I wasn’t going to write anything about British politics on the blog for a while. As a Labour supporter there’s not been much to say that isn’t only going to make me more gloomy. Then, like all those who value the good things that politics can deliver the recent expenses farrago has been utterly depressing, even demoralising. I oscillate between anger at the grubby greed displayed by some MPs (a minority of whose actions have been despicable) and dismay at the pompous and often hypocritical way the whole thing has been pursued by some journalists and commentators.

But then tonight I watched the BNP party election broadcast and felt I had to get something off my chest.

Some MPs have clearly broken or bent rules beyond what is reasonable and they should be punished. Others are been pilloried for doing what they were encouraged to do by successive governments of every stripe who didn’t have the courage to increase MPs pay in line with earnings outside parliament but didn’t want a load of pissed off back-bench MPs. That’s why they created a myriad of backdoor entitlements to cover up their cowardice and now MPs, as an entire group, are being hammered for it.

British MPs earn £60,000 per year – about half of the basic wage of a US congressman and about 75% of what is paid to parliamentarians in France, Germany and Italy. And despite the ballyhoo, as far as I can work out the basic levels of entitlement for expenses are about the same – even though British MPs have to survive in London, widely regarded as one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in. But it’s not actually the level of pay that’s the main problem – that, in itself is only a symptom.

For too long we’ve been trying to have our democracy on the cheap – treating expenditure on our democratic system as if it were an evil necessity.

space

We should be spending more on our MPs, not less.

In particular, if we want democratic representatives that are able to both provide adequate representation of their constituents at a local level and lobby effectively at a national level, we should be lavishing funding the support we provide for MPs.

I’m not saying that we should continue doing it in the way it has been done in the past. The process of claiming for expenses, of employment selection (so that money isn’t siphoned off to wives and children) and providing office space should be properly reformed.

Parliament should provide suitable office space in every constituency for MPs to locate their bigger, better-paid and better-resourced local teams. These plush offices, with their state of their art communications links, high-quality facilities for public meetings and consultations would provide constituents with an obvious, welcoming and professional space with which to engage with their democracy. Large rural constituencies would have satellite offices as well. The offices would be paid for, owned and maintained by Parliament.

Other countries provide parliamentarians who require accommodation near to the parliament with free, furnished flats. We could do that. We should also pay for all train fares and flights for MPs between London and their constituencies – we want them to be able to travel quickly, easily and frequently between the two.

We should provide all MPs with proper London office space, big enough to accommodate bigger, better-paid and better-resourced teams of national campaigners that will allow all MPs to exercise better scrutiny over parliamentary work, to be better able to represent their constituencies in national debates and to hold government to better account. The public wouldn’t believe some of the places some of their MPs are supposed to work from.

(And while we’re at it, a parliamentary chamber that can seat every MP, has a proper sound system and can electronically count votes – lessening the power of whips at a slash – would seem the minimum requirement for the proper conduct of politics.)

Properly funded and resourced MPs would be less reliant on their parties or the government for information and better able to act independently in support of their constituents and their own consciences.

space

We should want our MPs to be more professional, not less.

If there’s one widely held assumption that’s reared its head time and time again over the last few weeks it that most MPs are in the job for the money. This is nonsense.

It’s not just that the vast majority of MPs I’ve met – Labour, Lib Dem and (though it pains me to admit it) even Tory – seem to have been genuinely motivated by a desire to make the country a better place (whether or not you agree with their methods), but when you look at their backgrounds many MPs have given up jobs that were as lucrative (or paid far more) than they could hope to earn as a backbencher but which required far less effort, were far less hassle and didn’t result in constant attacks on their integrity every time they disagree with someone/stand up for what they believe in.

I think most people would be astonished at the number of hours the vast majority of MPs put in – working weekends and evenings – simply because they’ve never bothered to spend anytime finding out what the people they elect actually do.

Another theme that has repeatedly cropped up over the last few weeks are columns like this one from the Times which attack the idea that MPs should be paid at all, or which criticise the notion that people should make careers from politics.

How does this make sense?

How would it be better if parliament was made up of people who didn’t have experience of knowing how government works and of how to get things done?

You wouldn’t choose your car mechanic based on their enthusiasm for the task or their desire to break the system and do things in exciting new ways. Nor would you choose them because they used to host witty consumer programmes on television or once sang in Dollar.

You want people who know what they are doing. You’d like to see qualifications.

Government is a far more complex and difficult to manage machine than any car. Yet somehow everyone who has ever read an editorial in The Sun (and many who’ve never got that far), whose only contribution to the political debate is shouting at the television when the Six O’clock News comes on and wouldn’t know one end of a government department from the slack-jawed hole in the front of their face thinks they’re better qualified than people who’ve devoted a lifetime to public service in return for a salary that’s might be paid to a moderately successful solicitor or accountant and which is a fraction of what’s paid to many headteachers (well over £100k in London), GPs (average £110k) or even the senior civil servants with which they work (£56k minimum up to £198k maximum).

We want our MPs to be experts. We should provide them with training opportunities – especially those who serve on backbench committees – and help them get to know the areas they are responsible for and to hold ministers to account more effectively.

More professional MPs will be able to do their job better. Being an MP should be a full-time job. Holding other jobs should be banned or very strictly limited.

space

The last thing we need is more celebrities in parliament.

This should be blindingly obvious but let me make this clear.

If you look at the periods when British politics turned in on itself since the Second World War and put ideology ahead of public service it has always been when personalities have dominated over the practice of politics – the squabbling mess of the last years of the Tories in the 1960s, Bennism in the 70s, Thatcherism in the 80s, Blairism in the 2000s.

What we need are politicians with ideas and the courage to put them before the British public. What we don’t need are people whose only qualifications are telegenic smile and experience of reading the autocue.

space

In defence of politics

It’s not a popular position to have at the moment, standing up for British parliamentary democracy. There are plenty of people who want to use this opportunity to settle old scores or to push through dramatic change. There are people who believe that this is a moment to start an avalanche, wipe everything away and start again. They’re dreaming of a revolution of one sort of another. Most of these people mean well but, as is always the case when someone offers us the chance to make our dreams come true, we need to be careful what we wish for.

The British parliament might not be perfect, but the stability of the institution – for all its frustrations – has protected Britain against the wild excesses that have inflicted great suffering on peoples around the world.

When someone demands that we sweep everything away and start again, I’m always reminded of this passage from A Man For All Seasons:

space

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

space

There are plenty of devils out there who might pounce if we cut down all the trees – devils far worse and far more difficult to put in their place than greedy MPs. The BNP, for example, who despite their efforts to persuade you otherwise remain the same vile, hate-filled fascists they’ve always been.

The British political system has its flaws.

Those who have abused the expenses system deserve to be punished.

But before you cut down all the trees, think about what happens next.