Cameron has gone a Courtin'

Whether it is the frivolity of summer still lingering in the air or a concerted effort, but David Cameron's first major speech after the summer recess was insightful in a number of respects. The speech itself was not incendiary or that demanding of its audience; in fact it was a pretty unspectacular opening gambit to the new parliamentary session. However, the speech shows a new target audience and tactic for the Leader of the Opposition.

The speech centred around the necessity for spending cuts and fiscal prudence, but rather than discuss any number of viable and significant spending efficiencies, Mr Cameron chose to target the 'bourgeois' MPs (it is ironic given it is only weeks after Alan Duncan's Oliver Twist impersonation) with a tabloid centric attack. Giving the newspapers an easy headline and easier target is nothing new for any politician, but the time and the style of the new attack is significant.

It signals David Cameron's attempt to court the tabloid audience in the election year with a performance that would not have been out of place at last month's Edinburgh's Fringe Festival. It is also significant that Mr Cameron has chosen a policy area that is the responsibility of the House of Commons instead of a government policy, in this respect David Cameron should share in some of the criticism that he has apportion.

The tabloid audience is not the usual target of the Conservative Party, most Tories would rather keep them at arms length, but political will is determined by political necessity and in election year every voter counts. It will be interesting to see if David Cameron pursues the tabloids with as much vigour as Tony Blair did.

On the positive side, the newly announced Conservative plan would shave a massive 0.002% off the national debt.

Quango and Cash

The quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (or for simplicity sake the Quango) has again become the political focus of a party in opposition. These organisations have always been an easy target due to their size, power and budgets; according to The Guardian there are 790 Quangos with a combined budget in excess of £34 billion.

Quangos are a simple target for the opposition as proven by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron. Since the Quango, like the Civil Service, must remain politically impartial it becomes very simply to score political points off these organisations. It is similar to winning a debating competition where one participant has gagged and chained their opponent.

Furthermore, there has been little in the way of inspiration leadership from David Cameron, recently it almost seems that he is playing 'leader-of-the-opposition by numbers';

1. first attack the Governments public spending plans,
   
2. then mention how the opposition will increase efficiency of the public sector therefore saving the tax payer billions,
   
3. and finally attack Quangos

But like all leaders of the opposition before him, Mr Cameron has yet to outline what will replace these megaliths. It is very easy for Mr Cameron to comment that he will reduce the number of Quangos, but these institutions were created for a reason and currently do serve a purpose. So any organisation that replaces these Quangos will potentially have similar budgets and be similarly accountable.

Admittedly there needs to be reform of the system of Quangos, in terms of accountability and transparency, but to return them to their original government department would create a similar megalith just under a different guise and in a different place.

The result would be the next leader of the opposition would attack the size of the bureaucracy and government. Now that is a vicious circle...

Second, Third, Fourth Job.

This Westminster saga might feel like the Big Brother series from hell, thankfully without Davina McCall, but the MPs' expenses scandal is still rumbling on. On July 1st 2009, MPs will be forced to reveal all their various other "interests", this means that any MP with a second (and in many cases third and fourth) job must openly publicize their incomes and hours worked away from Parliament.

Apparently this is to create an atmosphere of transparency and openness in Parliament. However the only logical consequence is the exposing of more revelations concerning MPs lack of dedication to their constituency.

For instance, sixteen of the twenty-two frontbench Conservative MPs have second jobs; these range from non executive directorships at big financial institutions, such as Oliver Letwin at NM Rothschild, to writing newspaper columns like William Hague. In total the Shadow Cabinet consists of twenty-six members who currently hold one hundred and fifteen directorships (yes that is right: 115) between them.

Obviously is not just confined to the Tory Frontbench, it is endemic across all parties, but as an example it illustrates the point perfectly.

How can this beneficial to the country and their constituency? As a shadow cabinet their main purpose is to scrutinize the policy and actions of the incumbent government, rather than feathering their own nests. There have been many occasions that the current Tory Frontbench have failed to hold the government to account recently, and it has fallen to the Lib Dems and the press to expose government policy.

This point is illustrated by a previous blog post; The Rise and Fall of the Career Politician.

Christopher Kelly is currently investigating all aspects of MPs' expenses and outside interests, as part of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Hopefully, this will draw the only logical conclusion possible; that it is a conflict of interests for a current Member of Parliament to hold any permanent position outside Westminster. Furthermore, if any MPs wish to continue working in the private sector, then they would be forced to step down as an MP.

There are some obvious comparisons between the House of Commons and Big Brother, but at least in Big Brother it is possible to vote out certain housemates. However, it is doubtful that many MPs would be shown their "best bits"...

Order, Order!

Today, the House of Commons elects its new Speaker. With a short list of ten candidates Parliament hopes that a new Speaker and a summer recess will placate the public's demand for true reform; or better still most people forget the expenses debacle.

Rather than this being an auspicious event, ushering in a new order and a new style of politics, this election signifies a victory for the status quo. The list of candidates offer little in the way of reformers and will be decided by party feuds or allegiances, an old style of politics that has cursed Westminster for a considerable time.

In the opening rounds the Conservative Party will vote to stop John Bercow assuming the role, probably by voting for the ex-Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. Conversely, the Labour Party will vote for John Bercow to stop Margaret Beckett winning. The person most likely to benefit from this playgroundesque voting will be Sir George Young.

In a time when Parliament is deemed to be out of touch with the disenfranchised electorate, a straight forward debate and election should be held; this needs to be transparent and above party bickering.

For the public to reconnect to Parliament and in particular the politicians that reside within
there must be an honest review of reforms required. Not a sham of a Speaker's election in which the new Speaker will be chosen through party loyalty and personality, rather than commitment to reform and real change.

It is disappointing that Parliament is wasting chance after chance to prove it can understand what the public is demanding.

You turn if you want to, the Gurkha's not for turning!

Another day, another Telegraph exclusive. Parliament is wading through another scandal, with more frivolous claims on a MP's expenses account being revealed (to be fair I did not know that duck houses even existed before today), but the Government and opposition claimed a very public victory for the status quo of the current system.

The Gurkha's rightful victory today, against a post colonial relic of a law, has been championed by most as a perfect example of how the Westminster system can quickly react to public demand and opinion. Even quicker if you have a celebrity and national treasure campaigning in your corner.

The Gurkhas have fought many opponents in their illustrious history, many more vicious and many more tactically astute, but none more stubborn than the British Government.

Unexpectedly the opposition, rather than viscerally claiming a U-turn or another stolen policy, decided to support the Government's decision, claiming 'it was not a day for political point score'. Surprising since a few weeks ago the Conservatives would have been in hysterics if Gordon Brown had changed his mind about how many sugars he takes in his tea.

There appears to be a Blitz mentality surrounding Westminster recently, unholy alliances being formed in the most British of ways, as the Government churn out policy initiatives one after the other in a naive attempt to control the headlines.

So while the expenses bombs keep dropping all MPs will cower in their Anderson shelters, hugging each other close until normal service is resumed.