Posts Tagged ‘parliament’

« Older Entries

Liberal Democrat hypocrisy: what do they have to hide?

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

The Liberal Democrats delivered a leaflet through my door today which suggested that they have much to hide. Perhaps that’s why it’s the first time we’ve heard from them since the last election.

The leaflet was branded Hackney News with a red masthead, masquerading as a Labour newsletter. Which is interesting because the last Lib Dem News I saw was in Birkdale where they are fighting the Tories. That leaflet was made to look like a Tory leaflet. Why are they embarrassed about being Liberal Democrats?

The Lib Dem leaflet didn’t make any reference to any of their accomplishments on Hackney council. As the third largest party on the council, that’s surprising. Why don’t they want to be open about that? But perhaps it’s a leaflet focussed on the parliamentary election. So why no reference to Nick Clegg? That’s a shame because I’ve always wondered what he looks like.

The newsletter was informative: it said that the Liberal Democrats have made “four top commitments in their manifesto”. Leaving aside the absurdity of anyone having four top priorities, one of them was “clean, open politics”.

I read the leaflet in detail to discover what they meant by “clean, open politics”. Given that the Lib Dems might hold the balance of power in the next parliament, it’s a critical issue. Will they reveal who they would form a coalition government with? No, not that open.

There’s an article on the second page attacking the bus fare rises in London, quite rightly. The text clearly says “The Mayor of London (Blond Bombshell Boris they call him – ingenious) is responsible for these fare increases.” Odd then, that the accompanying photo sees the  Lib Dem candidates posing with a banner reading “Labour and Tory bus fare increases”. “Honesty and integrity should be a given” writes candidate Keith Angus. Presumably not when there’s an election to be won.

The backpage (alas, there are only four pages) declares that the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for action on regeneration in Woodberry Down “but so far with little success”. That doesn’t inspire me with much confidence in their effectiveness. Apparently the campaign involved writing an EDM for Diane Abbott MP to table in parliament. “Unfortunately the MP didn’t raise it in parliament, as I’d hoped” says Mr Angus, who clearly does not understand the pointlessness of EDMs nor that they don’t really involve raising an issue in parliament. Because, of course, if he did know that, he wasn’t being open and clean with us.

Finally, there’s a cut out and reply slip at the end of the leaflet inviting you to support the Lib Dems, display a poster (which presumably isn’t red) and join the party by accident if you donate more than £9 (yes, seriously). Only unfortunately the leaflet provides no indication of what they will do with your personal data. Neither clean (it’s against the Data Protection Act) nor honest.

Unfortunately, Mr Angus was  honest on one point: “One of my guilty pleasures is to watch Come Dine With Me on TV while eating chocolate spread, straight from the jar”. That may be honest, but it isn’t clean.

So again, I ask: what do the Liberal Democrats have to hide?

I do believe that the Lib Dems have a useful and important role to play in British politics. But when they behave like this, with low calibre people, it’s a difficult position to defend.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

5 better proposals for better government

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Following my critique of the better government initiative’s proposals for better government (essentially, better policymaking) I would like to advance my own (modestly, of course):

1. Policy advice to ministers has a presumption of openness

All policy advice to ministers should be publicly available, preferably published online before the minister has made a decision. There will be instances where procurement or national security mean this can’t happen. But as the Chilcot Inquiry demonstrates, even decisions of war cannot take place without openness these days. And (as the better government panel makes clear) the more politicians can explain their decisions the more likely they are to be understood, scrutinised and implemented more effectively.

2. All policy formation should be put out to tender

The civil service must not be the only adviser to ministers. But I understand the complaints from the senior mandarins – that internal competition within government doesn’t necessarily lead to better policymaking. Instead, there should be ‘contestability’ for policymaking so that all policies are developed by at least two different organisations. That level of competition will ensure that thinktanks, academics and civil servants will be better scrutinised whilst ministers will know that they are not being told what they want to hear. And the transparency of the outcome mean that money is unlikely to be wasted.

3. All new organisations or spending commitments should have a 5 year timeframe

Any new organisation or major spending commitment should be created to last five years, with a clear (but small) number of objectives, which can be measured. Near the end of this five year period, they should be assessed by the National Audit Office, the select committee or another external body. They may be allowed to miss their targets but continue – but none will continue indefinitely. For example, if the Equalities and Human Rights Commission cannot demonstrate greater understanding of equality, greater awareness of rights, or landmark legislation to create more fairness, it should be scrapped in 2013.

4. Civil servants should also serve parliamentarians

MPs are too poorly resourced to scrutinise legislation. The House of Commons Library is a fantastic resource, but usually there will be one or two specialists in a particular subject to serve 650 MPs. Select committees are better resourced than before but with a couple of clerks for 14 members, they also have plenty to do. If the policy teams in government departments served parliamentarians (as the representatives of the public) then MPs might be better placed to scrutinise legislation.

5. Annual legislative report

Labour introduced an annual report for government although it was widely derided at the time. The Queen’s Speech could (but doesn’t) perform this role. But if government reported back to parliament on its performance then legislation would be scrutinised on an annual basis according to its effectiveness. A vote on this report would enable parliamentarians to propose particular parts of under-performing legislation to be dropped.

But fundamentally, as nice as these things may be, the core elements of British democracy need to be addressed if British government is to be better:

  • the effectiveness of political parties at recruiting and promoting talent;
  • the representative-ness of British politicians
  • a better balance between central and local government
  • the effectiveness and composition of the second chamber

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Why can’t politicians communicate?

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

Why can so few politicians communicate effectively? I was dismayed, but not shocked, to hear Nick Clegg tell Lib Dem conference that “we need to talk to people like grown-ups“. There’s so much wrong with this statement it doesn’t deserve analysis. But he’s not the only politician who struggles to talk normal. It got me wondering what happens when they are at home.

B (politician’s partner): Did you have a good day at work, darling?

P (politician): I think that’s a very important question which is why I’ve been talking to people up and down the country, listening to their views and taking the action I’m announcing today.

B: The kids had a good day today at school, but I’m worried about little P who’s struggling a bit with his maths homework.

P: Thanks to our unprecedented focus on numeracy, every child is getting the focus on core skills that he or she needs to compete in the global economy. The record investment in schools, opposed by the opposition, is delivering raised standards across the country.

B: But I’m worried that his teachers aren’t giving them the support he needs.

P: Thanks to the ‘every child matters’ agenda, there are over 20,000 children getting additional support in our extended schools and city academies.

Incidentally, darling, I noticed that the brake-light on the car needs a step-change. Could you action that to ensure that we are seen to be delivering?

B: Yes, darling. And would you like me to ensure that we take an holistic view to fixing the car?

P: Well, y’know, it’s important that we remain focussed on the things that are really important to people. Like jobs, the economy, ensuring inflation is low.

B: Yes, dear. Because the threat of rampant inflation was the talk of the nursery gate today.

R: Really? Do they not understand the regime of responsible, independent economic stewardship that we’ve created?

B: No, dear. I’m off to bed.

P: I really can’t be seen to be sleeping, darling. Not so soon after recess.

No – of course politicians don’t talk like that. You only have to look on Twitter or Facebook to see MPs as diverse as Nadine Dorries, Lynne Featherstone and Tom Watson engaging properly with people who want to listen to them – and talk to them. And MPs are not all the same, even if it’s hard to distinguish visually between a Cameron, a Clegg or a Miliband.

So why is it that the language of political debate has been reduced to the sort of corporate-speak which any sensible corporation abandoned 10 years ago?

Tags: ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries