Parmjit's Plan

An election is taking place today, it is purported to be for the most important role in British politics, yet the public has no say and the role may seem to be arcane as it is steeped in tradition. The Speaker of the House of Commons is the person who decides who is, and perhaps importantly who is not, allowed to intervene in debates; they oversee the rules of conduct and behaviour both in the public eye and, at least previously, behind closed doors. Effectively they are an MP who controls the behaviour of other MPs, they are from one of the parties but the role is independent and above party politics, but there seem to be party political advantages to the job as it seems the party with the biggest majority is always keen to shoe in one of their own into the job.

The task of the Speaker elected today will be perhaps a little more complex than has previously been the case, they will be charged with cleaning up British politics and ushering in a new era of transparency. In their speeches many have offered just that, particularly front runners Margaret Beckett and John Bercow. An interesting pitch has been made by outsider Parmjit Dhanda. He stands as something of a revolutionary alongside the other reformers. He has called for a more accessible parliament that does something close to debate roadshows and where the public are able to log on to a website to choose debate subjects. On his blog Parmjit argues: "We need to give ownership of Parliament to the people. Hence Ministers, Shadow Ministers and whips will need to relinquish their control of the Parliamentary Agenda. Through new technology like Internet polling the public should choose the issues for ‘topical debate’. And instead of poorly attended debates lacking atmosphere in Westminster Hall, Parliament should relocate Ministers and the entire apparatus for these debates to Town Halls around the country".

He picks up a very important point here, that there is a huge disconnection between the pomp and tradition of parliament, the way that MPs work and operate and the way that they are governed and the rest of society. Few understand the working life of an MP, few engage with what goes on in parliament, and so while the majority still vote and feel it is a duty it is likely few really understand what it is they are voting for. People need to be brought back into the process. Parmjit Dhanda argues that people are engaged in politics, but on Facebook and social networking sites while parliament chugs along. The big question is whether people would engage or whether there would be the same level of nuisance engagement as the Downing Street polls or would people really get behind such an initiative? While Parmjit is an outsider and unlikely to be in a position to enact his ideas, perhaps these ideas are ones that need to be discussed further as parliament looks to the future and reforms not just the way MPs are paid but also the way they do their business.

MPs and communication - the problem!

A fascinating article by Aeron Davis in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations highlights an important issue at the heart of the British democratic system. His research shows, using the Habermas' latter (1996) conception of the public sphere as a conceptual framework, that "the UK parliament is very much oriented around public sphere ideals in both its institutional formation and the cultural norms and values adopted by politicians" (p. 289). This may seem to be an odd assertion, but this is based on a study of the way the committee system works in terms of deliberation and the inclusion of public and expert opinion as well as the fact that MPs will not only be led by their constituency when seeking issues to focus on but also use the constituency as a bellwether for public opinion. So the question thus is why do the public have such a negative perception of parliamentarians?

The answer is simple, this activity is conducted below the radar of the media and the link between an MPs work, individually or collectively, and that of the executive is at best opaque. So the executive lose these links and instead rely on the bureaucracy and not constituents, while the media focus on the actions of the top players. it reminds me of a comment made to me by an MP I interviewed about his communication strategy "the only way I would get into the papers is if I drop my trousers". Davis thus calls for less power to the executive and a broader focus to discussion of politics by the media; I think many MPs (beyond those he interviewed) would agree wholeheartedly. His discussion links to ongoing critiques of government in the UK as becoming too presidential and personality drive and of the media both feeding that while also focusing on politics as a game played out between the party leaders. A fascinating contribution to debates and one that should perhaps be read by those at the heart of government and who make editorial decisions in the main media organisations.

Good idea or pointless?

Here is an interesting video, uploaded to the parliament Youtube channel and and attempt to answer and so alter negative perceptions of politicians and in the case of this video those sitting in the House of Lords.

While including elected members may have strenghtened the case, but well made and designed to be persuasive; it puts the uninformed but negative position first and then unravels it slowly before putting a case for 'why politics matters'. It does seem to jump about a bit but a reasonable attempt. Whether it has any impact will depend on if the disengaged are among the 2,360 viewers since may 8th. However this is unlikely, those who believe politics is irrelevant and politicians are self-seeking are hardly likely to dip into the parliament site on Youtube: the web can be used to communicate with young voters but you got to have something to attract them to your site.

Parliament nervous of the Youtube generation

The Sun newspaper and a Facebook Group are campaigning to end a ruling that scenes from parliament cannot be posted to Youtube on the basis that if clips were put on the site they could be downloaded and “manipulated” by anyone so Commons Commission spokesman, Nick Harvey is quoted as saying.
The call to bring parliament into the 21st Century and engaging with an audience that watch online videos more than commercial television and public service broadcasting is an interesting one. Parliament could build its own Youtube site that brands videos; there is of course the problem of what would be posted and who would choose how to select bitesize elements of the day. Prime Minister's Questions would probably be popular, but are perhaps unusual in terms of much of parliament. Whether anyone should be allowed to post bits of parliament is a broader issue perhaps but there is also the question why not? There are clips from Canadian, Taiwanise, Australian and the European parliament on Youtube already as well as a couple of the UK parliament that seem to have slipped under the radar.

Then there is the question of what would happen if someone did rip a video of parliament from the television and post it (manipulated or not) onto Youtube. Would that count as treason? Could it be an offence? If so, is George Galloway due problems?

The Panto Season (weekly)

So it is the last PMQs before Christmas, and amid the great debate on world issues was an interesting (well perhaps) exchange that says a great deal about the nature of political debate in Britian. It was instigated by Vince Cable, perhaps his last action as Liberal Democrat leader:

Cable: "which of the "disasters" would "haunt" Mr Brown the most when he had his "one day off" at Christmas - the election that never was, Northern Rock or the "gross incompetence" of losing 25 million people's personal data"

Brown: "it was "nice" to have had Mr Cable appearing as his party's leader - and "given the history of the Liberal party it might not be long before he is back in that place... the government had made the "right long-term decisions in the interests of the country"

Cable ""Given his own position, the prime minister might not be wise to speculate on leadership elections"

Not verbatim obviously, as Hansard online is not updated that quickly, but pulled from the BBC News report. Amusing and entertaining yes, informative well maybe, engaging - up to you? For me it just needed a squeeky voice in the background shouting "That's the way to do it!"

The role of the modern MP

The parliament Modernisation Committee is about to publish its report Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member which offers to make parliament more media friendly, interesting and to shift emphasis away from the front bench according to a BBC summary. One line that seems somewhat curious is that there are concerns that "MPs were spending too much time doing constituency work, at the expense of their duties to scrutinise the government". The question thus is, what is the role of modern British MP?

The work of Michael Rush has documented the increased prominence of the constituency role over the last two decades, and there are two reasons for this: the increased demand for good service by constituents and the increased number of marginal seats where an incumbent needs to build themselves a profile. However, there is another side to this story. The increased power of the PM and Cabinet leaves MPs with little room to scrutinise but they are expected to rubber stamp bills. The latter should be reviewed, but the constituency link is an important one that should be retained.

Thus perhaps Jack Straw should, in announcing his proposals, be considering what the role of the MP is. Should they be representatives for the area that elected them primarily or not? Or what balance of time should be spent on the various duties? Work on professionalism argues the modern MP must be both a good servant of the constituency, in order to secure re-election, but also a good servant of the party in order to climb the greasy pole. It is a moot point whether these expectations are even compatible!

When I was collecting data for my PhD one aspect involved trawling Hansard for statements by Labour's radical left. It was often the case that an MP who ostensibly appeared to be solely interest in British foreign policy actually spent more time raising issues or contributing to debates in a way relevant to their constituency unless it was specifically a foreign policy issue. This is true today, though it is less reported. But are the proposals for modernisation intending to change that?

One MP who served 1955-1989 argued, in an interview, "my first duty is to the people who actually elected me, my second to the country I serve, I have no duty to party it has a duty to me". Is this the ideal? Perhaps the committee should find out what the country thinks an MP should do. If they are to be lobby fodder no longer in whose interests should MPs work?