Life without Gordon Brown

I am in Edmonton, Alberta. The sky is cloudless (as yesterday) and this weather promises to continue. Last night I watched a baseball game with my son. I notice that the banks are properly regulated here and none has failed. There is no news of the UK except for that which I seek out on the web. I don't have politician's lie invading my space. Bliss!

Two fingers up to the public

As has slowly become apparent, our MPs, now recovered from the exposure and criticism of their expenses, are reverting to their old ways. The Labour members have made it clear now that they are more interested in scoring political points than electing a Speaker who can achieve parliamentary reform. Bercow clearly was not wanted by most Conservatives and they will see him as another Labour stooge. This will make working relationships difficult and it is hard to see how reform will happen in this environment. In addition, Gordon Brown is still PM, so meaningful reform is a non-starter.

It is also apparent that Mr Bercow likes the sound of his own voice. It won't take long for the public to find out what they have leading Parliament.

It was also interesting to see that Gordon Brown's and support and active whipping for Margaret Beckett torpedoed her chances.

Reform. What reform?

The expenses scandal continues; the government blatantly lies to us; things should change; nothing will change. It is dispiriting but I am increasingly coming to the view that we will limp along to the next election without any attempt at reform. The election will cause a change of government and the new government will have to concentrate on salvaging the economy. And that will be that.

Today we will get a new face in the Speaker's chair. Bercow, if he gets it, will be problematic because of his personality, but otherwise it will be same old, same old.... No reform can be expected from there.

The real issue is not the fiddling of expenses or members of the Lords clocking in to get their daily allowance but the actual function and purpose of Parliament. We have a government selected from members of the Houses of Commons and Lords, a lot of whom are given jobs that could be, and probably are, done by civil servants. Power resides in the hands of a handful of people. That's the real tragedy. Our parliamentary democracy has been surreptitiously hi-jacked and subverted over the years, almost without anyone noticing. MPs have little to do other than act as lobby fodder on the few days they attend the Commons and provide an additional Citizen's Advice Bureau in their constituency. The Lords, as a consequence of Blair's partial reform, ironically now have the time to do what MPs should be doing - namely debate and amend legislation. Some of them have not missed the opportunity to make money out of this.

One has to ask what is the point of having 640 MPs when so few of them are usefully employed? And the question will still be asked (and not only by myself) until efforts are made to change and improve.

What I would like to see happen (and I won't hold my breath waiting) is for a reform commission set up to spend a year travelling across the country genuinely seeking input, spend whatever time is needed to distill this into a report with recommendations, and finally (and crucially) hold a binding referendum to determine the next step. The referendum questions should put three or four models before the public and should include the option of leaving things as they are (the "don't meddle" option). I think too that a year of debate prior to the actual referendum would be required to ensure that all the options were fully understood and another year to prepare implementation of any change.

Constitutional change is a difficult and risky business, therefore it is right to spend four or five years on it, but at the end we would have a renewed democratic system. On the other hand, we might end up with the "no change" option, which would still be OK because we will have endorsed the status quo. At the moment we have no trust in anyone within the present system.

No election for the rest of us

MPs tomorrow will have the privilege of voting in an election - another dividing line between them and us!

The X Files

When I bought my Daily Telegraph today the boy behind the counter read the banner "The Complete Expenses Files. Is that like the X-Files?"

"Yes", I said, so quick I even surprised myself, "the aliens are ripping us off."

He looked at me blankly, but at least I got my own joke.

Lest we forget

The only MP who had the courage to appear on Question Time last night was Ken Clarke. Apparently over a hundred were asked, but declined. They have some sense of shame then.

You wouldn't know it from reading the blacked out expenses documents published yesterday. This must amount to monumental arrogance. The Telegraph has already published the uncensored version and they are in a position to make comparison with "the stuff they didn't want us to know"; yet they went ahead anyway. You couldn't make it up, as they say.

They must believe that after we all go away for a sumer holiday we will forget about this and it will be business as usual. This seem to be the thinking also behind the election of a new speaker, and they think they can get away with an unreformed house.

Message to MPs. We will never forget this one!

Speaking for change

Michael Martin's whining final speech which appeared to blme everyone else for the predicament he found himself in was a good illustration by itself of the man's inadequacy for leadership. There should be lessons to learn from politicizing the role as MPs did in 2000 but it now appears that they are all back to their old ways. The election of a new speaker hinges, we are told, upon Labour MPs voting en bloc for John Bercow, just to annoy the Conservatives and Conervative MPs voting for Margaret Beckett to stop John Bercow.

Whatever the result it will be unsatisfactory. MPs have obviously learned nothing from the exepnses scandal except that they should steer clear of Question Time.