Why do they deserve to vote on the system that produced them?

News reaches me that Labour are to try and bring in an AV system

Good, I guess, but my first reaction was - what right do a party elected by this severely flawed system, led by an unelected and unwanted prime minister, who will almost all be thrown out in three months time, have to decide our electoral system, which they have gerrymandered no end?

Meanwhile the opposition are totally against it because...well, they like winning

and Labour are only doing it t paint said opposition as anti-reform


I despair

(in fairness anything Brown tries to introduce makes me wince - because I cannot recognise him as our leader, because he's not, we were never asked)

A Rotten Speaker?

The Mail report that speaker Bercow wants to create a new 'seat' for the speaker that would only have MPs as its constituents

A barmy idea, yes, and the Mail's implication about this existing at the next election is complete nonsense, but it opens up the debate

Bercow has brought this up solely because he faces a real, if slight, threat from UKIP at the next election, but this really should go beyond this

The real crux of the issue is that a constituency goes unrepresented for several years - that's 70,000 people (Buckingham) without an MP

Bercow may say

‘It is both possible and necessary for the Speaker to continue to be a highly active constituency MP. '

But he's talking nonsense - while they can act as an MP and talk to constituents, they do not vote, table motions, debate etc etc - those constituents are disenfranchised, even if they can go and whinge to their MP...who can't vote

And of course, they get no choice in the matter - for some reason you aren't supposed to oppose a speaker, so a constituency gets lumbered with an MP (who remember, can be a "highly active constituency MP") who they have no say over, and the poor people of Buckingham lost their MP this year without even a say

Isn't that a tad paradoxical? A neutral, uninvolved person in the commons, who is also an elected MP who can deal with constituents, but isn't opposed...

Of course, this situation is helped by the use of safe seats, but as safe seats are already an insult to democracy as it is, I don't feel this improves the situation, just makes it tolerable

So yes, we should look at changing the situation, but not to protect your own arse, Mr. Bercow, but to give 70,000 people a member of Parliament who can actually talk and vote

I refer you to this uttering:

If the tradition [of unopposed speakers] ended, said Mr Bercow, it could be hard for any Speaker to survive for more than one parliamentary term.

and the problem is? Why exactly should we return the speaker at an election? If every Parliament is sovereign then surely they should pick their own speaker each session - this is particularly obvious now as we are facing an election that will see over a hundred current MPs resign, let alone be booted out by the electorate, there will probably be several hundred brand new MPs chosen within the next 6 months, and they have to put up with the decision a disgraced Parliament made less than a year before why exactly?

Anne Widdecombe had it right - the speaker should be going with the rest of them, a clean break - I don't see why this shouldn't be repeated at every election, in all likelihood the speaker will be returned easily - if they aren't, then the public have spoken - they have a right to kick out their own MP, and indeed pass judgement on the speaker, who is a well known figure nowadays

Of course, perhaps one little constituency shouldn't decide the fate of the speaker for the whole house, so he should be removed from the election process all together

That's where Bercow's idea of a special constituency for MPs comes in - except I see a slight logistical problem with that - if only MPs are eligible does that mean they have to be elected as an MP, and then elected as Speaker, and then trigger a by-election immediately after the GE? And when do they vote? Can't be during the general election as there are no MPs after a dissolution, you can't give special precedence to them if they aren't technically MPs, and then what happens when the speaker seeks re-election? He wouldn't be an MP, so he would have no legitimacy over 'normal' people, and would only be a former MP/speaker - giving any former MP legitimacy in the election

The idea is a complete muddle

However, he's got the jist of it right - it's just the bit where he wants to gerrymander the situation so he can keep the job for a decade that's off - all you need to do is create a ceremonial office that allows the holder to speak in the house, the house elects an MP to the role, there's a by-election for the seat, then at the new session MPs vote to keep the chair, if not he's out, then they elect a new one

This is very similar to Bercow's idea - but without the rotten borough and technical flaws and with a bit more fairness

All Parliaments should get the chance to choose their own speaker - the time when it was honourable, non-partisan position for chairing debates is over, as the past two selections have shown, there's no reason to tie down a future Parliament with the petty, childish decision of a former Parliament, that's a fundamental basic of Parliamentary sovereignty

Do you decide on your own salary?

Sir Stuart Bell and his ilk are convinced they should have a vote on cuts to their salary and expenses, if the reforms outlined in the Kelly report, are 'too draconian'

This is a very simple, and pertinent, point: why exactly should the MPs set their own salary, expenses and resettlement package?

They are not self-employed...

Edit: 'Decide on'? Fail...

Riot, please, just riot!

I can't take this any more, I was going to write about the Youth Parliament last week, but I've seen Hattie's latest comments and entered a world of despair

But Miss Harman yesterday suggested that the report could be shelved if it goes too far.
She said a final decision would rest with the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), whose members will be vetted by MPs before being appointed.
Miss Harman said Ipsa will have to be sure that MPs ‘can both be in their constituency as well as in Westminster’.
She added: ‘No one wants to get back to a situation where MPs were sent to Westminster and then they said to their constituents “see you again in five years”.

I wasn't aware that had changed...

MPs are furious at the prospect of having to sell their second homes and move into rented accommodation. Some warn it will make it impossible for all but the wealthiest MPs to have their families with them in London.

Really? Have these people never rented before? You can rent whole houses you know

The Prime Minister is expected to tell him that the new expenses system must not be so harsh that politics ‘becomes the preserve of the independently wealthy and that ordinary people with families must always be able to become MPs’.

Gold star for Gordon, that's the original reason for introducing MP salaries over a century ago - I'd love to know how 65k plus fiddled expenses is anywhere near what 'ordinary people' support their families with

What exactly would the preserve of the wealthy be? You can still own a house, funded by your big salary, then rent a second house for work on expenses (I really don't get their issue with renting - they do realise they won't have to pay for it, right?), claim travel expenses that few commuters would get, and an office for work - what's the problem? What is so disabling in that scenario - I'd do it, and so would a lot of ordinary people I know - do I need to break out the graph that shows where ordinary people are and where MPs are (top 9%), and the list of Labour MPs who are millionaires or professional politicians?

These people really are just living in a bubble

...pop it

Finally found an argument to give 16yos the vote

Some prudish bastards MPs want to cover up so-called lad's mags because they might harm young children (because nudity, or rather non-nudity, is so harmful)

Now, I have no idea what the scientific reasoning for this is - maybe they cause schizophrenia in the under-12s or something, but let's face it, these things are aimed at teenagers - also known as 'children'

Why can the politicians get away with such an attack? The answer is simple - because the people it affects cannot vote - do you see them going near Knitting weekly? No, because as we all know, little old ladies are required for election purposes, but when it comes to teenagers they can do whatever they want to these poor scapegoats

So, while I couldn't find a real reason to give them a vote a few months ago, I have now found the issue - as they are being denied their right to access pictures of women in revealing attire and must no longer be denied political representation

Tarquin solves yet another of the day's throbbing political issues

Discrimination is discrimination

David Cameron is ready to use that Labour favourite - the all-women shortlist, to get more ladies in Parliament

Allison Pearson, like most people from the middle through to the right, says she is totally against giving women a leg-up, it's patronising

Quite right, Allison, it is - so why do you support it?

She says it's because the Tories, despite having the second biggest party and nearly a third of the seats, have only 19 female MPs (and one is Ann Widdecombe...) - out of the total 125 females - only 15% of the entire female collective, and only 9% of their own seats

The Lib Dems are marginally better, with nine out of their 63, but it's barely any better - Labour of course, have 94 female MPs, so they win!

Clearly with this dire situation, something must be done, and for now all-women shortlists solve the problem, in Allison's view

In other words she's happy to go against her own judgement because the situation is so bad and we really need some women in there

So say we get 300+ women in there - great, women are represented!

Except, why should they have my respect? They would be there as a result of a 'leg-up' as she describes it, simply because some people feel that Parliament should be numerically representative of society, it's almost like 'picking' our MPs (which, I admit, is hardly worse than at present)

I could understand that logic if we were a draconian nation where our women were oppressed, but I'm fairly sure they're not anymore - they are in fact, given every advantage and are increasingly dominating the best jobs - even if they don't run the banks, Hattie

Where are the hordes of women demanding a fair go, saying that they get no representation? I've never actually met one, those most keen on it, ironically, seem to the ones who are already elected - but apparently the silent majority of women sit at home, just wishing there were more of them to speak up for them

Because, the truth is, women can get elected, in the same way that they can get onto boards and run businesses - only most don't - now there are two likely explanations for this - either society is inherently sexist and keeps women out, or less women are actually interested

Now considering that every single party has been mad keen on women MPs for over a decade it seems a rather strange piece of reasoning for it to be the former, maybe the party say one thing but then in private say 'look, I know we said we wanted you, but you really don't have the balls for this and we'll be putting forward my old Oxford chum, Percy, forward instead'

So either this is happening in the old boys' clubs, or just women are really turned off by politics - perhaps that is bad in itself, and should be addressed - but that, in my view, then assumes that women are somehow a homogenous, special-interest group that need their collective needs pushed - it basically says that somehow Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith and Ann Widdecombe are representatives of all women (rather than their electorate) - yet, I don't think I've ever met a man who think David Cameron or Alan Johnson or Vince Cable, 'represents' them as a male, nor have I ever heard them talk about men's interests - they seem to like political debate, economics, the law, and so should all MPs even if they 'have boobs'

Do we assume that all women voters vote for women and are drowned out by the gerrymandered constituencies, of which they always represent half? It's not like there is an actual party out there that gets over six million votes and only a tenth of the seats or anything, women are far more disenfranchised

Why is it that women are a collective group, but men are individuals? The domination by middle aged white men does not mean that we men (or white men, or middle-aged men) are any better represented because we share a few physical traits, we are not Freemasons! Fact is, I have about as much chance of getting into these elite clubs as a goldfish does, despite being a white male - so why exactly does replacing a few male members with ones with ovaries balance anything? We are basically saying that 'this half of Parliament represents women', when no one would ever say the men in there represent males, I would find it quite offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous

And of course, the irony is that if indeed less women are interested in politics, then promoting them by positive discrimination is not only patronising and unfair, it is actually making Parliament less representative, as the bulk of the candidates (men) are being denied a voice

So if we wish to say that it is somehow right that 50% of the electorate are proportionally represented, then surely the fairest way to do this would be to make men and women vote in separate elections for their own genders - it seems to me the only way to fairly produce a parliament without second-class citizens, if we assume that it is a fair outcome in the first place

Or how about you stop voting for parties that are dominated by an elite that happens to be male, and support a party formed by real people?

(it'd probably still end up mostly male though)

I see you, Cameron

Cameron to axe MPs subsidised food and drink (and a load of other wastes of money)

Great, finally something we can agree with - the idea that somehow MPs should have taxpayer funded chips and beer is preposterous and they're bloody lucky they kept this sweet deal until now

So all in all a great vote winner for Cameron - attacks qangos, expenses, salaries all in one go

Good lad - one thing I will say about Cameron is, even though I think he's a truly shameless opportunist (that's a compliment btw) he is at least very in tune with the public (compared to his various bumbling 'grandees') - he's giving the people what they want, and in that regard he's already light years ahead of Brown

But there is still no substance - opportunism is all well and good to achieve your ends, but what are your ends? All I can see is power for the sake of it - there is no vision, no desire to reform anything major - Cameron has taken a few harmless populist measures - great, but where are the brave decisions? Where are the major cuts to public spending? Things that will actually hurt people and cause a backlash, these require bravery and commitment - there are no principles behind this, it's just a shameless vote-winner - Cameron has yet to show me that he has anything to offer

True, against Brown I'm happy we've got someone doing anything remotely sensible - but this isn't enough to warrant 4-5 years of government...at least Blair had plans

*Facepalm*

Here we go again...why do they do it?

These veteran Tories really do not understand how out of touch they are, Patrick Cormack wants MPs' pay to be doubled in exchange for scrapping expenses, meanwhile Hogg (he of the moat) wants a six-figure salary, and expenses

and they say the young feel entitled

These fools really do think they are worth it, their heads are so far up their own arses they can practically see daylight - what justification is there for this? They give the impression that they have always occupied a world where they have earned mega-bucks and really don't understand that all those who earn less than 64k are not the unemployed masses

Cormack thinks it needs to be as high as this to attract the professional and business classes - right...he thinks the professional and business classes only make up the top 5% of earners? What he is proposing is within the top 1% - that is only a normal wage for the top barrister and company director - the only sort of people worthy of being an MP in his eyes no doubt

On a factual note, both my parents are 'professional class' and neither earn 64k, and they live pretty comfortably, and as for my opinion - I don't believe in paying MPs exceptional amounts just so they won't cheat is right

I've gone on about this so many times, but the sheer arrogance of some of these people is extraordinary - we need a better, less-entitled type of politician, who happens to think £64k is a huge amount for doing what is probably less work than an average worker, we aren't going to get that by giving the political classes even more

Update: Guido says it better than me, as always

Speaker Dobbin?

I guess it's time for everyone to get the knives out...Bercow is the new speaker

I have no real interest in criticising him, merely how he was elected - in short this shows the utter contempt Labour have for the electorate and our democracy

Make no mistake, this was a plot by petty Labour MPs to place the most problematic person into the chair they could - it was childish

Why do I criticise their choice in a secret ballot so much? Because it is plain for all to see that Labour MPs were committed to returning the position to the Tories, presumably so they got some of the blame, but they then deliberately chose the one Tory who the Tories would hate

I doubt that only 3 or 4 Tories voted for him, as is widely reported, but it's probably not much more - this is quite simply a childish act by the Labour lot to piss off the blue camp, who will now have to live with him if the election goes as we all expect it too

Clearly they haven't learnt a thing...

The point is not that Bercow can't do the job, or that the Tories will be that fussed about it - it is quite simply that Labour did this purely as a stunt, and showed complete contempt for their elected positions when they chose to use something as noble as the position of Speaker to annoy the other side, it doesn't even serve a practical political purpose - there is no discernible benefit to them, they just seem to think it's funny

Insular, out-of-touch and careerist barely even do them justice anymore, this does nothing to restore the authority of Parliament and frankly the Labour MPs behind this deserve to be strung up, they do not understand, or care, about the state of our democracy

This truly is Caligula appointing his horse as consul

New poll: The Speaker

Well my poll is ridiculously old and I have been trying to think of something decent to ask, but I just haven't been able to - the best I came up with is 'what colour is Gordon Brown's underwear?'

So anyway, I believe the vote for the new speaker is a week away so I've asked about that

For what it's worth I favour Frank Field, Richard Shepherd, Alan Beith and Parmjit Dhanda (in no particular order)

My selections are based on the ones I feel are most likely to be helpful to reform, the others I view as too 'establishment' for the role

Naturally none of my choices have a chance - it seems Labour will scupper Frank Field for being too popular and independent minded reformers are hardly likely to be elected by the current load of traditionalists - Bercow seems to be the favourite and he wouldn't be the *worst* choice - personally I think he's better actually being allowed to have an opinion

There is also the 'Widdecombe Wildcard' - I wouldn't support her if it was up to me, independent she is, but impartial, never - but she is only standing to be an interim speaker, stepping down at the next election

Now that I can agree with, this clamour to restore the authority of Parliament would be best served by having a new Parliament electing a new speaker, rather than let a load of old duffers who are resigning for 'family reasons' choose - I mean, we are going to lose 100-or-so MPs at the election so why should we let them choose a speaker? Couple that with the obvious reality that there will probably be another few hundred casualties and quite a few new Tory MPs it makes sense for the speaker to be chosen then

Then of course there's the irony that none of us will have a say anyway - this time the election is seen as pretty important but we still leave it up to the selfish interests of the party politicians, which wouldn't normally be a problem considering we normally jut regard the speaker as a part of the furniture, but this time it feels like the public should be involved

Question

Seriously, Gordon keeps saying he's doing something, he's 'dealing with the problems' and is 'working to deal with expenses...and the recession'

All well and good - but what actually are you doing?? No legislative programme, MPs complaining there is nothing to do...the Tories have the impetus on expenses

So what is all this work? He keeps saying it, and no-one really challenges him on it, probably because he'll run off a list of banks he saved - but he does nark me off when we have such a shoddy legislative program and he says they're working hard and doing something - No, they're not!!

Reason #2674

Terry Waite says he might be an independent

One thing I picked up was that maybe the party system really does keep decent, fair-minded people out of the two main parties because they can't agree to the whipping system? I don't wish to tar everyone of them with the same brush but there are a lot of members who are just lobby fodder in it for the party job, and the big names are ambitious career politicians who place personal gain first - doesn't leave a lot of people with integrity...funny how most seem to be in the Lib Dems, who have no chance of gaining power

So you want the best candidates - stick to people who refuse to be told what to think, and you will only find that in independent candidates (and possibly the Lib Dems)

Beware the Status Quo

Another article for me to argue with

This time Dominic Lawson is saying the public are too hard on MPs, and that expressions of Rousseau-esque popular will can lead to fascism, see Hitler's speeches against the ineffective politicians of Weimar Germany for evidence

He also points out that celebrity independent politicians offer little - there is no guarantee they will be any better - after all 'power corrupts', right?

So what should we do? Sit back down and shut up? - Most of the broadsheets tend to advocate this approach: fix the expenses and tighten up the rules a little, then our MPs can get back to work as usual

Only 'usual' was never right - it's not surprising that political classes like Lawson (how could he be anything else?) want to maintain the status quo, because they're the ones who benefit

He is right that we can't expect an independent to be squeaky-clean, although history has shown the safer the seat, the more corrupt the politician - but he is missing the point (deliberately) that we need more voices in parliament - our debating chamber needs to be a debating chamber, an area in which ironically the Lords puts the Commons to shame

I have heard very few voices against independent MPs, and they are almost solely from the right or hard-left - they argue that it would be too hard to pass laws, parliament would be too argumentative and the MPs would eventually cut deals

This is code for: 'bills can't be rubber stamped by parliament' and this is a very good thing, at present we elect a solid majority based on a system that is heavily weighted towards the two main parties, that majority then have absolute power for 4-5 years, which in reality is in the hands of only a few people at the top, who aren't elected and represent the interests of their donors first and foremost

That majority do whatever they feel like, only fighting one battle every 4-5 years - that is not democracy, when the Tories and the Lib Dems oppose Labour there is nothing they can do - it makes you wonder why they are in the legislature at all

To properly represent the people the legislature needs to be effective - that is a fairly widely believed political truth, you can argue the finer points but its function is to check government - I think anyone would agree that it currently doesn't

However in this country we have a bizarre attachment to the idea of a 'strong government' - by which they mean handing absolute authority to the cabinet, and it has been like only since Churchill really - if you actually look at the 'golden age' of the British Empire, which Tories love, our parliament was much more flexible, with members crossing the floor willy-nilly and frequent minorities in power

We are of course fearful of becoming like Italy or Israel, with their weak politics - but we ignore the several countries (like Germany, New Zealand) that operate fine with a 'weaker' system - in truth stability probably comes from the population and somehow I think Britain is closer to German stability than Israeli instability

Of course in the old days politics relied on patronage more than the people, and you can hardly say politicians have ever been whiter than white - but that doesn't really matter, Parliament functioned better because it was working as it should (more or less), now it has been taken over by the professional party system - even though we have a more democratic and fair process, Parliament itself has become worse

I'm not sure if the article really refers to me, but I feel as though I am being attacked for supporting reform, which I have supported since I was a teenager - I am not baying for every politicians' blood or wanting protest votes - I simply want a fair Parliament, I don't want to have to put with a situation where the only way you can beat those who are caught cheating is to vote for a celebrity and where I have to have a government elected by default - it's wrong, and it's been wrong for a long time

The expenses saga is not really the issue - it has merely exposed the reality of politics and given people the best chance of actually changing the system, but people like Dominic Lawson try to twist the situation into saying the BNP will benefit and that oppression by the majority is worse than by the minority - true that, but that is just his opinion, and this is mine: I don't fear the BNP one jot, and all Dom wants to do is preserve the minority (ie. Labour and the Tories)

The irony of course is that independents weaken the power of the oppressors even more, but then we would be too weak - so we should just keep it the way it is - eh, Dom?

*I do agree that 'celebrity' independents are pointless, you are just swapping one elite for another, helping no real people
**Anyone who doesn't see the flaw in comparing the fledging German state that Hitler exploited to Britain should be shot - a very sensationalist bit of spin there

Money always attracts honest people

Another bloody one - more broadsheet journos calling for MPs to be paid more, this time it's Danny Finkelstein

I might have to start a link list

The flaws in Parliament

A brilliant and eloquent article by Daneil Finkelstein on what is wrong with Parliament

Add to that a deeply flawed electoral system and you really can see how bad our political system is

Stop, don't do it, it's a trick...you're all bloody sheep!!

Cameron has jumped on this quick, in what has been a reasonably well-received move, he has been decisive and apologetic

Brown has been trumped and looks like a lemon as he reacted with all the speed of a teenager in the morning, (but without the looks), this is, in my humble opinion, a big victory for Cameron

It's all about image, of course, and while Tory MPs are being dragged through the mud, 'Dave' has kept his nose mostly clean and looked far more authoritative than the old Golem

Maybe this will wash with the public, all the majority of Tory voters need is to not be too disgusted to vote Tory and they will waltz to power

And here in lies the problem - this is a con - us political types know exactly what is going on, as Nick Robinson rightly points out:

None of this, of course, will be enough to silence those who complain that politicians only said and agreed to change after being caught with their hands in the till.

Precisely, the Tories shouldn't be winning anything based on this - all the big parties should be losing

This is why I have no worries over Labour - this is just another nail in the coffin, a Labour member that's been caught out will be ousted, but unfortunately the Tories are mostly going to be let off the hook - unless they really get hung out and lose the whip it's unlikely typical Tory heartlands will rebel against their MPs in their desire to restore a Tory government and support Dave

So these people we think of as crooks will return, having paid back their loot, people who had pianos tuned, swimming pools cleaned and chandeliers...re-shinied...with public money, will come back to represent constituents once more

I don't support the 'plague on all your houses' line, but each MP must be scrutinised at an election - it isn't enough to allow that MP back because you want a Tory government - they will, on the whole, not be punished by their party, and they will certainly not face prosecution

The only trial they get is that one every four or five years, and people really don't take it seriously enough - it is one of the fundamental flaws within our democracy - where you, in reality, vote for a party and a leader, but elect an MP who you probably don't know the name of

I know I'm a shameless advocate of independents, but if you really need any proof take a look at Dan1979's post on Norman Tebbit telling people to vote for a minor party

Cameron is basically bullying him - admittedly it's hardly surprising within a party, they are what they are - but as you can see, having two major parties with such a stranglehold on our government is incredibly stifling to independent voices - and logically it should raise the question of why we have over 600 'representatives' when they have virtually no voice

One final thing, this clip of Lord Foulkes (now widely known as 'that fat wanker') attacking an admittedly over-paid, BBC newsreader on salaries

I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritty, it's all over the blogs - but I will say that he is fundamentally wrong, he claims the BBC and the media undermine democracy, not the 'hard-working' MPs - if he knew anything about politics he'd know about checks and balances, the media, as much as we love to hate them, are the only check we have left on those MPs

If it weren't for the likes of the BBC and the Telegraph who would've told us the truth? They have an agenda, sure - but it shows up those that are thieving bastards for the good of us all

How will I pay for my chef?

Bruce Anderson thinks some MPs cannot afford to live on their salary

Right...the upper classes really don't understand do they?