Viva Inghiltalia?
Politicians, eh? Scoundrels, the lot of them. Crooked, dishonest liars, in it for what they can get out of it. No difference between any of them, if you ask me ... kick them all out, let's find a new lot.
Esther Rantzen? Why not? Joanna Lumley? Yes, please. Gloria Hunniford? Sure. Martin Bell? Definitely.
We've all heard it - or something like it - over the past couple of weeks. But I used to report from Italy back in the old days, and I think I recognise something of what's going on. Because in Italy in the early 1990s, an entire political class was swept away on a tide of public disgust as a slew of corruption allegations became too much for voters to stomach.
Into the vacuum stepped a man untainted by politics, a man promising a new beginning, a new way of doing things, an impatience with traditional political structures. His name was Silvio Berlusconi. And according to an article in The Times today: "If Parliament declines in popular esteem and party politics becomes a messy and corrupt battleground, the stage is set for a British version of the Berlusconi factor. In Italy the erosion of rights and strengthened power of the executive is backed by growing state power. Backstairs fascism is already happening in Italy; popular vigilance and public protest may not be enough to stem it."
The political commentator Andrew Rawnsley warned in The Observer at the weekend that the lesson from Italy is "to be careful what you wish for". A letter in The Economist from a Brit living in Italy drew the same parallel: "The expenses scandal is only the latest and most obvious symptom of the sickness of our system of unrepresentative government ... Britain comes to resemble more and more the political casino of Italy."
We need to be careful, of course. Britain isn't Italy, and the MPs' expenses saga comes nowhere near the level of institutionalised corruption that was swept away in Italy in Operation mani pulite (clean hands). The American newspaper the Christian Science Monitor (now published only online) may have been overstating it when it reported: "Such is the extent of public anger and scale of the [expenses] controversy ... that Britain may soon face its own version of the "Clean Hands" corruption controversy which swept away Italy's postwar political establishment in the 1990s."
But no less an authority than former Conservative MP Boris Johnson, now the mayor of London, has concluded that something far deeper than fiddled expenses has infected the British political system. "The real crime is not the expenses system," he wrote. "It takes place at 10pm on weekday evenings, when MPs arrive in the lobbies, taxi receipts in their pockets, lipstick on their collars, purple claret stains on their teeth."
The Oxford don Larry Siedentop, writing in the Financial Times, seems to agree: "It is not just the mores of the political class but the political system as a whole that is in crisis ... A new constitutional settlement is imperative. It must include a British charter of rights, a parliament reformed by serious bicameralism (which would transform the party system and make executive control of the legislature far more difficult) and symmetrical devolution. The ancient constitution was a wonderful thing in its time. But its time is over."
So the political class is beating its breast and talking of root-and-branch reform, going far beyond tightening up on claims for moat cleaners and electric bulb changers. The Health Secretary Alan Johnson says: "The inner workings of Parliament are just one aspect of the political system. We need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery." We discussed his ideas for voting reform on the programme last night. Click below to hear the discussion.
But is there, amid all the banner headlines, a risk of going too far the other way? Is there a risk that the glare of the spotlight shining on the miscreants may blind us to the fact that some MPs - quite a lot of them, in fact - seem to have been quietly getting on with their jobs without milking the system?
According to the novelist and journalist Joan Smith, whose partner is an MP: "People have been encouraged to believe that we are governed by a uniquely corrupt political class that requires condign punishment ... This is sanctimonious nonsense, but it feeds into a pre-existing and dangerous disillusionment with politicians."
It's not for me to draw conclusions. But I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts. Is it time for a radical reappraisal of the way we do politics in Britain? Or should we concentrate on weeding out the MPs who fiddled the system and let the rest of them get on with running the country?
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin,
Are you supporting the status quo? By suggesting that the English petty corruption of our MPs is similar to the Italian little problem that was 'solved' by Silvio Berlusconi are you not conniving with the present MPs to protect them? After all was it not just last week that the estranged/divorced(?) husband of a former British minister was shown in court to have taken bribes to falsify evidence on behalf of that same Italian!
The fact is that all political classes (and indeed media who report on their antics) are to a bigger or smaller extent corrupt - it is just a question of degree.
But periodically it is a very good thing to sweep away those in power and it is better to do it democratically than by more direct means. Our political class has fro too long had a cosy relationship with power and so too has the press and TV - so beware what you wish on others lest it is turned on you!
As I see it you have also failed to address the problem of our permanent government - the civil service who wield far too much power. And what of the judiciary why are they asleep?
The stables need clearing out - MPs, Civil Service, the supine judiciary and indeed in both the publicly and privately owned media as well as the corruption in the City of London and within its regualtors.
Complain about this comment
ALL CHANGE?
I have read reports that MP's are in shock, suprised, incredulous, about the weight of criticism and abuse levelled against them. Note, not remorse for betrayal of trust, abuse of privilege, lack of accountability, arrogance and contempt for the rest of us.
Why is this? It is because the ideas, beliefs, and expectations they hold regarding the respect and deference to which they feel they are entitled, are no longer valid.
But MP's are not the ones to experience this 'dislocation'. Others who formerly regarded themselves as amongst those, '..whom God has placed in authority above us' are similarly in 'limbo'
In my opinion the corruption of standards in public life first manifest itself during John Major's Government- remember Neil Hamilton? Tony Blair came into office wwith great expectations of new beginnings. Sadly, it all ended in lies, subterfuge and corruption in relation to the war in Iraq.
It was all downhill from then onward. Recent events included the barbaric treatment experienced by patients in Stafford Hospital as part of the Board's drive to achieve Trust status (with all the perks for the Board which Trust status would bring).
Of course we come to the recent financial melt-down. The reports of bonuses, pension pots, a shadow banking system. Bear in mind also Gordon Brown, he of the 'light regulatory touch', who would defeat the demon, 'boom & bust'. Leaving us outside the magic cirfcle to pick up the tab for this greed and corruption.
Still, there's no end to it. Sir Fred Goodwin(he of the giant pension-pot estimated to be worth £28m, yes £28m. He paid a heavy price for failure didn't he?). is now living in Monaco. Somehow I don't think the Revenue will claw back much of Fred's pot.
We are being bombarded with ideas for change. But I have a feelin g that once the clamour dies down it will be business as usual.
Complain about this comment
#1 - John_from_Hendon
It is not often I disagree with you but your reference to the "the supine judiciary" is somewhat unjust. They have been subjected over the past 12 years to a shameless process of emasculation.
"And what of the judiciary why are they asleep?"
They are the last line of defence against the otherwise totally discredited system of governance with which the UK is stuck and I sincerely hope that, when it wakes up, it will have the guts to take the arm from the shoulder downwards rather than bite the hand that feeds it.
But the judiciary can only perform when matters are brought before them.
Complain about this comment
#3. threnodio wrote:
"It is not often I disagree with you but your reference to the "the supine judiciary" is somewhat unjust" .. but I ask who has replaced Lord Denning! ('Liberty', or 'The Index on Censorship' - but where are the central figures in the Judiciary?)
"They have been subjected over the past 12 years to a shameless process of emasculation" - true, but why did they not develop a backbone and make a bigger rumpus at the time?
The have even concluded that their own disciplinary system has not functioned as it should have done. (I would also included other of the so called Professions.)
I firmly believe in the adage of Pastor Niemöller (and others) in summary - all that is needed is good men to stand by and do nothing for evil to triumph.
As to the reference to biting the hands - better to bit off ones own hand that do the bidding of others that you believe is wrong (and if they don't believe that some of what they are asked to do is wrong I am ashamed of the quality of our liberal education system and selection system!)
Complain about this comment
#4 - John_from_Hendon
""They have been subjected over the past 12 years to a shameless process of emasculation" - true, but why did they not develop a backbone and make a bigger rumpus at the time?"
That is the central question and the answer can be found in the issue of sovereignty. In the not so distant past - not so long ago that I cannot remember it - the fundamental principle of English law was to be found in the Common Law. I appreciate how complex a subject this can be but bear with me if I over-simplify. Essentially it was the handing down of judgments on the basis of 'that which was fair and reasonable'.
Parliament has set out - deliberately or otherwise I know not - to strip the judiciary of the authority to do just that. There are many examples but the most obvious has been the imposition of mandatory sentencing. Parliament, in it's infinite wisdom, has concluded that it knows better than the bench, in any given set of circumstances and regardless of the specifics, what punishment is appropriate for a given offence.
In a situation in which sovereignty was vested in the people, that might not be an unreasonable assumption. However, when sovereignty is vested in the elected representatives for the period of a government, it effectively gives them the power to instruct the judiciary as to how they should perform. This is a fundamental shift in the balance of power.
If you now take into account the tendency of the present parliament to do the executive's bidding in what amounts to subservient obedience, it is not difficult to relate the 'lack of rumpus' to willful intent to deprive them of that authority.
Historically, the judicial system and the legislature were separately responsible for and to the people they served. They have become self-serving and mutually dependent entities in which the interests of those who are supposed to benefit have become secondary. I suspect that the legislature and the executive are beyond redemption. There is hope for the judiciary but, as I said above, they may only react to that which is brought before them.
Complain about this comment
THE QUEEN OUGHT TO CHUCK PREVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS/PRACTICES- ASIDE, AND BECOME INVOLVED->> BY CALLING A GENERAL ELECTION & DELINEATING A CLEARLY DEFINED PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS- TO BE CARRIED OUT BY A 'ROYAL COMMISSION'- REGARDING REFORMING THE UK's POLITICAL STRUCTURES!!
All politicians (& persons-who-belong-to-political-parties) who advocate UK political-structures-reform will be unable to do this free from political biases...
Individual political parties and their members should be barred from control of processes leading to potential political structures' reform in the UK...
Solution: the Queen ought to dissolve Parliament- mandating a general election within 90 days- while simultaneously setting a 1-year (or there abouts) schedule for a UK-wide public consultation process regarding possible changes to the UK's political structures...
This UK-wide public consultation process should be set to begin no later than 2 months after the completion of the general election, and should have to be facilitated by a non-partisan body, or at least overseen by a multi-party oversight group....
After the UK political structures reform public consultation process was completed, and its data compiled and summarized, the UK's (adult) public should be enabled to vote for their preferred UK political structures model via a referendum with 3 different options for voters to choose between.
2 of the referendum's 3 options should outline succinctly 2 different new political structure models for the UK, with the 3rd option leaving things as they are...
The present UK Parliament- & its MP's- is far too tainted by the corruption & culture of self-interest that has been shown to permeate it so deeply for the present Parliament- & present MP's- to be charged with anything to do with leading the revamping or restructuring of the UK's political structures...
The legitimacy and 'clean hands' that would be automatically be provided (at least in public perceptions) to MP's that have been freshly- or newly- elected would make their (limited) participation in any processes regarding a revamping of the UK's political structures a good deal more appropriate than members of the present Parliament/Commons/Lords/govt....
The extraordinary urgency of:
- the MP's expenses scandal;
- civil service corruption;
- Lords accepting bribes for their votes; and
the glaringly obvious need for an objective- not politicized body- to be charged with delineating potential new/reformed UK political structures- to eventually be put to voters in a referendum- calls for extraordinary & impartial actions...
Such impartial actions could be constructively delivered by the Queen....
If not by Her Majesty, then who????
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#6 - MrRvLouis
You are very close to hitting the nail on the head. The problem with that is that you can hurt your thumb quite badly.
It would be very dangerous for the Queen unilaterally to dissolve Parliament, although she is perfectly entitled to do so, for three reasons:
1. It is only appropriate if the government of the day is not in a position to form and maintain a credible administration. This does not apply here.
2. The adoption of this course would almost certainly precipitate a constitutional debate regarding the whole question of the legitimacy of the monarchy. The knock on effect to a number of other countries, not least your own, of which the Queen is Head of State would be significant.
3. It is the duty and responsibility of the elected representatives to address these matters. If they collectively do not have the moral authority or the courage to do so, that would bring into question the legitimacy of the entire parliamentary system.
I would suggest that it is a matter for MPs themselves to decide, in the light of the damage that has been done to their collective reputation, to decide whether or not to take matters into their own hands. I add one further thought. A handful of otherwise respectable people have been caught 'massaging' a flawed system to their own advantage. Similar things happen in the corporate environment on a daily basis. We may question the morality of it but it would be absurd to assume that MPs are somehow a notch or two higher in the moral hierarchy.
If the present crisis precipitates a long overdue reassessment of an antiquated and unsatisfactory system of government, we should be pleased. If, however, it transpires to provide an excuse for half baked and largely meaningless 'tinkering', it will be a wasted opportunity.
Parliament may well be in crisis - the Monarchy is not.
Complain about this comment
#5. threnodio wrote:
defending the judiciary...
But if these judges who are after all barristers (mainly) felt that their role was so emasculated why did they not vote with their feet and return to being barristers and cease to work as judges, as I believe that the can, if they had the backbone.
I totally agree with you that the executive (not Parliament) has bullied the judiciary for years but these men and women have chosen to bend - again I ask where is Lord Denning! If there is one profession that should not employ the argument that they were following orders it is the judiciary. (see also Mervyn King and the 'manage to the cpi defence'!)
Complain about this comment
#8 - John_from_Hendon
I did once have the opportunity to ask a senior judge precisely that. His reaction was that if they were to walk away, it would remove the last line of defence between the executive and the people. If it was true then, some 15 years ago, how much more true would it be today with the crowd of whimps who now populate the Palace of Westminster?
Complain about this comment
#9. threnodio wrote:
"it would remove the last line of defence between the executive and the people"
just as Herod would have said!
Complain about this comment
#10 - John_from_Hendon
Threnodio was merely quoting.
Complain about this comment
#11. threnodio wrote:
"about quoting the judiciary"
The most interesting question is of course if it is possible to have any opposition when everyone is financially dependent.
I always liked to recruit staff who had big mortgages because the pressure of the mortgage kept them from being too difficult. But this was at the cost (that I recognised) that some of my bad decisions were left unchallenged.
It is, I think, not a luxury that any society can do without - we need an opposition and an opposition that is capable of opposing - to do this it has to be financially independent. This of course was recognised by previous regime when steps were taken to get rid of such things as job security (academically as tenure for example) of course this was hidden under to guise of flexibility of the Labour market. But having done this so successfully the price that we as a society pay is that very bad decisions are unchallenged (e.g. keeping the regulators in office that managed the financial disaster of the credit crunch.)
The same set of circumstances is the reason why the same previous regime kept MPs relatively impoverished and deliberately allowed them to fiddle expenses knowing that if ever they got out of line the noose could be pulled tight. Unfortunately this deliberate policy gives rise to a statute book full of dross and increasing absurd and worthless (and dangerous) legislation. This is the price we pay!
(What of course went wrong with the control of MPs was that they neglected to ensure data security - probably because they (arrogantly) knew best and ignored or didn't bother to seek or follow security advice! Such is the way I surmise that all similar regimes fail and collapse. Ozymandias, King of Kings, undoubtedly operated a similar system and ignored the advice not to build on sand!)
Complain about this comment
#7- threnodio:
It would not be dangerous for the Queen to unilaterally dissolve Parliament, for three reasons:
1. the government of the day is not in a position to form and maintain a credible administration- the scope, magnitude & seriousness of events of late make this plain.
Her Majesty's subjects' generally held view is that the present govt (& Parliament) is severely without legitimacy & most MP's are without the moral authority required to continue governing (& sitting in opposition) ...
How could the Queen supporting her subjects in an honorable fashion- by taking actions that elected officials (MP's) can not &/or will not, due to conflicts of interest- set off any negative reaction towards the Queen or the UK's Constitutional Monarchical system??
2. The Queen dissolving Parliament & decreeing the commencement of a public consultation process re the UK's political structures would not precipitate a constitutional debate regarding the whole question of the legitimacy of the monarchy-
How could the Queen supporting (and fighting for) her subjects' very reasonable needs & their widely expressed wishes- in an honorable, objective fashion- by taking actions that elected officials (MP's) can not and/or will not (in part due to conflicts of interest) set off any negative reaction towards the Queen or the UK's Monarchical system??
The knock on effect to a number of other (British Commonwealth) countries, such as Canada, of which the Queen is Head of State, would be significant in a positive way- it would set a positive examlple for the Queen's representatives in these countries to follow- should their countries run into similar dificulties in the future...
The Queen taking reasonable, constructive, decisive & impartial actions at a time of political crisis could only be seen around the world as warranted, appropriate and gutsy...
This especially as the Queen would rightfully be perceived worldwide as putting the best interests of her subjects first- ahead of what are now very widely seen as thoroughly unprincipled, corrupt & self-serving MP's (and their political parties) who- due to understandable motives of self preservation- either can not or will not take steps to dissolve Parliament and set up an impartial public consultation- and referendum- process that is not able to be controlled by them/ their respective parties...
3. Under normal circumstances it is the duty and responsibility of the UK's elected representatives to address urgent political matters....
These are not 'normal circumstances...
(A huge proportion of) The UK's MP's have collectively demonstrated that they do not have the moral authority to continue governing, and do not have the courage and ethics to dispassionately and responsibly deal with today's crisis and put the needs of their country first- ahead of their own self-interest...
The Queen taking action in a crisis situation such as today's- where her politicians won't/can't- would strongly underscore and reinforce the legitimacy functionality and efficacy of the Constitutional Monarchy system, as practiced in the UK and many British Commonwealth nations...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Complain about this comment
#7- threnodio:
( a small addition)
In order to have 'the authority' to govern- and/or to continue to govern- MP's (and a sitting govt) require the trust of and confidence of their electors- in this situation, the UK's voting-age public...
The UK's voting-age public have- pretty well unequivocally- strongly and loudly expressed that the bulk of their MP's (and the current govt) have egregiously lost their trust and confidence... thereby resulting in a situation where today's Parliament and most of its sitting MP's- and especially the current govt- do not have the legitimacy or authority- nor the public approval level- required to continue/ sitting in Parliament and/or governing...
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Complain about this comment
THE SEVERE DYSFUNCTIONALTY OF UK MP's & PARLIAMENT's STRUCTURES CAN NOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN TO BE REMEDIED UNTIL THOSE SITTING IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ARE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE THE UK PUBLIC's TRUST AND CONFIDENCE- BY WINNING BACK (OR WINNING FOR THE FIRST TIME) THEIR SEATS IN A GENERAL ELECTION!!!A UK GENERAL ELECTION IS URGENTLY NEEDED!!
Additionally, problems within the UK Parliamentary system go much deeper than misuse/fraudulent abuse of public monies by MP's...
Two Labour members of the House of Lords were only last week found guilty of accepting bribes for their votes... and were 'suspended' from the Lords for this...
In most other developed world countries this type of elected-official malfeasance would meet the legal-test criteria required for criminal charges to be laid against the perpetrators for a Breach of Trust type offense...
The MP's expense scandal's extensive roots go back many years in both:
- the civil service- which allowed and (it seems) unquestioningly facilitated MP's misconduct; and
- large numbers of members of all mainstream UK national political parties who could not have been ignorant of the mischief/criminal-wrong-doing that many close colleagues were up to... and who chose to become participants- or to unethically remain silent- rather than reporting what was going on to the police and/or speaking out publicly....
The popular saying: ' The Westminster Village', did not come from UK MP's living their professional & private lives as fundamentally disparate individuals- recluses 'cut off' from one another
in terms of Parliamentary-structures' functions & the types of information- both "official" & "off-the-record" catagories- that are shared & exchanged between new & long-serving MP's as part of ongoing, common & regular practices....
The UK public is rightfully disgusted and angered by their MP's'/politicians' (& civil servants') misbehaviour... and as a result can not be expected to be trustful of any remedial actions re the dysfunction of Parliament, MP's Fraud/Breach of Trust/Obstruction of Justice, etc- that are lead by people/politicians who will be perceived by many of the UK public to be leading such actions not because these politicians/people legitimately believe such remedial actions are needed, but instead because these politicians/people recognize it is the only way to save their political necks....
Allowing members of the current govt to lead, let alone be part of facilitating any reforms of MP's finances/expense accounts- let alone a broad restructuring of the UK's Parliamentary systems- would be tantamount to enabling known-embezzler-employees of a bank-company to lead bank-company workshops about how to improve the bank-company's internal security systems...
In order to be successful, participating in & leading whatever processes are used in the future to clean up the very evident wide-spread rot within the UK's Parliament- both the Houses of Commons and Lords- ought to be restricted to persons with 'clean hands', IE persons who have at the least been shown to have successfully made it through the cleansing-process of a general election...
A UK general election is needed so that the very urgent systemic problems existing within the UK's Parliamentary system that have been so acutely identified recently can be dealt with=>>> in the immediate future...
This instead of these problems quickly fading in the public's conciousness- as a result of their being neglected & as a consequence of a void of focused, clearly defined remedial processes being put in place to deal with them- and remaining 'time-bombs' set to cause nation-wide havoc again in the future....
Roderick V Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
[Personal details removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#14 - MrRvLouis
I am not entirely persuaded but you do offer a well argued and interesting perspective.
Where I think there may be a problem is that you seem to be convinced that there is a major constitutional crisis in process. I would certainly agree that there is a crisis of confidence in the quality of service that has been delivered by a significant number of MPs. I would also accept that a number of prominent political figures have seized the moment to suggest that wider issues relating to the constitution should be addressed. Amen to that.
However the idea that people are taking to the streets and that there an imminent risk of a break down in public order or security is plainly not the case. When and if the situation deteriorates to that degree, you may be correct to suggest that the Queen would have a duty to intervene directly. For the moment, responsibility clearly rests with Parliament.
It seems to me that there are two things that Parliament can do at this point. Either they very publicly and transparently sweep the stables clean or those who feel that matters have gone beyond that should see whether or not they could win a motion of no confidence and precipitate an election. The problem with that is the election would inevitably occur before the constitutional problems had been addressed.
My personal view is that an early election would be desirable and that the ideal outcome would be a hung parliament in which the precondition of small party support necessary to form a government would be a commitment to radical constitutional reform. The process would then be unstoppable.
Because of the issues relating to democratic accountability, the only circumstances in which the Queen should dissolve parliament unilaterally would be in the event of a state of emergency. This clearly is not the prevailing situation.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS