I see we may be in for a form of reality politics. A number of celebrities (Esther Rantzen, Terry Waite, Simon Heffer) have suggested they may put themselves forward to fight seats as independents.
The difficulty with having independent MPs is that there is no collective accountability to the electors. There is also often the problem that, as in this case, the motivation for standing is because they are are against something rather than because they have a clear set of policies they wish to pursue.
There is also the problem that once an Independent is in the Commons it is difficult to know what to do in response to all the issues that come before the House. Independent MPs tend not to have a particularly good voting record.
The dilemma is the same now as it was when Vernon Bartlett was elected as an Independent MP in 1938. He recalled in his memoirs: “I had warned the electors of Bridgwater that I should vote only on matters that I understood: I was not going to be bossed about by party whips. That had sounded all right in the constituency, at a time when there was a strong reaction against exaggerated party discipline… But I found that I understood so little, and I had no party whip to explain procedure to me.”
The difficulty was pronounced when there was a vote. He would be sat in the Library and the division bell would sound: “I had my pledge to the electors to vote only on matters I understood and as my conscience directed me. (What a prig I must have seemed!) So I often remained in the empty Library, trying to concentrate on my constituency letters. Although nobody could fail to hear the bell, the policeman on duty outside the Library door used to take off his helmet, peer round the doorway, and shout ‘Division’. This so embarrassed me that occasionally I went and locked myself in the loo until I guessed that the vote was over and the debate had been resumed. It was not for this, I admitted to myself, that the electors of Bridgwater had sent me to Westminster, and I learnt to neglect the policeman’s warning.”
One suspects the current crop of potential candidates would not be quite so reticent. The dilemma, though, is enduring.
I think Esther’s got a knack for it. She appeared on BBC’s Breakfast and reassured voters that she has many staunch political views, but wouldn’t tell us what they were. Seems like she’s already getting the hang of being a politician!
Also, wasn’t David Van Day threatening to stand…? You can just imagine the Houses of Parilament being renamed ‘Houses of Big Bother’. Could not agree more with Lord Norton on this one… What alarms me most about this expenses business is that rather than focusing on the issue in hand, the world and her partner are chipping in with all manner of wish lists for reform. It is a bit like saying ‘we’ve got a leaky roof in our house, let’s sort it by buying a new car’. In particular, I fail to see how electoral reform will solve the issue. Having a fair process (for one day – the election), but not a fair outcome (for four or five years – i.e. a government that even a smaller percentage of the public wanted than they got under FPTP) could add oil to the fire. That said, it is good to see people’s interest in politics rekindled and good to see people talking about how they want the system to be reformed etc. I just think that we should be aware of quick populist fixes that may do more harm than good.
Lord Norton has pointed out here some of the difficulties in being an independent crossbench peer too. I confess I also feel guilty and somewhat priggish when I don’t vote during divisions because I haven’t understood the issues and increasingly I try hard to find out during the division from crossbench colleagues (Lady d’Souza is a stalwart source of information) so I can vote. Jack Straw has expressed his criticism of crossbenchers who don’t vote and I am always conscious of wanting to behave well in parliament. Now that makes me sound like a terrible prig!
The coming days of ‘celebs’ becoming MPs is unwelcome to me and they are doomed to failure. Celebs I guess won’t want to slog round their constituencies, hold surgeries to hear long drawn out sagas about the incompetence of local public services or private landlords or sit around waiting to be chosen by the Speaker to make their time-guillotined contribution. Most will turn out to be one term wonders.
Mark Shephard: Couldn’t agree more. Whatever the merits or otherwise of various proposals for constitutional change they are wholly unrelated to whether the MP for XYZ fiddled their expense claim.
Lord Norton/baronessmurphy: I’m not sure I follow your argument. How is it better if an MP blindly votes whatever the pager from his Whip tells him rather than an MP or peer who votes less regularly but votes from conviction or after trying to understanding the issue.
I wonder how many MPs were elected (and perhaps stood in the first place) in ’97 because of opposition to the Tories not a belief in ‘their’ own party. The widespread use of tactical voting would seem to suggest the former was a significant part of the government majority if not the result.
Westminster is unusual in the respect of its whipping strength. If you compare it to many other countries (e.g. US) they manage or seem to manage perfectly well with both independents or at least a very much weaker party system where it is really more of a guide not a decider on how they vote issue by issue.
I suppose much of it comes down to how you feel an MP or peer should decide their vote. Are they a party appointee (as any MP in a safe seat surely is as much as a party peer) or a representative chosen to use their judgement on behalf of their constituents. Even in the former case a Labour MP from an industrial heartland is arguably holding a mandate from his local party and constituents to do/say/vote in a rather different way than a member from a leafy enclave of bien pensant London.
We live in a world of celebrity politics, where journalists such as Michael Gove and [dare I say] Boris Johnson can become successful politicians and politicians turn themselves into celebrities. What makes those who spend a lifetime in politics more qualified than anybody else to represent the people?
Movements such as the Jury Team allow independent, ordinary people to get involved through open primaries and clean up politics – see http://www.juryteam.org.
Bob Jones: She’s certainly appears reluctant to leave the stage, even after Margaret Moran has announced she is stepping down.
Mark Shephard: “Also, wasn’t David Van Day threatening to stand…?” As Professor Joad would say, it all depends on what you mean by celebrity!
I very much agree with Mark Shephard and Baroness Murphy regarding the calls for electoral reform. The fact that some elected MPs are accused of misusing their additional costs allowances has no bearing on the form of electoral system. One can only assume that those who believe there is a connection have not looked at experience abroad. The experience of the European Parliament is not exactly a paragon of virtue in this regard. The same applies to a number of other legislatures within Member States.
Croft: The problem I identified is a problem for the Independent Member, as indicated by Baroness Murphy’s reflections. The problem for electors lies in the absence of collective accountability. On your point about whipping, Westminster is not at all unusual in its whipping strength. It is the US Congress that is exceptional, not the UK Parliament. There are much stronger whipping systems in other parliaments than in the UK (in some cases members may be expelled for voting against the party) and higher voting cohesion. MPs in the UK can get away with defying the whips in a way that would be unthinkable in various systems. It would be interesting to know which legislatures you think manage with Independents or a weaker party system. As I say, the US Congress is the exception and not a good advert for translating the wishes of the electorate into legislative outputs. There is a notable mismatch between what Americans want and what Congress produces.
Emily Ryans: I think there is a distinction to be drawn between those who have made a name for themselves in the political sphere and those who have made a name for themselves as artists or entertainers or simply as ‘celebrities’ (famous for being famous). I can think of very strong reasons why people who have spent a lifetime in politics are qualified to represent people! Among other things, they know how to utilise the system to get what their electors want. Political systems tend to become highly complex and navigating them effectively can be a demanding exercise. Being elected to political office without having a good grasp of what it entails can prove difficult. We already see that in our system; despite the growth in the number of career politicians, a number of people elected to Parliament have not set foot in it before – some adapt to it but some do not.
Croft: I forgot to add – on the point about being elected because voters are against a particular party – that there can indeed be high levels of negative voting, as in 1997. My point is that parties do at least have a coherent programme of policies they wish to implement and which are placed before electors. Parties are the means for aggregating opinions and ensuring that what has been promised to electors is delivered. If voters disapprove of what a party in office does, they are then able to sweep it from office at the next election.
I was thinking of the US but also Canada – where the balance of power has been held by a number of independents, although you may perhaps consider ex-members of parties as not true independents. I know New Zealand had a ‘problem’ with list members failing to vote for the party and they past a law to expel them but that has since expired. Scotland has had its independents holding considerable influence in a tight PR based system (as was NZs). If I remember correctly Britain had a long tradition of independents right up to the end of the ’46 parliament thereafter they have almost completely disappeared.
If I were feeling mischievous I might baulk at the ideas parties have a coherent programme of policies but I know what you mean! The problem still as above the manifesto is neither binding nor usually specific enough to really tie down governments who think little of breaking it anyway. Your local MP may have opposed policy X so how do you punish the party for pursuing policy X while supporting your MP who as a member of the same party opposed it. As soon as you take their individual action into account then the party being accountable for its actions starts to fall away.
Croft: Canada and New Zealand do not detract from my point about whipping strength. Party whipping in many Common”Both thwealth countries is far more severe than in the UK: the party whips in the UK would be delighted if they had some of the powers wielded by whips in the Canadian House. Independents occasionally have sporadic influence in some systems, but rarely if ever on a continuing basis, and usually within a context where parties maintain strong whipping. In the Scottish Parliament, you correctly use the past tense: there is now only Margo MacDonald without a party label. In the US, independence should not be confused with Independents. There has also been a notable increase in recent years in party voting in the US Congress.
On party manifestos, parties in this country have quite a good record of implementing manifesto promises. The exceptions attract the headlines, but generally the implementation rate is good. To quote Richard Rose (“Do Parties Make a Difference?”): “Both the Conservative and Labour governments act consistently with the Manifesto model of governing; in office they do the majority of things to which they pledge themselves in their opposition manifestos”.
When you take individual actions into account, this may serve to underpin a party’s position rather than undermine it. There is some evidence that there is a ‘personal vote’ for some MPs. This is not the product of vote switching (constituents who support another party being so impressed that they switch to vote for the MP) so much as maintaining support that may otherwise drift way. If your party is unpopular and you are unpopular (not a good constituency member, party hack etc) then there is little to retain the support of those who previously voted for you but who are thinking of drifting away and voting for another party. However, if your party is unpopular but you have been a good constituency member and/or been willing to stand up the whips on occasion, then those thinking of withdrawing their support may think again and vote for you. However, having said that, the basic conundrum you identify is an intrinsic feature of our system.
Croft: gremblins in the system – that should read Commonwealth in the second line!
I’ll take myself told 🙂
On a slightly different note were you thinking of covering at a remove some of the proposals being put forward by the prospective speakers, which seem as relevant to the Lords as the commons. I was struck by some of the recent comments by Frank Field , over his proposals for green papers/bills. It omits a personal favourite of mine a definition of success (this bill with have succeeded if X, will have failed if Y) but otherwise it seemed all very reasonable.
The idea of Select Committees being able to introduce legislation, in allotted time, resulting from their reports seems intriguing though I’m not sure how in practice it would work.
Croft: I think they are very good proposals. I am also a great advocate of Bills having to be accommpanied by a clear statement of the criteria by which it can be determined whether they have fulfilled their purpose. The proposal can be found, along with similar proposals, in the 2004 report of the Constitution Committee on ‘Parliament and the Legislative Process’:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/173/173.pdf
There is a precedent for a Private Member’s Bill being put forward to implement the recommendations of a select committee: it was introduced by the chairman in his own name. There may be a case for looking at the practice in the Scottish Parliament, where committees are empowered to initiate bills. In the Lords, an amendment to a Bill is sometimes moved by a committee chairman to give effect to a committee recommendation.
The summary of recommendations all sound perfectly sensible. How much was taken up to any extent? – I can certainly see some bits that have happened. Due to the government control of the timetable the practice of trying to use private members bills to move committee recommendations does not seem very practical. Of course if the government lost some control of the timetabling it might became more realistic but on the present customs I think specifically allotted time has more potential.
Para 179+225 of the report mentions something I’ve always thought offered interesting possibilities: sunset clauses. I’ve sometimes wondered if the Lords veto was upped from 1yr back to 2 (reversing the 49 parliament act) but as a counterweight a bill with a sunset clause over either the whole bill or the contested amendments should have a reduced 6 month veto. It would seem to create an interesting tension between the government’s desire to get the legislation though quickly that would see them more generally agreeing to sunset clauses where the measures are controversial. The present Lord’s veto seems too nuclear an option and therefore not really that useful in offering carrot or stick.
Lord Norton, Baroness Murphy,
I think you need to be careful about how you define ‘celebrities’ before dismissing all of them. English usage, love it or loathe it, now uses ‘celebrity’ as an umbrella title covering pop stars, sportsmen and women, famous business people, authors – academic and otherwise- and even the Royal Family.
We may not like that, but almost anyone who is on the books of a ‘Speaking Agency’ can be deemed a celebrity. While I’m not a fan of Esther Rantzen, there are the following people, including some of the Lords themselves, who can be regarded as celebrities.
David Attenborough
Roger Black MBE
Lord Bragg
Lord Coe
Richard Dawkins
Michael Grade
Steve Jones
Michael Parkinson
Delia Smith
Terry Waite – Surely he has something to offer ?
Bedd Gelert
Lord Norton: “The difficulty with having independent MPs is that there is no collective accountability to the electors.”
Well not exactly, they are called the Liberal Democrats. When they came onto the political scene in the 1850’s they were a party of disgruntled Radicals, Tory Peelites and Whigs. Of late they have added socialism to their list of talents.
Not much has changed then?
When such disparate individuals become organised one can never know at any moment in time which of their four heads will pop up to speak or act.
They are puckering up once again to sort out Parliament. I do hope they can agree amongst themselves as to what is required, if not they will leave us with another mess like they did in 1911.
“I went and locked myself in the loo”. This is the only place where the world’s politicians can experience some quality time and think upon great thoughts whilst they attend to their duty.
baronessmurphy – that seems like a rather broad and damning generalisation. Do you have any evidence for it?
Bedd Gelert, Paul, I deliberately used the term ‘celeb’ rather than celebrity, which I agree still refers to a broad range of people including those who might make excellent MPs. And yes we do have a lot of proper celebrities in the house. I suppose I was thinking that those whose ambitions are solely to be ‘well known’ and invited to the A list parties (the sort that many of us would pay to avoid) and who figure large in the tabloids and magazines in ladies’ hairdressing salons, might balk at the sheer hard slog which goes on behind the scenes in the local constituency and is largely unrecognised. As an NHS manager I was often in discussion with local MPs about individual complaints and saw them quite rightly helping communities challenge plans for local services. I quickly learnt that the vast majority of MPs were hard working and very committed to doing right by their local voters but their work was often arduous, tedious and unrewarding. It also requires a very efficient office staff and being very accessible, another trait that celebs with their gatekeeping publicity officers might not like. Of course I’ve also got a list of MPs in my head who are lazy, dismissive and so focused on their sticky hold on the pole of ambition they were useless to their constituents.
Croft: The most significant element of the Constitution Committee report that has borne fruit has been the proposal for post-legislative scrutiny. This is somewhat counter-intuitive. When the report was published, it looked as if there would be a continuing momentum for pre-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative scrutiny looked rather ambitious: though everyone was in favour of it in principle, achieving it in practice looked extremely problematic. In the event, the number of bills subject to pre-legislative scrutiny has not shown a great increase, whereas the Government have accepted the case for systematic post-legislative scrutiny. Most Acts will now be subject the post-legislative review 3-5 years after enactment, with the review being sent to the appropriate departmental select committee.
Your suggestion on the relationship between the delaying power and sunset provisions is an interesting one. I find it quite attractive, though whether a Government would feel the same way is another matter. I can see that they might find acceptable one half of the proposal!
Would it be uncharitable to suggest that the government is reluctant on pre-legislative scrutiny because it delays what they want to do but fairly relaxed about post-legislative scrutiny because they can ignore whatever is said. Without sunset clauses or bullet proof affirmative resolutions no matter how good the exercise or wise the words parliament has no obvious lever to pressure government to act.
Not a celebrity but I see the ‘last’ of the Law Lords took his seat yesterday with the slightly odd choice of title Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony
Senex: Liberal Democrats may be independent outside Westminster, but inside their voting (in both Houses) is the most cohesive of all the parties.
Bedd Gelert: As Baroness Murphy has indicated,there are celebrities and celebrities. As Joanna Lumley has acknowledged, being an MP is actually rather hard work. In both Houses, members are expected to pull their weight. Being a celebrity as such cuts little ice.