End self regulation of Parliament
R.A.McCartney, | 16.05.2009 16:54 | Analysis
I am amazed that there is so little serious discussion of the need to radically reform Parliament. I want to put forward an idea which would exclude MPs and Lords from any influence over the making or enforcement of the rules governing them.
MPs are all collectively guilty of ripping off the British taxpayer. Those who didn't personally make outrageous expense claims certainly know now that it was going on. They are collectively responsible for drawing up and enforcing the rules governing expenses. They have the power to expel from the House of Commons, those MPs who have so clearly brought it into disrepute. A ComRes poll for the BBC on Friday showed that 64% of people believe they should do so. Instead, there is every indication that MPs will continue to protect their own.
Its not just the current expenses scandals which requires reform of Parliament. There are recurring corruption scandals, many involving MPs who have lucrative consultancies and non-executive directorships. Its clear that in most cases they are not being hired for their business acumen, but simply as a way of influencing Parliament.
Members of the House of Lords have also been involved in expenses and corruption scandals. The Times published evidence that four peers were willing to change laws in exchange for money. Two of these, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor, were found guilty last Thursday by the Lords Privileges Committee. However, it has only recommended they be suspended from the Lords for a mere six months.
There is at least one other scandal which deserves mention. That is the constant stream of lies from politicians on every subject under the sun. Until the expenses scandal broke, this was the thing which ordinary people most hated about politicians. Its become so common that it is rarely remarked upon, but MPs are breaking their own rules. Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, states that “Witnesses who have … given false evidence, wilfully suppressed the truth or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of a contempt”. Until November 2004, the House resolved at the start of each session,
“That, if it shall appear that any person has given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender”.
(This was dropped simply because the Procedure Committee pointed out that it did not add to Parliament's power to punish offenders). Despite the enormous powers they have, MPs were not even willing to impeach Blair over the lies that led to the Iraq war.
The fact that parliamentarians routinely allow their own rules to be broken leads to one inescapable conclusion: self regulation of Parliament must end. Instead there should be a special set of laws governing members of Parliament. These laws should be passed by a referendum, and should only be subject to amendment by referendum. In addition, amendments should only be put to a vote if proposed in a petition signed by a substantial number of ordinary voters, say five per cent of the electorate. This would exclude politicians from any special role in changing the laws. Furthermore, this document should also lay down the method for choosing the Judge, chief prosecutor, and lead investigator. I suggest that, like the jury, they should all be drawn at random from a large body of potential candidates. Also, measures should be included to ensure they can't be bribed or pressured by politicians.
I shall not elaborate on my ideas further at this point. I want to see if others agree with me, that electing a new set of politicians is unlikely to bring real change. It is the system which needs to change, and most of the ideas being put forward are far too timid and conventional to have the required effect.
Its not just the current expenses scandals which requires reform of Parliament. There are recurring corruption scandals, many involving MPs who have lucrative consultancies and non-executive directorships. Its clear that in most cases they are not being hired for their business acumen, but simply as a way of influencing Parliament.
Members of the House of Lords have also been involved in expenses and corruption scandals. The Times published evidence that four peers were willing to change laws in exchange for money. Two of these, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor, were found guilty last Thursday by the Lords Privileges Committee. However, it has only recommended they be suspended from the Lords for a mere six months.
There is at least one other scandal which deserves mention. That is the constant stream of lies from politicians on every subject under the sun. Until the expenses scandal broke, this was the thing which ordinary people most hated about politicians. Its become so common that it is rarely remarked upon, but MPs are breaking their own rules. Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, states that “Witnesses who have … given false evidence, wilfully suppressed the truth or persistently misled a committee have been considered guilty of a contempt”. Until November 2004, the House resolved at the start of each session,
“That, if it shall appear that any person has given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender”.
(This was dropped simply because the Procedure Committee pointed out that it did not add to Parliament's power to punish offenders). Despite the enormous powers they have, MPs were not even willing to impeach Blair over the lies that led to the Iraq war.
The fact that parliamentarians routinely allow their own rules to be broken leads to one inescapable conclusion: self regulation of Parliament must end. Instead there should be a special set of laws governing members of Parliament. These laws should be passed by a referendum, and should only be subject to amendment by referendum. In addition, amendments should only be put to a vote if proposed in a petition signed by a substantial number of ordinary voters, say five per cent of the electorate. This would exclude politicians from any special role in changing the laws. Furthermore, this document should also lay down the method for choosing the Judge, chief prosecutor, and lead investigator. I suggest that, like the jury, they should all be drawn at random from a large body of potential candidates. Also, measures should be included to ensure they can't be bribed or pressured by politicians.
I shall not elaborate on my ideas further at this point. I want to see if others agree with me, that electing a new set of politicians is unlikely to bring real change. It is the system which needs to change, and most of the ideas being put forward are far too timid and conventional to have the required effect.
R.A.McCartney,
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Guilty Guilty
16.05.2009 18:09
The MP's designed the system which they later went onto successfully defraud.
The MP's are saying (I am truly loathe to accept that they have a legitimate voice at all now) that they are not to blame because its the system that went wrong. That even though many niave young-uns suspected it wasn't right, they claimed anyway!
Its pathetic. But as always, the media and others are lining up to 'own this story' in order that they can come to the defence of these odious clowns.
Obviously, there would be large scale demonstrations but this is Labour so that clearly isn't going to happen. What do we do about this...nothing seems to be the answer!
How, exactly, are these criminals to be held to account and why is there not more action on the streets.
Is it the case that ordinary the people don't know how to organise, or is it something else?
fraudster
comedy
16.05.2009 20:01
can't vote
The Role of "Minor" Far Right Groups.
16.05.2009 21:29
The fundamental problem being that the BNP are being levered into power, by the Tories, under the guise of being "more extreme" than the Tories. While there was more open conflict in Northern Ireland, the Tories were happy to associate with a wide range of "Unionists" in order to keep working class parties out of power. They see the BNP as just the same kind of relationship. Griffin, senior, served as a Conservative Councillor - indeed that kind of information is available in the "hidden" parts of Wikipedia if you look. According to investigations, the changes to Nick Griffins profile were made from Tory Central Office.
In the finances scandal the BNP only escape accusations of venality because they have not had access to major sources of finance. The number of "businesses" that have popped up, taken business and vanished when it is pointed out they are run by a party run by a convicted racist is suprisingly large. This pattern has demonstrated this vile and alien political party is skilled at sustaining lies about who they are and who they really support.
Where the BNP are useful idiot are in their ability to split the votes of minor parties who then campaign more vigorously to garner votes. The BNP makes others work to steal votes for the BNP. In truth, the BNP benefits the Tories by everything it does.
Much like the "leaked" membership list, which vanished without a prosecution - despite Nick Griffins loud shouting - there is something sinister about the relationship of the Tories and the BNP to the expenses scandal. Despite the fact that the BNP finances are as suspicious as ever, nobody seems to be questioning why the BNP accounts have not added up for some time. Nobody seems to question where the "donations" come from or go to any more. Especially not Tory Action.
Take for example, a figure on the cost of buying and equipping the “truth truck” at £39,550. Griffin personally “worked very hard researching this project”. There is no indication on the website appeal that the lorry will be anything other than “brand new and custom built”. But the claim that “we can knock £13,000 off the amount needed” by opting for a “used lorry in first class condition” is smuggled in. Like the persistent pattern of failing truth and outright lies. The BNP have been an example to the entire Tory Party on how to minimise the damage caused by the scandal. The "truth truck" served to bewilder the party faithful by never being adequately or fully explained. Like a focus group for Tory Central Office.
Some BNP supporters wonder why courses could not be held in the barn on Nick Griffin’s farm, which he converted with the help of a loan of several thousands pounds from the party shortly after he became its leader. The party wrote off the loan on the grounds that the building would be available for party functions free of charge. This is the same pattern of scandal that has emerged in Parliament. The courses were held in Spain utilising the Belfast based Midas Consultancy. In the company of people convicted of throwing hand grenades into funerals - at which three people wer killed - and a subject of NETCU investigations. Yet, the scandalous financing of these courses is overlooked.
All along it appears that there is a systematic "look over there" approach that the Tories have benefited from. It is not a conspiracy, simply the harsh consequence of living in a country where political leaders of every party from BNP to NuLabour and Old Tories, Liberals and probably even the Monster Raving Loonie Party are immune to the disciplines and financial constraints of ordinary life.
A Former Nazi