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.

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?