Low politics

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Low politics

As usual, the claque has today avidly followed the drama of PMQs, blogging every minute of them and coming up with their fatuous score cards.

But, while the "high politics" of the weekly joust between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition grabs the lion's share of attention, scarcely any notice is taken of the boiler room(s) – the select committees where the important work of parliament is, or should be done.

However, when it comes to "value for money", this is where Parliament should be earning its keep, scrutinising in detail the policies of government and their implementation, in recognition of which the chairmen of the committees are paid an extra £20,000 a year over and above their normal parliamentary salaries.

When it comes to the Defence Committee, therefore, not only does its chairman James Arbuthnot get his swimming pool cleaned at the expense of the taxpayer (although he is repaying that), he also gets an emolument for a part-time job which is more than most people earn.

It is all very well raising Cain about MPs' expenses, therefore, but it would help if some note were taken of MPs' salaries, what they actually did for their basic pay and then – where there are generous add-ons – whether they delivered value there as well.

In respect of the Defence Committee, however, we have averred that the MPs and chairman give very poor value for money, a defect which probably applies to most committees, as was picked up recently by The Times, if only in terms of attendance records.

What brings this to a head once again is that the journal Defence Management has reported the Panther story, in particular picking up on what we broke last night, their story going under the heading: "£20m for upgrades to undelivered vehicle".

DM records that the MoD has paid millions to BAE for urgent upgrades to the Panther command and liaison vehicle (CLV) on top of the nearly £160m it has already spent in procuring the vehicles, and notes that, "The revelation that the MoD had to pay extra for upgrades before the vehicles were ever delivered or introduced to troops will only add to the growing criticism of the nine year old programme." 

The fact that this is a "nine year old programme" is in itself remarkable but the longevity has also afforded the Defence Committee ample opportunity to examine it, not least because the vehicle is taking so long to introduce into service. 

Yet, while the redoubtable Ann Winterton has been highly critical of the machine (without extra pay), we can find no trace of the Defence Committee ever having looked at the project. All I can find is one member of the committee, Robert Key, complaining that the Panther is not to be issued to the Royal Military Police. (This is the same Robert Key who, incidentally, welcomed the introduction of the Vector).

This is only one project on which the committee has dropped the ball, pleading that there are too many issues to cover. Yet, as with most of the committees, it is very rare to see a "full house" during evidential sessions, which makes you wonder what the MPs are doing with their time. 

When it comes to issues it chooses, the committee has just announced that it is to conduct an inquiry on the contribution of "ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) to operations" – even though it completed a very similar inquiry last year. One can but wonder at the priorities, especially as this is an area where the military, if anything, seems to be getting its act together.

The broader point which arises from this, though, is the old one of quis custodiet ipsos custodes? We can create all sorts of elaborate controls to stop MPs from abusing their expenses system. But how do we make sure they do their jobs properly? As the man said of the "custodes" … "qui nunc lasciuae furta puellae hac mercede silent. Crimen commune tacetur."

COMMENT THREAD

Lost in the beauty contest

Gritting one's teeth at the prospect of having to write something complimentary about Daniel Hannan, one has to say that he has got it in one. Rightly, he slams Brown's proposals for the "reform" of Parliament, for the statist solution that they are, condemning them for making matters far worse.

There! I've done it. And it wasn'tthat painful. (Short intermission, while I unlock my jaw and prise my teeth apart.)

Another man who has got it right is the Earl of Balfour, writing in theletters column of The Daily Telegraph. His letter demands the widest possible circulation:

The power to shock of your paper's well-judged revelations about MPs' boundless expenses and property speculation does not diminish, but perhaps it is time to consider whether part of Westminster's problem is that MPs no longer have enough power over, or interest in, their citizens' affairs.

Retired MPs say that the lot of a backbencher these days is very dull and powerless.

So much legislation comes from Brussels and bypasses Parliament altogether, and this has been exacerbated by the wholesale politicisation of the Civil Service since 1997.

MPs cannot, therefore, identify with such legislation in terms of origination or of responsibility for its consequences.

Unless the rubber-stamping of European Union legislation and the partiality of the Civil Service are rolled back, the way in which Parliament is perceived by voters may become irreparable.

Actually, it is not just the retired MPs. Exchanging e-mails with one prominent backbencher recently, I got the startling comment, "I have never felt so depressed and impotent because I cannot do anything to change the situation."

That is from the heart of Westminster and the writer is not alone. And it is only human nature that, when you have spent years banging your head against a brick wall, you eventually give up. That is the response to the dynamic the Earl Balfour has identified.

The European Union, of course, is not the whole problem, but it is the worm in the apple which has spoilt the fruit. The remainder is, like the curate's egg, "good in parts" but the insidious, poisonous worm renders the whole thing uneatable.

The great danger now is that the claque rushes in to turn a constitutional crisis (and that it is – one which has been a long time in coming) into a beauty contest for a new speaker, the greater issues being subsumed by the idle prattle, as the merits (or demerits) of the individual candidates are endlessly churned over.

Never more has it been more important to focus on the essential point that the "expenses" controversy is a symptom not the cause of the problem. At the heart of this stinking affair is the erosion of democracy and the very great danger is that – as Hannan points out – that the "cure" will make the disease worse.

Here, it is alarming to see the main opposition leaders rush in to endorse Brown's proposals "in principle", demonstrating that neither are true democrats. Rather, they are statists to the core. They exhibit the typical malaise of our ruling classes, seeing the answers to all problems as more and tighter regulation. In this, they share the mindset of the European Union and it is therefore no surprise that both so fully endorse the "project".

But one's heart sinks ever further to see idiots savant like Peter Kellnerprattle on about the "slow but steady evolution of our democratic rights" when those rights are under unprecedented attack, and fools like him cannot even acknowledge the threat.

The worst of it is, however, is that the claquers will probably get their way, with their love of personality politics, and wreck any chance of a serious debate, as they focus on the coming beauty contest. Thus does our democracy dribble down the pan, lost in the torrent of trivia and stupidity that drives what passes for political discourse.

COMMENT THREAD