Monday 14 December 2009

A Manifesto for a New Politics

(Warning: long discursive post. Go and get a cup of tea)

In the short term, the principal political objective for this country must be to remove Gordon Brown and New Labour from power. When the house is burning, the first step is to get rid of the arsonist. Nothing in this post is intended to suggest otherwise, or to detract from the efforts to secure this end.

However, starting from the premise that the repute in which this country's politics is held has declined hugely over the last decade or so, there is clearly much that needs to be done in addition to sorting out the financial hole in which we find ourselves. This post is an attempt to look at this, and (perhaps somewhat precociously) suggest a way forward.

The first task is to stop the development of politics as a profession. That one single development is responsible for most of the decline in our system. I recall distinctly the students at my university who saw a life in politics as their only ambition; they wanted to become an MP's researcher on graduation so that they could start their climb up the greasy pole, in the hope of reaching the point where they were in charge of a wide range of things - things of which they would have gained no experience or knowledge. I also recall the general intellectual quality of those students; it was not high.

The first phase, therefore, is to convert politics from a career done for personal benefit into a voluntary sabbatical done for the benefit of others. In six steps:
  1. The simplest way to stop politics being a career is to sack any career politicians. The easiest way of doing that is to impose term limits; I would suggest a maximum of two Parliaments, although a specific number of years may be a fairer method. The usual criticism of this is that it weeds out the experienced politicians, but my other proposals (below) will deal with that. I would envisage that the PM would be the only exception.*

  2. To get rid of career politicians, require a mandatory open selection process for every party in every constituency for every election. There will always be safe seats, but they should be safe for the party that holds them, not the incumbent MP. Every MP must know that, come the next election, they will have to justify their continued tenure of their seat.

  3. Each MP's salary should be their income prior to being elected. I have suggested this before, to a mixed response. Essentially, the argument is that if they could survive on it then, they can now. It re-inforces the argument that politics should become a temporary period of your life when you leave your previous career and devote yourself to the country instead. It should be neither a well-paid profitable move, nor such an expense that it is ruled out for any.

  4. Candidates for party selection must not have been MPs before, to prevent the term limits from being side-stepped.

  5. Candidates must have lived in their constituency since the previous election. An MP is a local representative and should know the locality.

  6. MP's expenses should be limited to HMRC-allowable expenses only. Those rules apply to us, and are indeed imposed on us by MPs. If there is a problem with those rules, MPs should change them for all of us. In the same vein, just like the rest of us, the taxpayer should retain ownership of any tangible item that is expensed, be it a duck house or a second home.

These measures should change the nature of an incoming Parliament. It should move politics away from people who see politics as a means for self-advancement, and towards those willing to give up maybe 10 years of the life to the common good.

It then remains to change the way in which that Parliament operates. This requires several adjustments, which are probably just the start. I (personally) do not have the necessary knowledge or experience to go further, but these are the start.
  1. The Lords should remain, but as an amending chamber only, its purpose being to offer expert scrutiny on any subject. Hereditary peers are an embarassment and should not be able to sit. To provide the chamber with the necessary experience, the heads of the various professions should be nominated to sit for a term. To avoid conflicts of interests, they should perhaps gain their seat after they have retired from active work in their profession. The Lords Spiritual and Legal are there to offer expert guidance; in the modern world it is right that they should be supplemented with Lords expert in the worlds of business, commerce, plumbing, building, HR, medicine, forestry, and so on (and maybe even intellectual property). Members of the Lords would be expected to attend, on the same pay & rations as the Commons.

  2. There should be no Ministers in the Lords; their primary task is to scrutinise and criticise government bills. If they need the Minister to attend to explain why the bill is needed, they should summon him/her to give evidence in committee.

  3. PMQs should be twice weekly, and for a hour. Half an hour is not long enough to develop any reasonable discussion. Questions must be answered, if possible, with the session being extended by the Speaker if the PM prevaricates. The only acceptable definition of "impossible" should be if the PM admits there and then that he doesn't know the answer and needs to look it up.

  4. Ministers need not be MPs; anyone selected by the PM who has the necessary experience can be appointed by the PM. It is, after all, his or her job to form a government. Having entrusted that task to the PM, we should grant the PM the freedom to select the people that the PM thinks will do the best job. The pool should not be arbitrarily limited to whoever happens to have been selected for a sufficiently safe seat; we should have the best candidates for the job. To provide scrutiny, incoming Ministers must be presented to Parliament and ratified within a set period after their apointment.

Then, there are a number of major issues that have been shamefully ignored as a result of the staleness of our political system:

  1. There should be an in/out referendum on the EU. The issue is a running sore in UK politics, because it is never addressed. It is long time that it was put to bed; debate it, ask the people, and then live with their answer.

  2. Given the rate at which the EU's policy changes and progresses, there should be a periodic renewal of an "in" vote - say every 10 or 20 years. The aim here is to place a check on the EU's ambitions and on the willingness of UK Ministers to negotiate away things that we regard as important. The message should be simple; engage with the EU, but do not go too far as the people will be getting a chance to vote on it.

  3. Tariffs shold be set at zero for any country that offers reciprocity to us. This would allow us to trade on equal terms with the third world. At the moment, for some of the goods that the third world are able to produce, they have to pay higher EU import tariffs than do US exporters. This is, quite simply, insane. We should take a lead, and say that if any country is willing to drop all import tariffs on all UK goods, then we will do the same for their goods. This is, I realise, inconsistent with EU rules; that is what lawyers are for, though.

  4. In return, there should be no more foreign aid. If such aid was ever going to work, it would have by now. It hasn't. They're still poor. Trade with them instead.

  5. Benefits should be a safety net. They are essential for that purpose. They should provide the minimum necessary on which to survive and look for work. If they have reached the point where they equal or exceed the (market-determined) salary achievable in employment, then they are too high. Harsh, but true.

  6. Instead of paying people to stay at home on benefits, we should encourage employment by lightening employment regulation. This needs a counterbalance, which should be in the form of more widespread union membership. We should encourage the establishment of new unions, one for each employer if necessary. Government could, for example, provide funding for the establishment costs of any new union in the first 'x' years, for any group of employees who wished to set one up. The TUC should be required to allow all the new unions in, on equal terms.

  7. And finally, implement "The Plan" in full.
This is not intended to be a manifesto of the Right or of the Left. It is an approach inspired by the mantra "what matters is what works", which came from someone who is definitely not on my Christmas Card list. It is, as we were told 12 years ago, time to drop the false dogma of right and left, and recognise that there are many other, more accurate, scales - libertarian/authoritarian, freedom/statist, and so on.

I should also add that I have little confidence that Cameron will do any of this, necessary as it is. Nor do I seriously believe that any Westminster party will do it. The only way that I think some of these reforms could happen is by way of an entirely new party, composed of candidates new to politics; a Democratic Reform Party (or the like).

At the moment, Cameron is the best chance of ousting Brown and therefore nothing should be done which imperils this. However, if he does not, if Cameron fails, then it will be time to think about alternatives. It will be time to give up on the Conservative Party and establish something new. Those who are interested in being ready to help build such a party if Labour do not lose convincingly, let me know.

(*Update: Items 1 & 4 of the "Career Politicians" list amended in the light of persuasive comments below. Item 2 edited to take account of this)

27 comments:

  1. Patently,

    You could have built a picket fence out of this post. Most of these proposals are not beyond the pale either. I hope you do stake out a claim to initiating a Democratic Reform Party (or the like).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm very disappointed with your post, Patently. It's Monday, and I like a good argument on Monday evening - but, sadly, I'm not going to get one here, because I can't find anything in your post that I disagree with. Nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Largely agree with a lot of this. My tory membership, £25 a year and vote is probably going to UKIP as soon as Brown is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1684 words! Very impressive. I'm basically in agreement, though would want to quibble over a few points.

    Regarding the development of professionalisation of politics, this has been one of the more unhealthy trends of the past generation, and the fact that politics has increasingly been run for the benefit of politicians concerns me. The LPUK is also concerned with the growth of the political class, though with a slightly different emphasis.

    However, I have doubts about point 2 (I think that a fairer and more workable approach is to introduce multi-member STV to parliamentary elections), 3 (interesting, but I'm not convinced), and 5 (It's nice to have local candidates, but making it mandatory would be, IMHO, another unnecessary bit of legislation.)

    Regarding your proposed changes to the way Parliament operates, I don't have a problem with any of them, but don't think they would be a big help.

    Regarding the major issues that have been ignored, I agree with them all, except the idea of government (you mean the tax-payer?) providing funding for new unions.

    By the way, on point 3, you write "This is, I realise, inconsistent with EU rules; that is what lawyers are for, though." I think you should have written "that is what referenda are for, though." Or perhaps even "but we all knew that belief in free trade was inconsistent with support for EU membership."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I prefer the idea of leaving the arsonist IN the burning house. It teaches him a lesson and prevents repeat offences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would suggest a maximum of two Parliaments [for MPs], although a specific number of years may be a fairer method.

    That would mean Churchill would have been out of parliament before WWI let alone WWII. I cannot see the sense of this, and I am un clear how you address this problem. I can think of an Austrian Corporal who would have benefitted though.

    It is an approach inspired by the mantra "what matters is what works."

    What does "works" mean? and for whom is it to work? I wonder if this would just slip into an even greater dogmaticism.

    I can't remember the contents of "The Plan" Does it involve curbing the enormous powers of the PM and the possibility of his being unelected?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Measured, Julia, Pam, Steven & YMB for the comments. I wouldn't expect everyone to support every idea wholeheartedly, but did hope that most of it would be seen as generally sensible!

    FT - I agree, there would be justice in leaving the arsonist to face the consequences of his actions. The problem is, it's our house not his, and we need it!

    Albert:

    Yes, I may be proposing something that would have excluded WSC from Parliament. You'll note, though, that I would not exclude him from Government, which is where he did most of his good work.

    Take care with the Austrian corporal. It's a bit early for Godwin's Law to take effect.

    Your concern about what "works" means (and for whom) is reasonable but misplaced, I think.

    As regards the Plan, yes. It does.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Take care with the Austrian corporal. It's a bit early for Godwin's Law to take effect.

    Here that's just a rhetorical tool to shut down my argument without addressing it. It isn't too early for Godwin's Law to take effect, because some of Churchill's most important work was done in the 30s when he was out of Government, but able to make his voice heard because he was still an MP. Without that arrangement, Britain would have been even less well prepared both militarily and morally.

    Moreover, without WSC's efforts in the 30s shaping opinion that Hitler needed confronting, perhaps we wouldn't have declared war in 1939. Most importantly, it is particularly hard to see how WSC could have become PM in May 1940 had he not prepared all the ground already in Parliament in the 30s.

    It seems rather a high price to pay just to avoid career politicians (of whom Churchill - the longest serving MP in British history - was surely one).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your concern about what "works" means (and for whom) is reasonable but misplaced, I think.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Albert, the post sets out 16 ideas to address the current abysmal state of our politics, and also recommends that all of Carswell/Hannan's ideas be put in place. Of that range of ideas, you have singled out one.

    In respect of that one idea, you raise a single counter-example from over 60 years ago. Then, making the assumption that no other changes whatsoever would be made to the political system, you point out that the idea would, with hindsight, have been a bad idea.

    So I think I'm justified in invoking Godwin's law when, to ram the point home, you point out that my idea means that Hitler would have won the war (i.e. ...and we would now be ruled by Nazis!!!11!!eleventyone!!)

    Anyway, to deal with your point, yes WSC would probably not have been an MP during that crucial period of our history had we had term limits. However, pretty well everything about our politics was different then, so I'm not actually that worried. It's (quite simply) not a comparable example.

    As for WSC needing his position as an MP to make his voice heard, that is irrelevant. He certainly used his position as an MP in that way, and he may well have needed that position in the 1930s, but we cannot conclude that he would need such a position today in order to do so. There are many, many other ways of speaking out today that were non-existent 80 years ago.

    Equally, you assume that I am proposing that he should have been removed entirely from public life. Not so - he could have been a Lord, or a Minister. Transposed to today, he could be a journalist, a blogger, or a writer.

    You also assume that no-one else would or could have stepped up to the plate and taken his place. No, I can't (obviously) name an alternative candidate - but can you be 100% certain that no-one held back knowing that WSC was there? Can you be certain that in today's climate of social mobility we would not be better placed to allow someone to rise to the top instead of WSC?

    Can you state with certainty that, under today's social conditions, we could not find someone who might have done better? Sacrilege, I know (to question WSC), but whilst acknowledging WSC's greatness, we cannot know that there was no-one held back by 1930s society who might, for example, have been better able rise to the premiership before the war and stop it happening at all.

    For all those reasons, I really can't feel persuaded that the example of WSC is a relevant one for today's politics. Yes, we needed him then. Yes, it could have been disastrous had we not had him. But I'm not proposing what you fear, and we can't make the assumption that (even if I was) the consequences you warn of would follow given all the other changes since then.

    Meanwhile, we have a huge chunk of MPs who clearly regard their seat in Parliament and its associated expenses claim form as something to which they are entitled. They are using us to line their pockets and fund their lifestyle. All that has been sugegsted is, effectively, tinkering around the edges. What they need is a good (metaphorical) slap around the face to bring them back to reality, to remind them who they are meant to be working for. No-one else (that I have seen) is making solid suggestions as to how this should be done. It is about time that they were.

    That said, I'm not especially attached to a 2 term/10 year limit. If there was an argument for a different pattern then I could go for that. We could even set a one term limit (!), but allow people to stand again!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your concern about what "works" means (and for whom) is reasonable but misplaced, I think.

    Why?


    If I suggested building a new house on yonder meadow, if I explained why that would be a far better location than our current address, if I then sat down and drew an impression of how such a house might look, and if you looked at the picture and replied:

    "Don't like it. Don't like the colour of the windows."

    then I would feel the same way.

    Yes, your question (i.e., what "works" means, and for whom) is one that needs to be addressed. But not now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. XX Patently said;

    There are many, many other ways of speaking out today that were non-existent 80 years ago.XX

    BUT, does anyone capable of DOING anything about it listen?

    ESPECIALLY when "doing something about it" could end any ideas they had about "a job for life".

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course, I have only picked one item - do you seriously expect me to reply to every point?! I don't like the idea that Minister might not be challengable in either house for example. I've challenged point 3 before as well. I think the combination of your second item 3 & 4 is naive, indeed part of 4 is probably contradicted by 3 (you can hardly expect foreign aid to have worked by now, if you've just pointed out the trade restrictions preventing it from working).

    I picked the point that seemed to me to reveal the lack of proportion in what you propose. Being so keen to get rid of what is bad you throw out what is good.

    My point is surely a fair one. It is wrong that there are career politicians who think they are entitled to sit there for life without doing anything of value. But I have no difficulty with a good and experienced politician representing his/her people for as as long as the electorate returns them.

    If people don't like their sitting politician they can elect someone else. If they like them, they cannot, on your scheme, re-elect them - at your suggestion, the long hand of the state will have prevented them. It is a sledgehammer to a nut.

    Yes, I have used only one example -WSC- because it is a particularly fine example. What you are missing I think is the parliamentary filtering process by which good leaders slowly but surely emerge and learn their skills in the process. Name any great leader from our modern history, and I am sure you will see the same problem likely to emerge as I said about WSC.

    Their voices are heard because they have been elected, not just because for some random reason their comments are widely read on the internet.

    Moreover, you are missing that much good work of MPs is not directly to do with government, but on a whole range of other fields, in which they build up contacts and experience. Why rule prior to a vote that they should not continue their job. It is undemocratic isn't it?

    As for your remarks about what works, you make it sound as if what "works" is simply peripheral - like the windows on a house. Surely, what "works" is the very heart of your proposal - it is the measure of what is good or bad. It is already implicit in the proposals, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to state it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. you point out that my idea means that Hitler would have won the war (i.e. ...and we would now be ruled by Nazis!!!11!!eleventyone!!)

    Where did I say that?!

    Equally, you assume that I am proposing that he [WSC] should have been removed entirely from public life. Not so - he could have been a Lord, or a Minister.

    No he couldn't. He fell out of favour with the PM and was governmentally a nobody. You shift the burden of proof onto me time and again to show that it wouldn't have been possible for X or Y on your system. No, the burden of proof rests on you. The present system, of allowing MPs to sit for as long as the voters return them, gave us Churchill when we needed him. If you want to change that system, you need to show that your system would definitely not have excluded Churchill and would not exclude a Churchill in the future.

    What you propose is an extraordinary enormity, just to stop people from democratically electing the people they want again and again(mad though they may be).

    ReplyDelete
  15. BUT, does anyone capable of DOING anything about it listen?

    No, they don't, because they don't need to. That's what I'm trying to change.

    If they like them, they cannot, on your scheme, re-elect them - at your suggestion, the long hand of the state will have prevented them.

    In that one sentence, I admit you have persuaded me that term limits are not a good idea. But:

    If people don't like their sitting politician they can elect someone else.

    ...is very difficult at the moment if you disagree with the politician but agree with the general policy of their party. That needs to change, which is why I think mandatory open selection processes are essential.

    Your other points are not persuasive, but are (in any case) now moot. (And I need to go home now!)

    Where did I say that?!

    Here:

    "I can think of an Austrian Corporal who would have benefitted though."

    ReplyDelete
  16. In that one sentence, I admit you have persuaded me that term limits are not a good idea.

    Good - I chose my words carefully!

    ...is very difficult at the moment if you disagree with the politician but agree with the general policy of their party. That needs to change, which is why I think mandatory open selection processes are essential.

    Agreed (don't assume I didn't agree with anything in your post, but you'd been flattered enough already, so I didn't think I needed to bother).

    "I can think of an Austrian Corporal who would have benefitted though."

    You cannot deduce from that remark, your sentence:

    you point out that my idea means that Hitler would have won the war (i.e. ...and we would now be ruled by Nazis!!!11!!eleventyone!!)

    Hitler benefitted from a lot of things (fog during the opening days of the Battle of the Bulge for instance, or the fact that almost no-one but WSC and Eugenio Pacelli recognised from the start that Hitler was evil) but he still didn't win the war.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "In that one sentence, I admit you have persuaded me that term limits are not a good idea."

    And in that one sentence, you sir, have removed the most decisive weapon in your arsenal against career politicians.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Albert - that was my interpretation of your reference to him "benefiting".

    YMB - yes, I have. Its very decisiveness is why I included it in the first place. But Albert persuaded me that it is too effective. If I believe that the electorate should have a means of ousting an MP they dislike, then it applies with equal force that they should be able to retain an MP that they actually like.

    Other weapons remain present, in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. you'd been flattered enough already

    Not true, Albert. It is, in fact, impossible to flatter me too much. That much is beyond debate: the science is truly settled on that issue.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. In that case, my earlier comments notwithstanding, I congratulate you on many excellent points. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. What a fine set of proposals.

    Not having read The Project - so these may be sought already - other things that would help destroy the current professional politician mould are: a written constitution - modelled on the Swiss constitution with binding referendums that can be raised by popular vote.
    A constitutional court.
    The transfer of Crown prerogative to the Commons in at least the making of treaties, the declaring of war, and the dissolution of a parliament.
    Only political parties with open, pluralist, democratic structures may present party candidates for election to parliament.
    Voters to cast their vote in person. No exceptions.
    The head of state to be directly elected at the next occasion, cf written constitution, powers of the head of state. Replacement of the Lords with a directly elected senate, cf written constitution powers of a revising chamber.
    Restructuring of the federal relations within the UK.

    Oooooh, this could go on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks, HG. Yes, many of those are in The Plan.

    Oooooh, this could go on and on.

    I wish it would. We need a good hard look at our system of politics, but (crucially) it needs to be done by non-politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks, HG. Yes, many of those are in The Plan.

    What about this one?:

    The head of state to be directly elected

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't think that one is. no (although my copy is not to hand...)

    It has its merits as an idea, although it does rather provoke my conservative (small "c") tendency. I'd (personally) put it on the "Non-urgent, consider when time permits" pile.

    ReplyDelete
  25. put it on the "Non-urgent, consider when time permits" pile.

    Sounds a bit lacking in loyalty to HMQ to me. But there's an interesting point that you make here: for all that we are suffocating in endless, not to say, mindless, equality legislation (which discriminates against anyone who doesn't subscribe to this week's PC dogmatic fetish) it is surprising that there isn't more urgency in the debate about the monarchy. What could possibly be more unequal than an unelected, hereditary head of state (apart from an unelected PM who has the real power, of course)?

    So why isn't there more urgency in the debate? Presumably, most people have the good sense to realise that they don't want yet another politician put over them, and that they don't want ex-PMs like Tony and Gordon toadying around the office of head of state until they die.

    If monarchy is what it takes to prevent such evils, then I am happy to say "God save Queen Elizabeth" (or for that matter King Francis II(aka Franz, Duke Bavaria).

    ReplyDelete
  26. What could possibly be more unequal than an unelected, hereditary head of state

    As you say, an unelected PM who has the real power is rather more unequal, and rather more serious!

    So why isn't there more urgency in the debate?

    I think you answered your own question. Can you imagine Gordon allowing the equality debate to head in that direction? As I pointed out before, such questions seem to be studiously avoided!

    ReplyDelete