The estimable Councillor Bob has got me thinking and commenting about Members of Parliament versus the ’snouts in the trough’ attitude about them that pervades much of the media and thinking of the public.
Apart from cases like Derek Conway, which looks indefensible whichever way you slice it, I think there is a way for MPs and politicians in general to win more hearts and minds. It’s a naive suggestion and would probably be resisted by all manner of vested interests.
In short, the case should be made to politicians that, ‘OK, we’re paying you all this money, show us in ways we can understand what we’re getting for it and that you’re earning it’. It’s not going to win everybody over particularly the partisan, the self-aggrandising and those with lucrative axes to grind. It’s not even a direct call for accountability - that would surely follow with greater and more comprehensible (if not comprehensive) openness.
I think that for many people, politics is an opaque process, particularly when it comes to Members of Parliament. Most people read the papers and think ’snouts in the trough’ and go no further. I wonder if those people have had very few dealings with their own member of parliament. This is an admission as much as an observation. I imagine people desperate enough (and I don’t mean that disparagingly) to have had to ask for and received their MP’s constructive help look at it rather differently.
A story that stayed with me was that of Brian Sedgemore, former Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, who defected to the Lib Dems during the last general election campaign. It was against human nature to expect Blair to laud Sedgemore’s 22 years service as a committed constituency MP rather than someone the voters ‘have never heard of’.
But Sedgemore’s long, attentive service was remembered by some and with a degree of fondness. Just as us cynics refuse to believe that Derek Conway is the only MP of his ilk in the House, we must also force ourselves to think and hope the same of Sedgemore. It’s just more verifiable evidence of either would help everybody, inside and outside of Parliament.
It’s a question of making friends. Imagine if, for example, government websites were better designed, more accessible and user friendly. There would be those who would still resent the sums spent on the sites, but I’d bet it’d be a lot less than those who resents them now, in the age of the amateurism that passes for much of online government.
Imagine if Harriet Harman had stood by the promises and statements she made during he deputy leadership bid. Imagine if she hadn’t automatically reverted to New Labour drone the second her victory was secured. Maybe she’d have found herself with more support when the tabloids came knocking. The amounts of money troubling her are trivial but there would be fewer calling for her head, or at least standing by silently, if she was demonstrably doing her job well.
If something is done well, impressively, on time, with efficiency, or whatever superlative you prefer, its cost is often, if not overlooked, then at least looked on more favourably. People are willing to pay for quality. It’s why the 2012 Olympics are a disaster waiting to happen.
It has to be said though that it’s for politician to court us, the public, not for us to hang around on the off chance one of them might look our way and we can be nice to them. They should show actively us they’re worth the lavish sums heaped upon them. If it turns out we don’t think - on the basis of the evidence - they are worth those sums then they need to up their game until they demonstrably are. Or they take a pay cut or go and do something else.
How you go about all this is for further consideration. It would mean a lot of changes to attitudes, procedures and prejudices. It starts to sound like a performance related pay scheme, doesn’t it? Also, the political will drought, partisan cynicism and the insatiable drive for newspaper sales are very probably insurmountable.
