Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: parliament

  • ‘How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t

    A book on our political system by Ian Dunt

    January 2024

    Many of our Democracy Café debates concern parliament, Westminster and the political process generally with frequently a lament about why it’s so bad. We are now in election year and for the next n months, we are going to have speculation upon speculation about when it will be, and once the date is announced, we will have months spent on debating the various party’s promises and their manifestos. And promises there will be aplenty. How party A will fix the NHS and reduce waiting lists, how party B will solve the immigration and small boats crisis and party C will improve the nation’s productivity and get Britain growing again. The airwaves and our screens will be filled with endless interviews and silly stunts as politicians hug small children or are seen in various uniforms for a photo shoot before departing smartish. Oh and I nearly forgot, all of them will be reducing taxes.

    Read Ian Dunt’s book* and you will realise how pointless it all is. How oceans of time is wasted on all this election rubbish when the reality is that the political system is in a mess – arguably a terminal mess – and there is precious little any politician can do to fix it. Indeed, as our economy has deteriorated, the opportunity to fix it has narrowed considerably.  

    In his book, Dunt takes us remorselessly through our political system bit by depressing bit to show that almost none of it works or is capable of doing what is needed. The book starts with the disaster of the probation service and the ‘reforms’ carried out by Chris Grayling. He rushed into a privatisation without a trial to see if it could work. He ignored advice. He realised that the public would be worried that serious offenders were to be handled by the private sector so he divided the service into two parts – public and private. The public part became overloaded and the private part lost money.  It turned into a complete and expensive disaster and had to be undone. He should have been thrown out by his local electorate for his massive and unnecessary failure. But he was in a safe seat so first past the post saved him. 

    It starts with the selection of MPs. As Rory Stewart noted in his book, this is not done on the basis of management skill or experience, leadership ability or policy experience but rather on how a collection of local, and mostly elderly, party people think you’ll fit in, how likeable you are and your knowledge of the constituency. Having succeeded at that and arriving in parliament, you discover that you are almost a nonentity as an ordinary MP. Treated shoddily by the whips who even dictate what you’re maiden speech will be. As Isabel Hardman writes in her book Why We Get the Wrong Politicians, life as an MP can be lonely and stressful being either ignored or bullied. Away from home during the week and once back in their constituency, they have constituency business to attend to. For many, the only option is to be slavishly loyal, don’t ask awkward questions and hope to get on the ministerial gravy train. Much of the constituency business is nothing to do with the MP anyway and should be dealt with by a local councillor but they cannot refuse for fear of a backlash. 

    One of the surprises of the book is the House of Lords which he praises. Yes indeed, who would credit it. But he points out that the Lords has many highly experienced people able to inform policy making and legislation. Dunt points out that much legislation is shoved through parliament and MPs whipped to vote for it mostly without having read or understood what they’ve been told to do. The party system is not nearly as prevalent and there are many cross bench lords. It is the competence and expertise of the Lords which frequently proves crucial in ensuring legislation is capable of doing what a minister wants it to do. 

    He looks at the press which fails to deal with matters in depth and ministers who often have too cosy a relationship with people like the Murdochs and Paul Dacre. For example, Thatcher and Blair who even went half way round the world to fawn on Rupert Murdoch. The Leveson enquiry revealed how Murdoch came and went to No10 at will entering by the back door. 

    The Civil Service which has lost its way and has far too few people with statistical, organisational or project management experience. The churn of staff means the constant loss of experience as people are moved every two years or so. The churn of ministers is also criticised often moved after a year or two when it takes at least 18 months to get to grips with a ministry. The Treasury is vastly overrated and its pathological aversion to long-term investment a major cause of our problems. 

    So when we listen to one or other politician making claims about what they are going to do if they form a government, just remember that they will be attempting to run a machine that is a long way from being ‘well oiled’ and which has a high degree of dysfunctionality. That is quite apart from the parlous state of the economy and a decade of underinvestment in our social fabric. 

    Ah you might say, ‘Mrs Thatcher changed things’ and so she did. Remember though that the economy was in a vastly different place to where it is now. She was able to deliver some shocks to the economy and it did recover. An incoming government will not have that degree of leeway now. 

    The message of the book is that we have to undertake wholesale change to include how MPs are chosen and what their true role should be; reforming the civil service and the spad system which has grown up in the last few years; MPs to be properly resourced; changing the killing work schedule of ministers with their red boxes they have to plough through; curbing the Treasury’s powers and ending the silly budget process. 

    If I have a criticism of the book it is its relentless negativity. Despite the criticisms, there are the occasional MPs who achieve things and campaign successfully for a piece of legislation. Good laws do get onto the statute book, anti-slavery legislation for example. Although the civil service is very generalist, it does take someone who is non technical to ask the ‘idiot question’ sometimes to challenge the orthodoxy. Although the Treasury does have a lot to answer for it does challenge ministers who think the answer to all problems is to throw money at it. 

    It is nevertheless a good, if depressing read and a useful backdrop for the months of nonsense we will be subject to in this election year.

    Peter Curbishley

    *Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2023

  • Democracy Café

    Report of the Democracy Café which took place on October 14th, 2023

    It was good to welcome several old friends back to the café and a new member as well. The meeting took place exactly a week after the incursion into Israel by Hamas terrorists with a huge death toll among Israelis civilians. Israel retaliated by bombing Gaza and troops are massing on the northern border ahead of an expected invasion. The use of the word ‘terrorist’ in the above sentence is itself a matter of dispute.

    The first topic we chose was: to what extent are our opinions about the conflict influenced by the media reporting of it? Everything we know about the recent actions is as a result of what we have seen on TV, read in the papers or seen on social media of one kind or another. The point was made that everything we see and hear is affected by the media which was often afflicted by mis- or disinformation. The main TV stations (BBC, ITV, Channel 4) are governed by impartiality rules and make great efforts to reflect all sides of a conflict. It has to be noted that not everyone was impressed by this and were not convinced that there was adequate balance in the reporting. Social media on the other hand was not subject to the same rules and were often the source of various conspiracy theories or disinformation. Some thought the coverage by al Jazeera was superior. There was a problem with paywalls: to read what different papers said meant paying to see the content which made commercial sense but did cut people off from accessing a more diverse range of views.

    The BBC in particular had come in for criticism by some politicians (Grant Shapps MP was mentioned) and by GB News for declining to use the word ‘terrorist’ to describe Hamas people who invaded Israel. Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation in the UK and the BBC has used the word particularly in reported speech. In similar fashion, the lack of condemnation was also mentioned as a criticism. The BBC say the word ‘terrorist’ is loaded and they are reluctant to use it. The point was made that people in Gaza might say that the bombing of their communities is an act of terror (because they have been terrorised). I think the point made by several is that the word is highly charged and it becomes difficult to know where to draw the line.

    The BBC was defended by some however and they said that great efforts have been made to be fair in a volatile and fast changing situation. Someone pointed to the interview by Clive Myrie of a Hamas spokesman they thought was was good.

    Several spoke of the history of the conflict going back to the League of Nations and the mandate given to the British to keep the peace in Palestine after the Great War and the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. One speaker had been there in the Army during this latter period so it was interesting to hear of his first hand experience of these historical events. It was suggested that the animosity between Arabs and Jews was centuries old, others pointed out that during the time of the Islamic conquest, Christians, Jews and others continued with their lives as long as they paid their taxes. There were no pogroms. On the other hand it was suggested that the Jews were treated badly in Yemen. One thing was clear however and that was the Palestinians had received a ‘rotten deal’ as they put it following the events of ’48, what they refer to as the naqba (disaster). It was the rapid increase in the number of Jewish settlers after the war which added to the problems.

    Some media commentators had compared Hamas to ISIS and although there were some similarities, they were not motivated by the same things. It was suggested that some think tanks were a better source of information and Chatham House was mentioned.

    It was accepted that there was a lot of history but the fact remains the modern day situation in Gaza was a pressing issue for the two million or so living there. It had been pointed out earlier that Evan Davies on the PM programme on Radio 4 was reluctant to accept the phrase ‘open prison’ to describe conditions there. It was not to excuse their terrible actions but what are they to do? The world had a responsibility to ensure it did not go on and on. It was shocking that in the 21st century, we are witnessing these terrible events.

    There was general agreement that the uncritical and unbalanced support by the US, UK and French governments was to be deplored and offering to provide military support particularly so.

    It was a good debate particularly so in view of the emotive nature of what has taken place in the past week. It was clear that people recognised the historical factors which led to the current conflict. It is probably fair to say that some thought there was bias in the reporting while others thought that the mainstream media had sought, as best they could, to be balanced.

    The second topic was a complete contrast and was a discussion based on what single thing would you change in respect of our government? The proposer noted the preponderance of public school boys (mostly) in our government and civil service. Although only 7% went to these schools, they occupied by some estimates, 40% of key government positions. Eton school had a debating chamber modelled on the House of Commons. Another issue was the high level of investments such people had. What was lacking among them was much in the way of ‘ordinary’ experience whether of employment or life in general. Not allowing the product of private schools into government was not agreed as this would disenfranchise large numbers of people. However banning the paying for education was proposed as happens in several other countries.

    The role of the City of London was mentioned along with the need to bring it fully into the United Kingdom.

    House of Lords came in for some predictable criticism. While the need for a second chamber was recognised, the presence of hereditary peers and the huge numbers of peers was criticised. A better method was proposed involving selecting people based on a representational basis. We might have noted the manner of their appointment and ‘cash for honours’ is often highly questionable. The word ‘bloated’ was used to describe the second chamber.

    The issue of how MPs are selected was brought up. A small panel of local party members choose the candidate sometimes from an approved short-list provided by central office. These people, if elected and if their party formed the government, might find themselves a minister of some kind having never managed or run anything before. Was it any wonder we had government mismanagement on a vast scale? Added to which was the rapid turnover of ministers some of whom only lasted a year or so in post. This brought up the question how did you find ‘decent’ MPs (meaning capable and with appropriate experience) in the first place and more women? It was pointed out that the LibDems did not select their candidates this way and held public meetings to do so.

    It was also pointed out that once a MP became a minister it seemed to reduce his or her ability to act as a representative which is why they were elected in the first place. Writing to the Salisbury MP for example would often elicit the response that as he was a minister he was not at liberty to intervene (in another department). It was a kind of circular nonsense: you elect someone to represent the constituency but they become a minister and thus stop being able to.

    Strong views were expressed about MPs having second jobs: representing their constituents which is what they were elected and paid to do and that should be a full-time occupation, not spending time on a second job.

    There was discussion about the actual shape of the Commons with two sides facing each other rather than a semi-circular arrangement seen in many other chambers around the world – Scotland and Wales for example. It invited exchanges which were little more than shouting matches which put off many people. Someone said they could not bear to watch prime minister’s questions for this reason.

    The voting system itself came in for criticism. A constituency like Salisbury for example is never likely to be other than Conservative despite the presence of many who were not Conservative supporters: they were effectively and permanently disenfranchised. This was an issue supported by Make Votes Matter in Salisbury.

    Other points included do we need a written constitution?

    We did not come to a ‘single thing’ as the question asked perhaps representing the fact that the system was so broken at so many points that no single thing would be enough to fix it.

    The next meeting is on Saturday 11th November, starting at 10.00 in the Library.

    Peter Curbishley

    Books mentioned:

    Information Anxiety, (1989), Richard Saul Wurman

    Chums: How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK (2023), Simon Kuper

    Why we Get the Wrong Politicians (2019), Isabel Hardman

    Not mentioned but relevant: The Palestine-Israel Conflict (2015), Dan Cohen-Sherbok & Dawoud el-Alami. The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine (2018), Bernard Regan.

  • Democracy Café: June

    Numbers were a bit down for this meeting which is probably to be expected on a nice June day. It didn’t inhibit our discussion however which was on the topic of should there be a different way of selecting our prime minister? This referred to the votes by members of the Conservative party on whether to keep Boris Johnson as their prime minister following the magic number of MPs who had submitted letters to Sir Graham Brady and the vote of no confidence in him.

    The point made by the proposer was that the prime minister represented all of us and was the prime minister of the country as a whole. Should it just be left to, in this case Conservative MPs, many of whose futures depended on party patronage or who were on what is termed the ‘payroll vote’ that is were part of the government in some form? The example was given of John Glen, the Salisbury MP and a Treasury minister, who claimed in the Salisbury Journal that he had ‘no discretion’ in the matter. This puzzled some as it was a secret vote.

    Some alternative suggestions were made and discussed including allowing the public to sue or involving the court system generally. People were not generally impressed by this partly because of its cumbersome nature and, who selects the judges? It was pointed out that the House of Commons as a whole can have a vote of no confidence which is likely to lead to the prime minister resigning and even the fall of the government. It was also pointed out that Boris Johnson is still very popular with the public and that many think that ‘partygate’ has been overdone. Many liked his style of leadership which was itself a worry. Involving the public in prime ministerial appointments brought us dangerously close to being a presidential system. We didn’t get the normal response of ‘do you want to have a president Blair?’ at that point but someone did quietly mutter ‘Donald Trump’ which serves as a terrible warning (Trump I mean although …).

    People still felt the current system intolerable but quite what to do about it was less clear. The role of the media (as ever) came into the discussion and their role in influencing public opinion either way. Big money interests support the Conservatives on the whole it was said.

    A general question was posed at this point: how do you select a leader of any group or organisation? Who selected whom should be the facilitator of this very meeting? If we didn’t like him how would we go about changing him? A profound question.

    We moved on to talk about the parliamentary situation as a whole and in particular the current two party system. Although ‘first past the post’ was not specifically mentioned, it was the point behind the comment that the winner takes all process encourages people who can cope with it. Those who might be more collaborative in their approach are discouraged by the party warfare – or should I say warfare between the parties. The two party system was thought not suitable for today’s world it was thought.

    A quirk of the system about voting for the prime minister was that it would only be the voters of Uxbridge and South Ruislip who get to vote for him (or not) in a general election.

    Towards the end of this session, the point that most politicians are not in it for the money was made (although this had not been suggested or inferred).

    Part two of the session moved on to whether at the local level, politicians should not be aligned to a national party. Salisbury was slightly unusual in having a party system – other councils in the area for example Wilton, weren’t. That we do was at the behest of Labour and LibDem leaders it was claimed.

    One of the advantages of people standing with a party label is that the public knew broadly what they stood for. It was a kind of short hand for their likely beliefs. On the other hand, it is likely to lead to assumptions by the public about how a politician will vote which might not always be true. It was also suggested that it also encouraged people to vote. Whether this was the case was challenged with the example of Frome in Somerset where a non-party approach had led to an increase in voter participation.

    It was pointed out that a great deal of council expenditure was determined by government policy and spending limits. Much expenditure was non-discretionary, social services and highways for example. The degree of discretionary expenditure was relatively small and declining: reductions in the support grants also imposed restrictions. One of the councillors present said that in fact most of his fellow councillors across parties, wanted the same sort of things but the disagreements were more about how.

    The second part, which touched on the same sort of areas, was the suggestion that Wiltshire should be split into two counties, north of the plain and south of it. The two halves of the county were very different (the saying ‘as different as chalk and cheese’ referred the two farming types in the county). The two parts looked to different areas: the north more towards Bath and Bristol and the south towards Southampton and Winchester. People living near the borders between counties often lost out because of the postcode lottery. There has always been a simmering resentment in Salisbury that Trowbridge was remote and that they was overlooked. However, it was noted that people in the north of the county similarly resented what they saw as Salisbury getting a bigger slice of the cake, so where did the truth lie?

    Those who wanted something like the District Council back were less keen to have social care back as well it was said.

    Why was voting for, and interest in, local government so low? One answer was that people often do not understand its importance. Well, couldn’t councils do more to explain it better? It was pointed out that some councillors had established surgeries to which no one came. When there was a local issue then perhaps then it was appropriate for councillors to engage with electors.

    Both topics shared a sense of frustration with the political system both national and local. For some, the failure of Boris Johnson to resign was outrageous although, as was noted, many thought the whole story was overblown and they were happy with his performance. The system relied on basic integrity and once that failed, the flaws in our uncodified system became all too evident. Many people were disengaged with local politics and part of this was a lack of understanding of its importance and the limitations on its powers.

    Peter Curbishley