A Plague On Both Your Houses...

Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have done it again. They are amongst three Senior Labour MPs that have been exposed in the Channel 4 documentary 'Dispatches' as touting for large sums of money in exchange for advice on the legislative process, with the implication that they can exert undue influence on current policy decisions on their benefactor's behalf. The deadly duo seem intent on destroying any chance that the Labour Party have of re-election, whether it is unsuccessful coup d'etat or getting themselves embroiled in a scandal, they seem hell bent on becoming a tag team wrecking crew aimed solely at maintaining their semi-celebrity status.

However in all seriousness, these latest allegations against both the Houses of Parliament call in to question the nature of the British democracy. A democracy that allows: MPs to maintain more than one job; that allows lobbying of special interest groups directly to individual MPs; a bicameral system that in every respect is not bicameral; and a democracy that allows MPs not to follow the best interests of their constituencies or the country, but of their own self-serving requirements. How can any Cabinet member, former Cabinet member or individual MP, be allowed to take money for direct influence upon the legislative process?

This really begs the question; who runs this country?

• MPs: Apparently not - they are willing to sell their political capital to feather their own nests
• The People: Not a chance - our ability to effect the political process is marginalised to once every five years
• The Media: To a certain extent - campaigns can have an influence, but their impact is often over stated by themselves
• Corporations: Probably - through offering big money directorships, sponsorships and through paying MPs for advocacy, corporations often wield undue influence over the political process in Britain

There is something far more sinister about this scandal in comparison to the relatively benign expenses fracas; which was essentially a minor scandal that revolved around most MPs over claiming on expenses within a predetermined and legal system. Most were greedy, but not dishonest.

There should be no difference in perception when considering the lobby system of paying for the advocacy of MPs and MPs undertaking a second, third or fourth job. Just because one is slightly more transparent than the other does not make either of them acceptable.

Furthermore, David Cameron has already attempted to gain political capital off this scandal, but a word of warning: a year ago, the Conservative Party Shadow Cabinet had twenty-six members and between them they had one hundred and fifteen non-executive directorships. Now whose interest are they going to serve - the electorate or the companies that are paying very well for their services?

The solution is relatively simple, but a tough pill to swallow. MPs should be paid more, but on a few conditions: the expenses system is completely over hauled (see earlier post), no secondary employment can be undertaken and there can be no paid consultancy between MPs and lobbyists. MPs can only have one master - and that is the British public.