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.

Related posts:

1. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
2. The Christian Party: lying or misleading?
3. Defending my political opponents

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

Related posts:

1. Retired mandarins more problem than solution to better government
2. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
3. Labour mustn’t falter on party funding

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?

Related posts:

1. If politicians agree, what’s their purpose?
2. Is the local newspaper the new aviary?

Model poses nude for Life Class art show… on DAYTIME TV

The story reports “the surprise when mothers sitting down with their children flicked over to Channel 4 yesterday and were greeted by a fully naked woman. Dozens of viewers are understood to have complained after they saw more than they bargained for of fashion model Kirsten Varley.” There is a picture (of course) but it is tastefully obscured on the Mail’s website.

From there, I clicked through to the following:

Emma Watson shows how much she’s grown up at Harry Potter premiere

The article has a number of photos from the premiere including the (now 19 year old) Harry Potter star’s breast and a picture of her pants which were revealed as she re-arranged her dress.

This article took me on to:

British envoy quits Russia post after film of him in brothel sex threesome appears on the internet

This story includes pictures from the video and whilst there’s no nudity on display, it’s not hard to imagine some of the activities that took place on the video.

Now, I’m no prude and there is far worse on the internet. Pictures of Emma Watson et al fill the gaps between the sessions of play in the cricket. And tabloid titillation helps sell newspapers which helps fund investigative journalism. So what’s my point?

These stories matter because Paul Dacre told the culture media and sport select committee that his is a family newspaper that would have rejected the Max Mosley story if it had been offered. He told the committee:

“The Daily Mail would not have broken that story. We are a family newspaper, our readers do not expect us to print those kinds of stories . . . We are a family newspaper. Our readers would cancel the paper on it, and quite rightly too”.

For those readers confused as to why, when you Google Max Mosley prostitutes, stories from the Daily Mail appear in the top two search results, rest assured: Dacre defended his right to print the story after it came into the public interest.

This feels significant in the light of the News of the World phone tapping allegations. One of the defences mounted by experienced journalists is that some of this activity is to be expected given the levels of competition in the British press. Indeed, it has been suggested that such practices have reduced as competition in the tabloid market has decreased.  But if some newspapers are just not going to print such invasions of privacy, why the massive sums of money?

It’s also significant because it highlights the challenges of holding the press to account. No newspaper editor appearing in from of the select committee could provide a definition of the public interest. Indeed, Peter Hill suggested his coverage of the McCann’s was not justified by the public interest. The editor of the Daily Mail says he wouldn’t have published the Mosley story because his readers wouldn’t have liked it. Now there’s obviously a difference between the three stories I found and the Mosley story. But what is it? And how can newspapers be judged against the ‘public interest’ when it’s so hard to define?

Much of it must come down to a newspaper editor’s instinct. And Mr Dacre’s instinct is one of the sharpest in the business. But just as we no longer trust doctors or politicians instincts without further scrutiny, so the decisions of newspaper editors are being questioned more closely. But that hasn’t yet led to any greater accountability.

Related posts:

1. Why Jan Moir and the Daily Mail will escape disciplinary action
2. Tiger Woods: private person public life
3. What should the PCC do about the Sunday World front page suicide photo?

1.  MPs as national leaders

At the Hansard Society’s hustings for the new Speaker, some MPs were very clear about the place of parliament in society. Patrick McCormack MP described it as ‘the cockpit of the nation’ whilst Michael Lord MP was certain that ‘they eyes of the nation are on us’. In their world, parliament must debate issues of national importance. MPs must have a voice and deliberate on behalf of their constituents. However, there are so many other national leaders, and so many issues of national importance that do not or cannot be best served by a parliamentary debate (I fail to see what a parliamentary debate on the Iranian election campaign will add to proceedings here or there).

2. MPs as community leaders

Lynne Featherstone MP recently asked on her blog: “Do you have enough time to cross the road?” She is concerned that there pedestrian crossings in Muswell Hill don’t stay on green for long enough. Is this an appropriate role for an MP, or would it be better-served by local councillors? Or does it not actually require any political intervention at all?

3. MPs as advice centres

One of the major growth areas in politics in the last 20 years has been constituency casework. Many MPs pay two staff to bear the administrative brunt of casework in addition to spending Saturday mornings in advice surgeries meeting constituents. The constituent comes in with a problem, typically related to a complaint with the local authority or a government agency, the MP writes a letter in response and passes the response back to the constituent. Occassionally complicated cases require a bit more and now and then, a flood of letters helps an MP identify the failings with a particular service (the CSA was a good case in point in 1997-1999). But despite most MPs doing this, few think that it wins votes and there’s no evidence of constituents’ expectations of their MP in this role.

4. MPs as political campaigners

At various times, MPs have been cajoled into the role of political campaigners, particularly by the Labour Party. Photoshoots are organised with a minister and a giant cheque (or other stationary object) to highlight a new policy and a template press release is provided to the local newspaper. On other occassions, Labour HQ has encouraged MPs to carry out phone canvassing of swing voters in between the chiming of the division bell. Getting re-elected is a priority for any MP but what is an appropriate role for them as campaigners?

5. MPs as policymakers / scrutineers

MPs influence a great deal of policy. But in my limited experience, don’t have a significant input on the development of policy. Whilst at a thinktank I certainly had more policy conversations, more contact with civil servants, more with special advisers, more detailed deliberation on policy than I ever had whilst working for an MP – where most policy work was research for a parliamentary speech. Likewise, whenever I see a select committee inquiry into a subject where I have some knowledge, I’m always amazed at how many general questions are put to witnesses. If MPs really influenced policy perhaps there would be a diminshed role for thinktanks but that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

6. MPs as campaigners on issues

Some MPs have run very effective campaigns on particular issues of national or local importance. Madeleine Moon has been influential with national newspaper editors on the reporting of suicides. Martin Salter was an effective voice on train safety after the Hatfield crash. I’m sure many others have been also. But when I wrote to 12 Labour MPs that I know personally, asking their support for the Hillsborough Justice campaign, only two replied substantively. Four others said that they couldn’t reply because I didn’t live in their constituency. My local MP hasn’t replied and I have no form of redress. So the remit for MPs as campaigners appears to be limited.

7. MPs as representatives

MPs are also representatives of their constituents, even the ones that don’t vote for them. And yet very few people are aware of the identity of their local MP and I bet even fewer know how or why to contact them. And MPs don’t have the resources to publicise their services, their help or meet enough constituents to really act as hubs for political engagement. MPs can represent those that contact them, but are all too readily aware that represents a vocal minority. And also that much lobbying is professionally organised by NGOs.

8. MPs as political party figures

MPs also play an important democratic role within their political party, as political parties do in our democracy. But they have limited resources to do this and complicated rules to avoid activities which are overtly ‘political’. Again, the fact that I had written to 2 cabinet ministers did not help me. The deputy leader of the Labour Party was unable to reply to me because it wasn’t a matter for one of her five job titles. Neither were prepared to respond to something outside their brief – even though the matter had been discussed at cabinet.

There will never be a clear job description for an MP and they doubtless fill many roles, to different extents, depending on who they are, the needs of their area and the demands of the job at any one time. But the current situation is unsatisfactory. Few MPs seem to fulfil all the functions satisfactorily, few specialise and even fewer appear to be straight with their constituents and say ‘sorry, that’s not my job’.

Related posts:

1. Labour Party reform isn’t about GCs
2. 5 better proposals for better government
3. Voting Labour with a heavy heart