Register a complaint

Being subtle in the House of Commons is not particularly easy, let alone encouraged, so maybe it’s no surprise that Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden) has gone full out neon-lit cuckoo-bananas with her Bash The Coalition Bill.

I’m so sorry; I mean, with her “Homeless (Voting Exclusion) and Head of the Household (Retention of Power over Vulnerable Women and Children) Bill.”

The idea behind the proposed law – which has no chance of progressing much further – has a sound core. It’s just the rest of the structure around it which lacks integrity. Surrounding the central argument is rice-paper and silly string, a ragbag collection of thinly veiled partisan attacks. It’s not surprise to me that a Labour politician wants to nobble electoral administration to benefit the Party; such an attitude was the basis behind their shameless attack against AV and the childlike squealing of ‘gerrymandering!’ during the ultimately killed off boundary change process. Nothing pleases Labour more than keeping the voting system and electoral administration firmly in their grasp, and McDonagh’s proposed Bill ensures the grip is tighter than ever.

One line of attack in the Bill – formally “Electoral Register (Access to Public Services)” – rubbishes individual electoral registration. The move to IER removes the nonsense of the ‘head of the household’ having the power to register (or in most cases, deliberately not register) people living at an address. In my “previous life” as an electoral candidate, it was something of an open secret that manipulation of the registration process by ‘head of the households’ and related problems with postal votes excluded women and young people from voting. IER will go some way to alleviate that problem. McDonagh tries to make a negative thing out of the loss of voters in Northern Ireland when they switched, ignoring the fact that many of the missing names on the Norn Iron voting register probably didn’t exist in the first place. Or indeed had been long since deceased.

The most remarkable piece of nonsense has to be the central part of her proposal. If a person wants to take part in any aspect of everyday life, then they must be registered to vote. I assume this is the same thinking which had the Labour Party promoting compulsory ID cards as part of the ‘war against terror’. Putting to one side the bizarre leap in logic required to accept the notion that wanting to drive has the same passion as wanting to vote, we get to the oddest sentence of all. Namely this beauty;

If someone does not like living in a democracy, that is fine, but they should not expect all the good things that democracy offers in return.

 

Does this remind you of Louise Mensch’s “you can’t be anti-capitalist if you use an iPhone” argument? I love the premise. “If you’re angry about an issue or specific policy, then you ruddy well better wait until an election, young person, rather than this placard waving protests you keep banging on about.”

It’s a wonderful piece of homeless prejudice too, as it completely misunderstands the journey many vulnerable people have to take to seek help. By making the register a form of National Registration Scheme, McDonagh takes the basis of democracy and squishes it into a flattened Colgate tube.

Reaction to her idea has been largely negative in the real world, where McDonagh and other MPs ignorant of democracy tend not to live.

Source, and source and source

Readers of a certain age may recall the fallout from the Poll Tax, during which time the electoral register shrank across the country as people tried all the could to avoid paying charges they couldn’t afford. Linking the electoral register with any kind of State benefits or crime-fighting purpose is therefore toxic in some areas, particularly Labour-leaning cities such as Liverpool or Glasgow which saw the worst of the backlashes. If McDonagh understood the problems people have with the words “electoral” and “register”, she would have realised that threatening to withhold benefits for non-registration sounds like a police sanctioned threat. It’s not the language of politicians generally let alone specifically Labour.

This horrible, twisted and offensive Bill will die a quick death, as the Parliamentary process is not kind to Ten Minute Bills and their related brethren. In the case of this proposal, which threatens women and children with social exclusion and places power in the hands of unscrupulous landlords, nothing could be kinder than a shot to the head. What a shambles.

 

Advertisements

Politics and pay-rises

Should MPs have their pay increased by 11%?

No, of course not.

It’s been funny watching the Westminster village act as characters in a soap opera would do when twists and turns appear which have been neon-lit for weeks beforehand. Yet this is not Eastenders or Pobol y Cwm, it’s real life, and in the context of an economic downturn, an 11% salary increase is just about as tasteless a joke as you could imagine. Even if you are Frankie Boyle guest scripting Family Guy. We’ve known about the upcoming decision on MPs salaries for some time, and yet only now do chickens start to run around headless.

Our MPs are paid, give or take, £65k for their basic work, plus all the expenses which got them into so much trouble before 2010. In response to the expenses scandals, two things happened at two very different speeds: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was set up (eventually) and each and every expenses claim was published in full. One of them seems to work quite well, the other not so well. And most MPs seem to agree at least that the one which works (in-house policing) is far better a system to follow than the one which seemingly doesn’t work (IPSA).

The issue remains one of trust, a currency with very little value around Parliament at the moment. And it’s an issue which “pro-pay rise” MPs have clearly taken to mean nothing at all. To scrap IPSA, to allow MPs to award themselves pay rises, to scrap any form of external policing of Parliament, would be the craziest and most self-serving decision in many a year. There is barely enough justification to give parliamentarians quite so much money in the first place (they earn forty-odd-thousand above the national average, after all.)  There’s no justification at all for adding ten grand (an amount which was once the usual wage for out-of-London checkout staff and the like, and may well be in some parts of the country for other such jobs.)

I don’t want to sound like Owen Jones, heaven forfend, but if MPs genuinely want to continue doing the job they like so much, then continue doing so for the current salary. There’s no public sector worker in the land who is currently happy with being ordered to stick with 1% pay increases and salary caps; this unhappiness would develop into something far uglier were the very people ordering that salary restraint voted in favour of such a large increase in their own takehome pay.

David Cameron is right – Westminster politics needs to be made far leaner, far cheaper. We needed to lose 50 MPs in the aborted boundary change process, and it’s to Parliament’s shame that they chose to become so petty about that minor stepping stone change. (Honestly folks, getting into a rage over gerrymandering because Little Hamlet was being moved into Mid-Countyshire made you look petty, childish and wholly unsuitable for office.)

I would go much further than a reduction to 600 – Britain can be governed by 500 MPs, a straight saving of plenty millions, and with a smaller, elected second chamber, the costs would continue to grow. If MPs wantht second jobs to top up their income, then they jolly well resign their seats. Hey, office workers would love to keep taking more and more paid work to make ends meet, and some often do, but they don’t have a country to run. If your MP thinks that being a law-maker can be done part-time with being a consultant or manager or director, then that MP can leave for someone else. At my most Owen Jones-ian, I would consider it necessary for the professional political class to consider if they’re in it to represent their constituents, or in it because The Thick Of It made it look “cool”.

IPSA is a vital organisation, treating MPs like so many quangos and bodies treat ordinary people (see Douglas Carswell’s very good blog on this line). MPs are too easily phased by the criticism of “real people”, because they so often refuse to meet with them. The Westminster village remains an aloof and arrogant club. They rightly surrendered the right to award themselves pay increases; they should now rightly refuse to accept one.

Anything else would be cigarette-paper close to corruption.