Matthew Engel in today’s Financial Times has a pop at our current MPs, saying:
The House of Commons used to be filled with men of renown. Sir Christopher Wren was an MP. So was Sir Isaac Newton – and John Stuart Mill.
It’s an easy jibe to make – ‘MPs aren’t as good as they used to be’ – but his examples seem to me to be rather badly chosen. John Stuart Mill, I’ll grant you, was a man of renown and an admirable, hard-working MP who used Parliament to promote the causes he believed in.
But Isaac Newton? He barely contributed to Parliament and indeed the most common account of his Parliamentary work is that he only spoke the once – asking for a window to be closed.
And Christopher Wren? Although he was more active in Parliament, he hasn’t left behind evidence of any real achievements and his elections were dogged by controversy, with Parliament twice voting to unseat him in favour of defeated candidates.
I don’t think either of them would be getting plaudits if there were MPs now, and nor did they get plaudits for their performance as MPs at the time.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Andrew Hickey
Jennie
8 Comments
History once again being being distorted and cherry picked.
True, but isn’t the point that Matthew Engel makes is that people of renown actually WANTED to become MPs. Parliament was a place which attracted the very best and most acclaimed in any field – however they fulfilled their duties – and should be again.
Surely they are ‘people of renown’ because of how we view their achievments through the lens of history. At the time they wanted to become MPs because that was what gentlemen of their class did and it opened the way to more patronage oppertunities.
I think he’s making both points Nicholas, because he also writes “It has become a second-rate job attracting a great many second-rate people”.
In other words, he’s not just saying that the absence of such people is a sign of Parliament’s reputation but he’s also saying that Parliament would be better with such people in it. It’s the latter than I disagree with.
Indeed, you could make a similar point about the House of Lords where the high profile achievers outside politics often don’t make for the most effective and hard working peers, but instead turn up very rarely and contribute even less often.
Mark, I don’t disagree with him, I’ve made the same point myself on a few occasions, in relation to the abolishing of multi-member constituencies.
Besides which, what evidence do we actually have for what Newton acheived as an MP? He served for one term, went on to do something else, then was sent back again several years later, the electors of Cambridge University obviously felt he was good for something.
There was no Hansard to record speeches diligently, and regardless, a large number of the decent MPs we have today spend their time lobbying, researching and similar—a good speech might mark a good politician, but a lack of such a speech does not mark a bad one.
You know as well as I that the role of a Member has changed over the centuries, I know from my studies of Exeter history that the city sent MPs to represent its interests in the house, at court and in other areas; discussions outside the chamber are just as important, if not moreso, than a contribution to debate.
Newton was elected to probably the most important Parliament in the history of England. Mill was the first MP to propose equal suffrage rights for women, Ricardo played a key role in the anti-corn law campaigning after his work as an economist showed the damage they were doing.
There’s a role to be played in the legislature for experts and distinguished individuals from outside politics, and our current system of elections rewards career politicians over a more diverse chamber.
We have had a rise in career politicians, individuals undistinguished outside the House whose only real experience is within politics. I think there’s a definite role for some, indeed many, MPs to be of this nature, but currently pretty much all of them are.
That, to me, is a failing of the 1947/8 reforms and the complete abolition of multi-member seats, and to observe that the great names of the past who also served their constituencies as MPs don’t seem to be there any more is a good observation to make if you’re involved in campaigning to reform the mess that the HoC has become.
Mill is a problematic example as his greatest contributions to public life were probably extra-parliamentary. And he was unceremoniously ousted by his electors for taking the anti-racist side in the Eyre controversy. A handy reminder principled people sometimes lose elections for taking the right stance. 😉
Sadly it’s not online, but Mr Engel got involved in a bit of a row with one of our local papers this week, over comments about a particular town in a travel book he’s written.
He said this town was “third on [his] list of Britain’s vilest towns” (seizing in brackets the chance to run down two others), explaining:
“The hotel was dire, the staff surly and ugly, and the breakfast inedible. Through the long May evening, the streets were full of pre-adolescent children, feral yet obese.”
All the now traditional local outrage has been expressed, but I am struck less by unkindness or inaccuracy (there is a lot of the former and presumably at least some of the latter) than by the sheer laziness of writing such things…presumably while having some kind of travel-authorish tantrum. Laziness seems to be an emerging theme.
Responding to being challenged on the town comments he seems to get more feeble by the minute:
“I might have been unlucky that weekend…It can depend an awful lot on the circumstances…I suppose I’m one of these people who get cross and say what they think.” (save only that he doesn’t seem to have said anything at the time, just published most of a year later. Probably rightly, even if dishonestly, he claims to be unable to remember where he stayed.)
He then excuses all this by adding that as a nation, “we don’t complain enough”. Is he serious?
Mat: all the stuff I’ve read by people who are experts on Newton and his life has taken the same line – namely that he did and achieved very little whilst in Parliament.
You’re right that official Parliamentary records were scanty at the time, but an MP’s impact (or lack of) can also be judged by other evidence, such as the publications of the time and their own papers and records.
I think his return to Parliament was more to do with patronage being exercised to get him elected rather than voters welcoming him on his personal merits by the way.
I agree we shouldn’t only judge him by the standards of our time, but also by the standards of his own time – and by those he was by no means a shining example.
Mill and Ricardo are much better examples for the point you make. Mine though is that we shouldn’t simply venerate those with an outside career; they often don’t make for good MPs (or indeed, as we can see currently, good peers).