David Cameron will attempt today to show that he understands the strong 'anti-politician' sentiments within the electorate. In a submission to the Conservative Party's democracy taskforce, chaired by Ken Clarke, the Tory leader will make a number of recommendations:
- MPs' to lose the right to set their own pay to the senior salaries review body;
- A smaller number of MPs;
- A Civil Service Act to entrench the independence of Whitehall officials;
- Breaches of the ministerial code to be investigated independently and not by the Prime Minister.
According to The Guardian, Mr Cameron will say:
"There is a backlash against top-down, dictatorial government and a desire for greater openness, probity and accountability in the institutions that regulate and control our lives. Tony Blair's government has tarnished politics and eroded public confidence in our traditional institutions. We need to restore trust and tackle the public's underlying cynicism - that politicians put party before country and partisan spin before the truth. In short, society has changed. Politicians must change too."
Mr Cameron is also asking Mr Clarke to explore ideas to dilute the "Punch & Judy aspect" of Prime Minister's Question Time.
There is a backlash against top-down, dictatorial government...
Yet I don't see that Cameron's Conservatives really offer anything any different. The substance of the few policy ideas it has (e.g. "green" taxes, which direct lifestyle choices, or Willetts' pledge that ministers will be responsible for what happens in classrooms...) are as top-down as anything Labour comes up with.
Now we have a proposal for an additional quango. It's hardly trying to connect with people's concerns...
And as for this:
Breaches of the ministerial code to be investigated independently and not by the Prime Minister.
I'm all in favour of the powers to investigate breaches of this code remaining with the PM. If the PM is a person prone to whitewashing his colleague's misdemeanors, then what better way to let him show his lack of integrity to the public than by covering up for his obviously guilty Prescott, Blunkett, etcetera?
Posted by: James Hellyer | September 29, 2006 at 07:56
This is the response to the anti-politician mood of a politician who does not understand the anti-politician mood.
If he was really chiming with the mood, he'd be proposing a salary cut for MPs.
I doubt they'll be talking about this in the pubs tonight: pigs to be fed by trough-filling committee not pigs shock.
Posted by: Style Guru | September 29, 2006 at 08:53
Personally I believe a good system would be to pay MPs more for doing less work. That might deter them from trying to interfere in our lives so much.
Posted by: Richard | September 29, 2006 at 08:54
Agree with all of that, except for cutting the number of MPs. Our constituencies are a reasonable size, although the electorates in Wales should be equalised at the next review (which would reduce the size of Parliament by a handful or so).
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | September 29, 2006 at 09:02
I don't agree with cutting the number of MPs. It would result in a smaller pool of talent and larger constituencies = less local say.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 29, 2006 at 09:46
The word "not" is missing from the headline on the homepage.
What's this about a new quango? How about just indexing MPs' salaries in line with average earnings growth, end of discussion?
There are far too many ministers - Ken Clarke made a joke about Minister for Drains, but it is nearly that bad - there's even a minister for Housing Benefit!
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | September 29, 2006 at 09:57
The fact is that MPs now are no more than glorified social workers and, as such, vastly overpaid at £60kp.a. Maybe we should adopt some private sector practices and have salary and performance-related bonuses. That might start to attract some quality into the house aside from the intolerable dross who currently occupy it and would fail to find senior roles in any major, successful private sector company in the UK.
Posted by: MH | September 29, 2006 at 10:01
Good idea from Cameron.Many people view MPs of all parties as self interested parasites because of their salaries,expenses and absurdly generous pensions.Anything that successfully addresses the huge image problem they have is to be welcomed.
Posted by: malcolm | September 29, 2006 at 10:19
"I'm all in favour of the powers to investigate breaches of this code remaining with the PM. If the PM is a person prone to whitewashing his colleague's misdemeanors, then what better way to let him show his lack of integrity to the public than by covering up for his obviously guilty Prescott, Blunkett, etcetera?"
Entrenching the lack of public faith in the accountability of senior politicians can only increase voter apathy, surely?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | September 29, 2006 at 10:46
Entrenching the lack of public faith in the accountability of senior politicians can only increase voter apathy, surely?
If the problem is dishonest politicians, the solution is to act with probity and transparency, and not to create an additional quango that removes more power from elected officials, and thus the people.
Posted by: James Hellyer | September 29, 2006 at 11:06
I think that the fourth recommendation - 'Breaches of the Ministerial code should be investigated independently' - is an extrememly good idea. It seemed to me that all through his tenure Blair had far too much influence on so-called independant tribunals, and other investigations into some sort of wrongdoing.
Unfortunately Daniel, I don't think that the public at large is sufficiently sophisticated to work out for themselves, when this particular PM is being economical with the truth, and he knows this!! Granted that in the case of the Iraq dossier (I think it was), the public got or could have, a much truer picture of the integrity or not of the man, but only because the newpapers and media, kept hammering on about it - and I wouldn't mind betting that in many cases people just ignored all that information (because it bored them)!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | September 29, 2006 at 11:08
"If the problem is dishonest politicians, the solution is to act with probity and transparency"
Well obviously, but previous form has shown that certain senior politicians won't always act with probity and transparency, and this is encouraged by a lack of accountability.
In an ideal world, they would be accountable to the electorate, but their misbehaviour tends to lead to a 'they're all as bad as each other' mentality amongst the electorate, leading to increased apathy and a subsequent decline in democratic accountability.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | September 29, 2006 at 11:37
this is encouraged by a lack of accountability.
The Major government's fate would seem to suggest otherwise, as would the fates of a series of ministers who were hounded from office.
their misbehaviour tends to lead to a 'they're all as bad as each other' mentality amongst the electorate
And how does Dave's quango dispel that mentality?
Posted by: James Hellyer | September 29, 2006 at 11:55
"The Major government's fate would seem to suggest otherwise..."
As you know James, a variety of factors led to the downfall of that government, but I will admit that sleaze did play a part.
"...as would the fates of a series of ministers who were hounded from office."
This happened in spite of the current system of the Prime Minister investigating breaches of the ministerial code, not because of it.
"And how does Dave's quango dispel that mentality?"
I believe that having senior politicians actually being held accountable for breaches of the ministerial code (rather than have their misbehaviour ignored by the Prime Minister for political reasons) would act to curb the worst excesses which have done so much to propagate that mentality.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | September 29, 2006 at 12:24
This happened in spite of the current system of the Prime Minister investigating breaches of the ministerial code, not because of it.
Which is irrelevant. It shows that the government is accountable, but retains the freedom to tarnish its own image.
Such a body would also likely have no effect. I've not noticed the Commission for Standards in Public Life driving up voter interest in local government...
Posted by: James Hellyer | September 29, 2006 at 12:30
Personally I think MPs SHOULD set their own salaries because then - in theory at least - we can hold them accountable and chuck them out! If they can hide behind a quango composed of others in the political "loop" they will just shrug their shoulders and say "nothing to do with ME, chum!".
And a thought- While keeping the same number of MPs let their votes in parliament be the total of their constituents. (Computers could handle that one! Just key in a PIN) That would make elections fair always and stop all the PR shenanigans in their tracks. (It would also make life difficult for the pollsters and other scrutineers of entrails)
Posted by: christina speight | September 29, 2006 at 13:05
They all seem eminently sensible suggestions to me. Pay is better sorted by someone else although Parliament could always change the rules again if it wanted (and dared).
I don't agree with Mark about the number of MPs. I think we have too many. If we reduced the number we could pay them more (and so attract higher calibre people who aren't independently wealthy), make sure they all had decent office accommodation in Westminster (which, despite Portcullis House, is often cramped and inadequate) and allow them to employ more staff so that they are better able to serve and communicate with their constituents (so addressing Mark's legitimate concern) and be better informed by having enhanced researcher capacity.
The Civil Service Act is a must in order to make statutory the independence of the civil service that was recognised by convention until Labour came to power and deliberately corrupted it.
Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account would be enhanced by independent investigation of the ministerial code with the report coming to a Parliamentary committee not the Prime Minister. They wouldn't be able to sack a minister but a highly critical conclusion would probably force the minister or the PM to act.
I hesitate to say it on Conservative Home (home of the Tory underground) but I think Dave's got this one spot on.
Posted by: Off Message | September 29, 2006 at 13:10
Off Message, your argument is that MPs can’t do their jobs properly because they’re not paid enough and haven’t got enough resources. If that's the case, the solution is not to cut the number of MPs and give each one a bigger share of the pot.
If MPs are genuinely under-resourced, the importance of their job and the decisions they take easily justifies adequate funding. In the context of government, we’re not even talking froth on a small beer.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 29, 2006 at 15:04
Give them no pay and let them become what they are, a bunch of scumbags peddling their wares.
Let's make it legal to take bungs and any sort of funding, we won't be let down and we cannot complain, and they can become pigs in shit.
Why waste public money on a bunch of slime bags who do nothing to represent the people, slavishly follow the party line, and regard the people as an inconvenience.
We may as wellbring in a scheme, that if enough signatures are collected from a constituency then the MP can be dumped and a new by-election called.
Now that's democracy.
That will keep them on their toes.
Posted by: George Hinton | September 29, 2006 at 16:31
"Which is irrelevant. It shows that the government is accountable, but retains the freedom to tarnish its own image."
We'll have to agree to disagree, James.
I think it shows that the current system overseeing investigations into breaches of the ministerial code is inadequate but you seem to think otherwise despite the fact that the 'ministers hounded from office' had been exonerated under the system.
You're welcome to your opinion though, and I admire your dogged determination to stick to your guns here even though you're wrong ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | September 29, 2006 at 17:03
you seem to think otherwise despite the fact that the 'ministers hounded from office' had been exonerated under the system.
No, I think the system is easily abused, but such abuse doesn't prevent accountability, as someone who is demonstrably guilty finds it hard to cling to office.
You're welcome to your opinion though, and I admire your dogged determination to stick to your guns here even though you're wrong ;-)
Did suspending Ken Livingstone from his mayoralty make him more accountable to the electorate? It's the same principle.
I'd rather see ministers who are without honour or competence pilloried through the press and later judged by the electorate, rather than being forced out by some group of civil servants.
Posted by: James Hellyer | September 29, 2006 at 17:26
James - the independent investigation allows the facts to be determined. It wouldn't see civil servants driving the Minister out unless the facts alone were enough to make his/her position untenable. It would be up to Parliament and the PM to decide actual guilt and any punishment. Independent investigation could actually aid a minister who is being subjected to a concerted, unjustified smear campaign.
Mark - I simply don't think we need so many MPs. Representing 100,000 rather than 70 odd shouldn't make MPs suddenly inaccessible. I would use the opportunity to look at the subsidiary issues of pay, staff and office accommodation but they aren't the driving force. Fewer MPs would be an attractive sale to the electorate - actually getting the policy through Parliament might prove hard, to impossible though. Turkeys and Christmas springs to mind.
Posted by: Off Message | September 29, 2006 at 17:55