me, it just seems like a stark contrast.
“23,500 was the figure sited by the BBC in January for the average income people in Britain would be recieving this year. To me, it just seems like a stark contrast.”
Oh, you’re right, it is—but part of the point is I really don’t want Westminster populated by “average” Britons. I want our MPs to be the best of British, and to do that they need to be valued more than doctors, lawyers, etc. JS Mill, Ricardo and Sir Isaac Newton were all MPs, but they all had private money behind them.
Do any of the current lightweights measure up in comparison to them? I honestly think not (although the average Lib Dem MP is better than the average Tory or Labour MP, in part because they’ve had to work much harder to get there).
Representative democracies work on the principle we elect people to scrutinise and legislate on our behalf, in order for them to do that (one MP per 68,000 adults) they can be paid and valued a little more than average I think.
It’s the abuses and daftnesses of the thing that matter, and the vitriol in some of the media attacks (from tabloids edited by people paid much much more than any Govt minister) makes the debate far from rational.
Agree with Mat.
It’s a tricky one, because while it’s perfectly true to say that the ability to hurl that kind of money around and still be a moderate example must surely diminish one’s ability to relate to the common bod a *bit* (even if you’re very, very naturally empathetic, which NC is), it’s also true that that’s exactly what enables you to carry out governance.
No-one would submit that an MP could live on 23k (i.e. and still be MPs). Of course they couldn’t. It’s the nature of the job. But the same thing that enables them to do their job also lifts them out of “commonalty”. And if you make some ordinary inoffensive egg on £23k into an MP, they’d have to adopt exactly the same approach. So while I agree the contrast is utterly stark, I honestly can’t see what can be done about that, beyond all the necessary reform against abuses, public scrutiny etc. We’re still going to be talking about gargantuan sums in most people’s eyes.
I wouldn’t wish to over-egg it, but a lot of those expenses HELP MPs stay in touch with their constituents. If they were spending all their time balancing the books and struggling to make ends meet, how good a job would they be able to do engaging with the public? Wouldn’t they spend their time instead moonlighting doing other jobs (something which too many do as it is in my view)?
In my experience, Joe Average isn’t particularly in touch with day-to-day lives of ordinary people. All they know is their own life, their friends’ and their family’s. MPs are expected to be in tune with thousands more people.
That isn’t to say a lot of MPs aren’t living in a Westminster Bubble – sometimes I really despair at the clubby nature of Parliament. But let’s not saddle them with unrealistic expectations.
That is £23,500 gross (ie, before the taxman takes his cut).
I agree with Mat, James and Alix. If we see Parliament as the centre of political gravity in this country and not the ill-mannered talking-shop it often appears, then MPs should be paid comparably to other senior public servants, such as high court judges and permanent under-secretaries. If, on the other hand, Parliament is just a useless freakshow and a rubber-stamp for hidden elites (as David Icke would have it), and we are happy with that, then we muddle along with the present antiquated system.
The same principle applies to councillors. If councils are to be member-led rather than officer-led, then portfolio holders should be paid comparably to other professionals.
People expect their GPs to earn £100k per annnum, and the surgeons who operate on them £140k plus. So why are we denouncing politicians as greedy money-grubbers with their snouts in the trough? Unlike doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc, politicians have to schlepp around the country on a weekly basis and are subjected to a barrage of abuse and vilification in what passes for the press. One almost needs danger money!
The crucial issue is the value we place on democracy.
Why is there such a fuss made about the salaries and expenses of MPs when senior adminstrators of private companies get vastly more? It seems to me that those who complain about the former and not the latter have an anti-democratic agenda.
At one time I considered seriously pushing myself forward to get on the approved list and fight a good seat, but the work effort involved and the insecurity of employment as an MP didn’t seem to me to be balanced by the salary in comparison to what I earn as a university lecturer. I.e. it would be an increase in salary, but not enough to compensate for loss of a safe job and taking on of one which is enormously time consuming.
I think one of the reasons people are bothered by this sort of thing is the undefined and fuzzy role of the MP within the British non-constitution. Nick Clegg is obviously very busy, but he’s busy being Lib Dem leader, not so much constituency MP. Numerous MPs have directorships and outside work. How do they have time for that? Many MPs have written books. Earlier this year I met Norman Baker and, having met him, I am much less inclined to poke fun. But in the foreword to his book on David Kelly, Baker justifies his use of time thus:
I had to be sure that my constituency work would not be affected. My first duty, after all, is to the people of the Lewes constituency, whom I am proud to represent in Parliament. I decided therefore that I would allocate to my investigations only the time that I had freed up by relinquishing my frontbench role
I don’t buy this. Anyone who has ever had a proper job knows perfectly well that it would be quite impossible to write a book in one’s spare time. Doubtless Baker would argue that his “investigations” were an entirely appropriate occupation for Westminster MP. But having read his wholly unconvincing conspiracy theory on Kelly, I beg to differ.
“I think one of the reasons people are bothered by this sort of thing is the undefined and fuzzy role of the MP within the British non-constitution. ”
True, and one of my principle reasons for joining the party was the party’s strong line on constitutional reform, which would hopefully clarify this—I dislike that MPs are effectively glorified social workers, that aspect of their role should be carried out at a much lower level, they’re there to represent our interests in Parliament, not deal with a huge number of purely local issues.
However, while I agree with this problem, this: “Anyone who has ever had a proper job knows perfectly well that it would be quite impossible to write a book in one’s spare time”
Is bollocks. The phrase “don’t give up your day job” exists for a reason—Britains best selling author didn’t give up his full time job until his 7th novel was published, he wrote 1 a year in his spare time while working full time (I refer to Terry Pratchett for those unaware). A large number of authors, researchers and writers keep full time jobs while working in the evenings and at weekends. Laurence, thee and me have each written the equivalent of a full book in our various blog posts and comments over the last year, its palpably possible.
Not easy, and it means giving up other things (such as TV), but it’s doable.
Besides which, part of the role of an MP is to hold the Govt to account and represent the nations interests both in Parlt and in the media. Norman’s book was on a political issue—whatever the opinion on the issue itself, he thought there was a case worth investigating—that’s actually something I’d put as part of his job.
That he feels it should be something he did ‘out of hours’ is to my mind actually both slightly regrettable and a symptom of the problem we discuss.
Laurence, thee and me have each written the equivalent of a full book in our various blog posts and comments over the last year.
Yes but you wouldn’t want it published! And besides, I don’t have a job. If I had a job, you’d never have heard of me. Think on that!
Laurence, that’s a bit unfair on yourself, the rest of the population and particularly all full-time parents.
Most paid employment takes up less than a half of most people’s waking week, so what else we can fit in depends entirely on how organised and dedicated we are at fitting it in.
The highest-paid in society are remunerated so well because the trade-off between acquiring extra responsibilities and paying functionaries to fulfil necessary supporting roles creates extra value for the general well-being, though our ability to measure this isn’t always initially apparent, while at the opposite end of the economic divide the time freedom enables us to explore other areas of equally valuable interest.
For large sections of society taking care of themselves or family members constitutes a full-time job (I suspect even you eat, wash, clean your clothes, keep a reasonably tidy house, keep up a social life etc), so demeaning your life and their’s by defining personal qualities according to the volume of an individual’s commitment to economic activity amounts to no more than empty materialism (though this is probably accounted for and explained by your take on personal spirituality).
I’m just surprised at your judgemental attitude towards the possibility of individual potential.
There is, of course, a distinction between a work of fiction (Terry Pratchett) and a serious work of investigative journalism that requires many 100s of hours of research (Norman Baker).
Part of an MP’s role is scrutiny, and much of that is done on committees largely beyond the public gaze. Norman’s investigation of the murder of Dr Kelly falls within that. A government scientist working on WMD is murdered and the authorities try (somewhat unpersuasively) to pass it off as suicide. Thank God we have public servants as dedicated as Norman Baker who will go in there and dig out the truth.
Of course, there are those who continue to decry Norman’s efforts, and they do so for one of two reasons:-
(1) They consider that Dr Kelly’s killers were right to do what they did (or even if they don’t, they believe the protection of the reputation of elite power structures is more important than bringing his murderers to justice).
(2) They adopt a pseudo-ideological pose that says that government is always truthful and benevolent and those who think it is sometimes otherwise are cranks to be mocked.
I hardly think I am being in the least bit judgemental. MPs are supposed to be the servants of the public, right? I think that gives me a right to say what they should be doing with their time. Because I am their boss! You may write all the books you like. I will not judge you, except by the content!
MPs cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they are always saying how frightfully busy they are. And that is because it is one of those jobs where the sky is the limit. An MP can only ever make himself available to his constituents in small time slices.
To then say to those constituents that you’re writing a book is slightly insulting, not least because we all know that the job of an MP is not a “proper job,” by which I mean a job where you have to keep set hours and actually do something productive while you are there.
By the way, I have never said anything against personal spirituality, for the simple reason that I’m all in favour of it! I just see no reason why it should be predicated upon believing in things which are not true.
“I really don’t want Westminster populated by “average” Britons. I want our MPs to be the best of British, and to do that they need to be valued more than doctors, lawyers, etc. JS Mill, Ricardo and Sir Isaac Newton were all MPs, but they all had private money behind them.”
So surely that’s meritocracy rather than democracy? You sound like a tory not a lib dem. And the problem with that theory, is money.
One of the problems with our “democracy” is the sheer vastness of inequality in our society.
Its a nice generalisation there that majority of the population are “average” and not capable of doing a decent job if they did work in Westminster. A great shame, as there are a lot of people in Britain who could have a lot to offer, and have simply never got the chance to develop those skills or persue those things because they don’t have financial backing behind them… well off parents… an education at Westminster School and Oxbridge…
The people who usually succeed in British politics now are usually the best funded of British, not the best of British. Thats several issues. Political funding, education funding, social mobility…
Anyway, “average income” doesn’t necessarily make people average themselves… just lacking in opportunity to express the things that are not so average about them.
Laurence, I agree that our MPs should be busy and that we, as their tax-paying bosses, should hold them to account, but at the same time I don’t think we should dictate how they spend their time.
There is a simple logic to this, as however they do spend their time, they will be held to account the next time they are up for election – so they better had beware not to skimp on keeping us sweet.
If writing a book is in support of their political philosophy and aids their personal campaigns (such as Hague’s political biographies do) then it can be considered part of the job, although still subsidiary to the needs of constituents and party.
Anyway everybody needs a hobby they can be passionate about even if it’s just to keep their minds alert – we don’t want machine politicians representing us.
BTW I specifically didn’t want to imply you have a downer on spirituality as well as religion, merely that your outspoken opinions betray a deep yearning to counterbalance and provide meaning in what would an otherwise empty existence.
We all have personal needs and our elected representatives shouldn’t be considered differently, which is why it is perfectly acceptable and advantageous that they find means of combining both the personal and professional in public life.
Well I don’t see how Hague’s books benefit his constituents at all. I have heard they are excellent books, but they should not have been written in his constituent’s or parliamentary time. His seat is ultra safe, so he is never going to be punished by the electorate. My point is that, coming on top of this perception that (some) MPs are more or less doing what they please, £23,000 expense claims become too much for the public to stomach.
Don’t you?
Hague has investigated the careers of individuals he might wish to be compared with and has gained no small amount of insight in the process, which is why he a more formidible and respected figure now than when he was leader of his party.
I’m not sure that his individual constituents are able to see any difference, but the politics of the country has certainly profited from his personal resource.
On the other hand, Jeffery Archer’s books tell a completely different tale.
Miranda, meritocracy and democracy are not opposing forces in this case. A true grassroots democracy with local accountability is what we as a party are aiming for. But it’s daft to suggest that this can happen by trying to replicate it at Westminster. Our localism is based on a notion of *appropriateness* of levels of power – i.e. local neighbourhoods ought to make decisions about street-lighting, the EU ought to make decisions about people-trafficking. So it’s illogical to suggest that the way to operate at national level in a legislative assembly is to choose, say 600 random names from the party membership list and put them up for the seats. We’re only going to achieve localism by winning the argument at Westminster.
I’m not entirely sure how you prevent a true democracy adopting elements of meritocracy anyway. Suppose the wildest Lib Dem dreams were realised and each street sent a representative to a neighbourhood council or something – they’d choose the best person for the job of representation, wouldn’t they? The only way of preventing that would be to choose by drawing straws or by taking strict turns, and that’s got even less to do with democracy.
Besides, I think you’ve overlooked my point. I was suggesting that anyone who becomes an MP, however “average” they were, however in touch with the concerns of the “average” Briton, would still quickly find they needed a salary of £60k and umpteen expense accounts, or something close, to operate effectively as an MP. I’m sure there’s trimming down that can be done, there always is. But the logical conclusion of your line of argument is that someone ought to be able to work as an MP on the average wage, and that’s too much to ask of anyone. Like I said, the thing which takes MPs out of the normal wage bracket is also what enables them to operate as MPs.
“Its a nice generalisation there that majority of the population are “average” ”
Well, no, it’s kind of a statement of fact—the definition of ‘average’ comes into effect there (I prefer median average to mean, and it was the median income you stated up thread). I don’t think people should be forces to vote for the best in their area, I thinkt he best in the area should be encouraged to stand, that means offering compensation for a bloody awful job (and it really is, for the most part) that encourages the best and brightest to put themselves forward as candidates.
I really don’t want to see us move to the US situation where “smart” people are looked down on as candidates and the highly educated have to “dumb down” to appear like “normal” people. A representative democracy has to have elements of a meritocracy in it else it really can’t function effectively.
That doesn’t make me a tory—it makes me a liberal, the complete opposite of a Tory on any sane scale of measurement (although not all tories are Conservatives and not all Conservatives are tories—Cameron, Duncan and Boris all show distinct whiggish tendencies to me).
Alix: “The only way of preventing that would be to choose by drawing straws or by taking strict turns, and that’s got even less to do with democracy.” *cough* Sortition, something I’m rather in favour of and which is very very democratic if used in conjunction with other methods:
Anthony Barnett, a Senior Research Fellow at London University , wrote a pamphlet in connection with the ongoing reform of the House of Lords entitled The Athenian Option, in which he advocated random selection as a method of election to the new upper chamber [and of opendemocracy.net].
Laurence: “MPs are supposed to be the servants of the public, right?”
That’s one of their roles, yes, but they are primarily Parliamentarians, and as such have a broad scrutiny role. Clarifying what their roles and responsibilities should be is paramount, but bitching at them for doing things that are within their current remit is churlish at best.
Besides, do you seek to deny them any free time? Are they not allowed to collapse in front of the TV for a bit? If they are, why aren’t they allowed to sacrifice that time for other things instead?
(and apologies if the above is a bit of a ramble, I keep getting interrupted by a very sick 4-yr-old)
Laurence: one thing I just don’t get in all this is that you keep talking about how MPs are the servants of the people and asserting your right to scrutinise what they actually do, but you are also opposed to introducing any kind of electoral reform that would actually enable greater scrutiny.
James, I am not opposed to electoral reform. I just don’t think it will greatly advantage us. The main beneficiaries of PR seem to be minority parties (e.g. Greens). But I don’t see why PR of itself leads to better scrutiny. I’m just talking about ad hoc scrutiny. I follow David Howarth very closely – just been watching him on the fixed parliament bill in fact. If he announces that he’s going to write a book in his “spare time,” he’ll be hearing from me. On the other hand, if the book is entitled, “Why there is no God and you are a complete idiot if you think there is,” then I might forgive him! It’s unlikely though – he’s very polite.
Are they not allowed to collapse in front of the TV for a bit? If they are, why aren’t they allowed to sacrifice that time for other things instead?
I agree it’s all a bit arbitrary. But writing a book is a huge undertaking. And Norman Baker’s book annoyed me. It would be one thing if it had brought the establishment crashing down. But it was never going to do that, because it’s largely idle speculation. All I am saying is that if Baker or Hague claim £23,000 in expenses (and I have no idea if they have), then coming on top of their book royalties, the public may gag a bit. Because those books cannot in fact be written in evenings or weekends. They require access to libraries and archives which may only be accessed during the daytime. In other words, those books may only be written because being an MP is not a “proper job” where one’s time is exclusively mapped out. In short, the job of an MP should either be made into a “proper job,” or the salaries, expenses, and pensions should be dramatically slashed. I think I would prefer the latter option on the whole. But trying to have it both ways won’t really do.
“They require access to libraries and archives which may only be accessed during the daytime. In other words, those books may only be written because being an MP is not a “proper job” where one’s time is exclusively mapped out”
Um, whut? MPs do a lot of work evenings, weekends, etc. In my old ‘proper job’ I sued to do evening weekend work regularly, if I did I’d take time off during the week to compensate. Constituency work is frequently evening and weekend, hence that frees time during the day.
An MPs job isn’t 9-5 Monday to Friday. Most MPs pull way more than 40 hours a week, a lot of it “unsociable hours”, if they choose to do personal stuff during daytime hours good for them.
Besides, the Commons library doesnt keep normal hours, and is pretty good.
your definition of “proper job” is so very weird I’m afraid I can’t relate to it properly—I’ve never had a “proper job” tha was weekday “normal” working hours only, last I looked about half the working population don’t either.
But I don’t see why PR of itself leads to better scrutiny.
PR in and of itself doesn’t lead to better scrutiny. But we are not in support of PR per se, but STV, which is different because it allows voters to not only choose between parties but choose between party candidates. So if you thought David Howarth was doing a bad job you could vote for his running mate knowing that you would still be supporting your party.
It is that responsiveness that opponents of STV hate. Listen to David Trimble whinging in the Lords about it at some point.
I used to have a proper job. There was no way on earth I could have written a book in my spare time, but maybe that’s just me. The main job of an MP (as I understand it) is to represent his constituents. As he has thousands of the buggers, the sky’s the limit really. I suppose that when the sky’s the limit, you can either do the best you possibly can, or you can say, “sod it, I think I’ll write a book and make some money.” All I’m saying is that the second class of MP would never get my vote.
Laurence, unless you are J K Rowling or Jeffrey Archer, you aint gonna make money out of writing a book.
So if you thought David Howarth was doing a bad job you could vote for his running mate knowing that you would still be supporting your party.
Really? You mean Lib Dems are going to field multiple candidates per seat? Surely that can only lead to internal strife. But in fact STV is only the first step, no? You want the top up list too. Who do those MPs answer to? Do our Lib Dem London assembly members hold surgeries to which the whole of London is invited? It’s not brilliant. Plus we get a BNP member too. I suppose that’s democracy.
Unless you are J K Rowling or Jeffrey Archer, you aint gonna make money out of writing a book.
Yes you are. A bit. And being an MP can only help of course.
“You mean Lib Dems are going to field multiple candidates per seat?”
In seats where we can get at least one elected, definitely, it’d be foolish not to.
“But in fact STV is only the first step, no? You want the top up list too”
No, multi-mmeber STV as used in Ireland, Malta, Scottish locals, etc doesn’t need any top ups or anything, and it’s the end system that we want.
List members are an anathema that I’m really not keen on at all, hence why we don’t support them as party policy, prefering the much more democratic STV.
Not all electoral systems are created equally- STV is in my view the best, because it combines the best elements of constituency link, preferential voting and limited proportionality in a very democratic and open manner.
(seriously, go do some reading on it, a “http://community.livejournal.com/theyorkshergob/77692.html?thread=776316#t776316” might be a good start)
Um, the link text there was supposed to be “recent discussion at Jennie’s”, d’oh!
In seats where we can get at least one elected, definitely, it’d be foolish not to.
Or it might be foolish to do so. For a start it might split the vote. (Yes, I know STV would take care of that, but I mean it could split the whole campaigning effort.) Unless you’re saying it’s two MPs per seat.
I must say I thought Lib Dem policy was STV as a first step, then top-ups as a second phase; but I’m just looking at “For the people, by the people” and this doesn’t seem to be the case. Does this mean we would change London, Wales and Scotland to a straight STV too? I’m confused. And so will be the electorate.
Um, Laurence? Go read those links. Please?
STV is multi-member, I even said that, you get hopefully between 3 and 6 MPs per seat depending on population density.
“I thought Lib Dem policy was STV as a first step, then top-ups as a second phase”
No, LD policy is STV. We might need a stepping stone of AV (single member STV which is what I think you’re getting confused with) but only if the electoral commission won’t have time to do a boundary change.
“Does this mean we would change London, Wales and Scotland to a straight STV too?”
Ideally, yes, the fewer systems there are in play, the less confusion there is and the easier it is to explain.
“I’m confused. And so will be the electorate.”
We don’t tend to shout the details out too often, it’s not generally a vote winner, we would during a preferendum, obviously.
Regarding confusion, worth noting that the spoilt ballots problem in Scotland last year was for the top-up system used for Holyrood, voters seemed to understand STV for the locals really easily.
STV is multi-member, I even said that, you get hopefully between 3 and 6 MPs per seat depending on population density.
Matt, I am looking at “For the people, by the people” which is the Lib Dem policy document. And I can see now that it is indeed proposing multi-member seats. The reason this didn’t jump out at me before is because nowhere does it specify how many members and how many seats.
Anyway, the result of this discussion is that I can now categorically say I am against Lib Dem policy on electoral reform. I want one MP. Sorry!
“I want one MP”
Why? It’s a horribly new idea only really came into play after Labour messed things up with the ’47 ROPA, and every study I’ve seen shows that we’re better represented with more than one person—do you only want one councillor as well?
I want us to go back to multi-member constituencies because they worked better and were more representative. They also give voters more choice, abolish safe seats, improve turnout and ensure MPs have to work harder to represent their local area.
What’s the 47 ROPA? Local politics is different. I can get to see every councillor if I want, including the “Prime Minister” or council leader as he is usually known.
I’d be fine with this scheme for Europe (which I guess is what we’ve got) and the House of Lords. But not for Westminster. I like to keep tabs on my MP, but I don’t have time to keep tabs on six. With or without a proper job.
1947 Representation of the Peoples Act-abolished multi member constituencies (boroughs mostly although I think there were some counties) as well as the university seats that used to use STV.
“Europe (which I guess is what we’ve got)”
unfortunately not, we’ve got list PR for Europe, a system I think is worse than FPTP.
“I like to keep tabs on my MP, but I don’t have time to keep tabs on six. ”
Fair enough, but I think you’re slightly wrong—I keep track of a number of MPs fairly easily (my current, my two former, Dorries, etc. Baker isn’t yours, is he?
Besides, you’re more likely to track the ones you put top of your priority list, as they in theory should represent you much better.
One clear point? You’ll have many more out atheists under STV, you can withdraw any “all-X-shortlist” ideas and the house immediately becomes more representative.
But that’s really a discussion that’d need a much fuller post—I may get back in the mood to writing such things at some point. Possibly.
We’ve got list PR for Europe, a system I think is worse than FPTP.
Yes of course. Sorry. I get so confused.
You’ll have many more out atheists under STV.
That honestly wasn’t my main consideration, but why so?
Simple. Under FPTP you need to appeal to the largest minority of people and can’t appeal to annoy any group that may consider voting for you.
Your “core vote” will turnout to get the others out or keep them out, it’s the centre ground that matters. If you believe (and that push poll census question indicates) that most people are soft religious, you cant afford to piss of someone who is otherwise a potential voter but won’t support an atheist.
When you can win or lose by 12 votes (as Adrian did in 1997 in Torbay), any single vote makes the difference, so you don’t piss people off.
Under multi-member STV, it’s to your advantage to mobilise a core and appeal for a positive vote in your favour not a negative vote against the others.
Thus Parlt is more representative because, for example, the party can put up an atheist and a believer and let supporters choose—in addition, while every vote counts, it’s positive votes an dpreferences that matter so one alienated believer is less of an issue.
I hope that makes sense, I’ve written it up much better before somewhere, I’ll try to find the link when I’ve time.
No, that makes perfect sense. A greater competition of ideas all round. You may yet talk me into it!
Let’s not forget that Roy Jenkins wrote some pretty weighty tomes whilst being an
MP and indeed for some of that time a
Cabinet Minister.
And remember also – STV in Scotland didn’t serve us all that well in the local elections. With a flexible 4-party system, we punched above our weight under FRTP.
Sorry for the typo – I meant FPTP of course.
I’m still a bit concerned about the potential for internal party strife though. It’s only a matter of time before candidates from the same party start trying to undermine each other, causing lasting damage. It would be a bit like Battle Royale, but without the guns and the short skirts.
I’m still a bit concerned about the potential for internal party strife.
Laurence Boyce against internal party strife? Who says irony is dead?
Speaking of internal strife James, was this the unanimous choice of your working group? Have you read this? Also, did the subject of the Monarchy never come up?
“Sorry for the typo – I meant FPTP of course.”
No, hang on, hang on. “First round the post”… there’s the germ of an idea there…
“James, was this the unanimous choice of your working group?”
It wasn’t really discussed because it is an issue that was resolved within the party years ago. There are a few mavericks out there who object to STV but they are few and far between.
“Have you read this?”
From time to time, yes. No-one is suggesting STV is the best system from a contolling party elite’s point of view. That’s kind of the point. Also, the stuff about tactical voting with STV brings new meaning to the word obscurationist.
“Also, did the subject of the Monarchy never come up?”
Yes it did, and we decided not to touch that particular third rail. But it is an issue that would have to be addressed as part of a constitutional convention so republicans who want to make their case can do so then. One step at a time though, eh?
“I’m still a bit concerned about the potential for internal party strife though. ”
Two responses. 1) all parties already get internal strive over candidate selection, and the occasional defection happens as well, but it’s hidden.
2) The existing 2.5 party system exists because of the current voting system, FPTP essentially forces broad church coalitions of not necessarily coherent interest groups. Change the voting system and eventually the parties would coalesce into different groupings. Would take time, but I’m a democrat first, I have no problem with different parties forming if that’s what people vote for.
Sure, some of the strive would be personality politics only, but scratch the surface of any fairly succesful local govt party and you get that all the time anyway.
At least under STV it’s open and people are campaigning openly on their merits—as the Wiki article says, STV encourages positive campaigning on your merits, not negative stuff, for the most part.
(also? it’s been party policy since the Liberal party was last in Govt—the bill got blocked in the House of Lords. Completely independently it’s also the favoured system of the Electoral Reform Society)
Though in fact the Jan 2007 consultation document said:
Despite Liberal Democrats’ longstanding commitment to the STV system of election for all elections, we supported the AV Top-up (AV+) system proposed by Jenkins. We have also argued consistently that the second chamber should be elected on a markedly different basis to the House of Commons. Our most recent policy statement proposes STV for the second chamber. This leaves the party room to consider an alternative to the STV system for the House of Commons, provided what is arrived at sits satisfactorily with our key principles that voting systems should be both preferential and proportional.
So it looks like we had a little wobble. Still, glad we snapped out of it!
Sorry – coming in late to this comment thread…was there some kind of meeting with Nick? Is that what all the excitement is about?
Or is there something else happening?
We started with a blogger’s interview, but how now veered right off into whether MPs should write books and how STV works. I wouldn’t call it exciting myself! Why not tune in to Radio 3 for the Chopin weekend? Ballade #4 on at present.
“I’m still a bit concerned about the potential for internal party strife though.”
Laurence, please can you remind us what the Cleggster’s reaction was when you said you quite liked David Cameron…
he didn’t perchance intimate that you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the shiny PR bait?
Well I suppose he did sort of intimate that. But I think Cameron is part genuine, and part PR – as, let’s face it, all politicians need to be. And before we accuse Cameron of being ultra conservative, we have to face up to the fact that six of our own MPs voted against the HFE Bill on Monday. Cameron of course was in the aye lobby.
What do you mean “Cameron ‘of course’ was in the aye lobby” when the most vocal opponents of it sit directly behind him? Aren’t you ‘of course’ justifying his actions according to your own biases?
And that’s still no reason to wriggle – presentational values are fine and necessary in politics, whereas public relations are the antithesis of good politics as they are divorced from substance.
If Cameron is in the slighest bit genuine, then he is genuinely wrong.
And that is no qualification for leadership.
I know – that was the point of para 4. Cameron is a rebel in his own party. But he was “of course” in the aye lobby because he’s not an antediluvian fossil. You’ve got to be grateful for small mercies with the Conservatives.