The People's Jury: Guilty or Not Guilty?

In his excellent piece for the Telegraph (here) blogger Graeme Archer does a grand job of knocking down the rather, ahem, inetresting idea in the Guardian (where else?) that a randomly selected "jury" of 1,000 Britons ought to hold court on some of the big issues facing the public.

Putitng aside Archer's point about this unelected clique telling our elected parliament what to do and think (I am rather fond of the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and voting at election time to make my voice heard) the idea is doomed because it almost certainly won't get the protagonists what they want.

By dangling 3 big issues - MPs expenses, the banking crisis and phone hacking - in front of the public, all issues where the public take issue with "vested interests" and "big businesses" - they make the idea sound attractive. But consider this. Britain is - wait for it - a conservative (small "c") country. For the vast majority of the last century or so, we have had Conservative, Conservaive-led or Conservative-dominated National governments. There is, as we are now finding out, a big conservative element to the LibDems and also to the Labour Party too. We have had precious few radical socialist, or even just socialist, governments and the only time recently when Labour have "won big" is when they shifted to the right (i.e. to where the people of Britain are). Sorry Guardian readers, however few of you there are left, it is true. Go to a council estate anywhere in the country, where you might expect Labour support to be strongest. Ask them about Europe, or immigration, or taxation levels and see what they say; I distinctly remember one voter last time in the heart of Lakeham lecturing me about the evils of Europe, too many immigrants, tax too high etc etc and - you guessed it - he would still be voting Labour. Even Labour folk have a conservative element to them.

So if you take 1,000 random Britons you wouldn't get the spread I think The Guardian expect. And instead of asking them about MPs expenses, as Archer suggests, you put other issues in front of them, you might not get the answer you expect either.

So I lay this challenge to The Guardian, The People's Jury and its fans. With some polls putting support for a return to the death penalty at over 70%, would you be happy for the first idea for discussion to be the death penalty?

Dontcha just love indrect democracy - when it suits you, eh, Guardian readers? ;-)

LibDems Finally Make A Pledge

At last - the LibDem candidate for Norwich South has issued an "honesty pledge" over expenses; I now look forward to his response over the Clean Campaigning Pledge too.

I am gald that the LibDems have finally got around to recognising this issue, although I understand many people are cynical that now we are in an election suddenly the local LibDems seem to care about the expenses issue.

In September 2009 I issued a strong honesty pledge which I have had on my website since them, that I have delivered to every home in the constituency. I stand by that pledge and believe I was ahead of the curve on this issue.

However what concerns me about the LibDem version is that it is massively watered down from what I would like to see.

I have now written to the LibDems with three very specific questions about the use of public money.

Will you accept the Communications Allowance or will you, like me, refuse public money to produce promotional propaganda for you and your party?

Will you, like me, ensure that your parliamentary office is totally separate from your constituency party office to ensure that there are no accusations of using parliamentary expenses to supplement a party cost?

Will you, like me, not employ anybody on a part-time basis alongside party political employment to ensure there are no accusations of using parliamentary salaries to supplement a party wage?

The Conservatives have been right to put the repair of our politics at the heart of this campaign. I am genuinely pleased that the LibDems have done this pledge but hope it can now be part of a wider debate about improving the reputation of politics.

Clarke claiming more but doing less?

The expenses row has turned the spotlight onto our MPs, how much they earn, how much they claim and what work they do. So it is only right that we look closely at what our local MPs are up to. Is Charles Clarke providing value-for-money?

According to the research done by theyworkforyou.com, Mr Clarke is yet to speak in the House of Commons during 2009 and his only parliamentary contribution was in a Westminster Hall debate about the local government (unitary) review in Norfolk. In addition, Mr Clarke has not tabled a single written question and served on just one select committee - Labour's controversial East of England Committee. Mr Clarke's voting behaviour doesn't hold out to much scrutiny either, voting just 66% of times which is below average according to "publicwhip".

And all this is at a time when Mr Clarke has held company directorships, been paid to give speeches, write articles for newspapers and go on overseas fact finding trips.

During this time Mr Clarke has claimed over £160,000 - making him one of the highest claiming MPs in the House.

I have made honesty a major part of this election. I have said I will hold no other paid job than being an MP and that I will be a value-for-money MP claiming less in expenses than Mr Clarke. What's more, I will ensure I am speaking up for the people of Norwich South in the chamber and asking key questions of Ministers.

It will seem to a lot of people that this is Mr Clarke claiming more but doing less. Maybe Mr Clarke knows his time in parliament is up, but he ought to be doing what people elected him to do and stand up for the City.

I think the answer for all this is for the Prime Minister to call a General Election and give the people of Norwich South the chance to vote for a Conservative MP who will work hard them, not a stay-away Labour MP.

Statistics detailed here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/charles_clarke/norwich_south

Telegraph dining out on MPs expenses

The Telegraph - aside from the EEN and EDP, my paper of choice - is getting its monies worth out of the leaked MPs expenses and so they should. What has been going on is a national disgrace. That includes Labour, LibDems and Tories. I still don't think "they're all at it" but certainly now it is clear a lot of them are. So, what to do ...

... we can either sack the lot of them; out they go - Blears, Straw, Duncan, Smith, Barker, Follett et al - and all those who have broken if not the letter of the rules then the spirit ...

... or we very speedily change the system. I have suggested before how we might start this. No second homes allowances, no expenses maybe at all - just a decent wage for MPs (because, yes, we must pay them enough to attract high calibre candidates and make it worthwhile for working people to stand and win) and cut out the rest. Oh, and while we're at it - your main home is your constsituency home, full stop.

Because now the body politic is being damaged; canvassing for the last 3 days, it is clear this is impacting turnout and faith in our legislature. We need to sort this - and fast.

A bit of openess, honesty and simplicity would settle this whole affair.

So how about allowing each MP three members of staff - a secretary in Westminster, a constituency caseworker and a researcher, all employed by and paid for direct by the House of Commons. How about abolishing second homes and providing living accommodation in London for each MP that is paid for and owned by the Parliamentary estate (student halls, anyone?). How about MPs buying their own lunch, sink plugs and mock tudor beams?

Expenses: How weak can the LibDems be?

A reader directs me to the latest example of the weak LibDems in City failing to stand up to Labour. This story, still on ther website, claims in bold letters that the "LibDems vote to reject allowances proposals."

Only when it came to the vote, they did no such thing. They voted - along with Labour and the Greens - to defer the motion until July, when they hope the expenses storm will have died out and the economic situation may have improved enough to vote through massive allowances hikes without getting into trouble.

I wanted to take the vote in March there and then to send a clear message that we would reject allowances hikes. The weak LibDems are quite happy, though, to leave a story on their website that says what people want to hear, whilst voting in a totally different way in the council chamber.

Clegg's shift on MPs expenses

I am all in favour of people coming around to my way of thinking, but what has prompted this move from publicity-deprived LibDem Leader Nick Clegg we wonder?

After all, Mr Clegg has claimed the maximum allowance for a second home as recently as last year including the costs of doing it up. No doubt Mr Clegg will be happy to pass the profits to the taxpayers, but would he have been happy to have done that if the storm over expenses hadn't blown up? Discuss.

MPs Expenses: Just Sort Them Out

The continual drip-drip of allegations and snout-in-trough exposures of the recent weeks doesn't damage a single political party - they damage the reputation of politics and with it, democracy as a whole. Voters I have spoken to on the doorsteps in the recent weeks want us to tackle anti-social behaviour, improve school standards, strengthen our society and repair our economy - so the more time we spend on the issue of MPs expenses the less time we are working on the "big issues" and the "tough choices". So come on Gordon, sort it out and do it fast. And to help, beause Gordon is currently keen on advice from the Conservatives, are my plans.

1. Abolish all MPs expenses - don't give MPs a penny more than that which they earn.

2. Cut MPs salaries by 5%, and then link them to the pay rises offered not to a high ranking civil servant but to our nurses and teachers. Might make our MPs think rather more about the impact of their decisions on hard working families rather more.

3. Abolish money for second homes. Parliament - or rather, the taxpayer - ought to buy a big block of flates near to Westminster, do them up and provide them for free to MPs (not unlike Halls for students). There could be larger flats for MPs whose families come and see them during the week. They would all be furnished to a minimum standard (think Travelodge); any extras come from the MP themselves. The flat is owned by the tax-payers and would switch to the new MP should a member lose their seat.

4. Judge the qualification for these flats by the avergae time taken to get to Westminster by public transport (the real journey time, not those claims made by rail companies). Anything up to an hour door-to-door is a reaosnable communte. Anything more qualifies the member for a flat.

5. Put a complete ban - and I mean, complete - on family members working for the MP.

As a Tory, the free market is very much in my thinking; there are no shortage of MPs and there are many, many very good candidates without seats who would do the job. If people don't like the pay and conditions they shouldn't out themselves up for the job. A big bit of being an MP is public service, and that may include taking a pay cut to do the job.

I am a staunch defender of MPs - the overwhelming majority are decent, very hard working and honourable men and women. They deserve our respect as a population and I personally am grateful for the work they do. MPs expenses get in the way of recieveing that respect and should be sorted out as soon as possible.