Responsible government: PM May and Ministers must be held accountable to Parliamentary scrutiny

The principle of responsible government demands that executive power, held by the Prime Minister and the Government, be accountable to the assembled elected representatives.

A word that was thrown around a lot during the referendum campaign was 'sovereignty'. Those campaigning for a British exit from the European Union offered a number of things - not least an increase in public funding - but above all the restoration of 'sovereignty'.

The brexiteers promised a vote to leave would 'take back control' from 'unelected Brussels bureaucrats'. However, while clear who they wanted to take power away from, it has been less clear to who that control will be restored.

From the way Theresa May's government has handled the matter of triggering Article 50 and launching Brexit negotiations, it seems that the intention is to hand the power straight to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

The trouble with that plan is that so much executive power stands against one of the most basic principles of the Westminster System: responsible government. In short, that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (the executive) should be accountable to Parliament (the legislative).

Over a long period of time, the power of governance in the UK has become increasingly centralised, further and further excluding Parliament. Thanks to the first-past-the-post electoral system, thanks to Parliamentary majorities, the government has been able to increasingly sideline the Commons.

Even with her presently weak majority, Theresa May has managed to so far exclude the Commons from any substantive details regarding what kind of deal the Government will seek in its negotiations with the European Union.

Labour highlighted the paucity of information about what an exit will entail by listing one hundred and seventy questions that the Government needs to answer. A challenge is even being taken to the High Court to prevent May's Government from excluding Parliament from the process.

It is hard to see how anyone could argue that any kind of 'control' had been 'restored' without the return of decisive Parliamentary scrutiny. Swapping one, fairly or unfairly much criticised, continental executive for a national one with no greater accountability represents no step forward whatsoever.

If Britain's socially disastrous withdrawal from internationalism is to serve any useful purpose, the least it could do is highlight the inadequacy of scrutiny provided by Britain's electoral system and its deeply centralised Government.

Without Brussels to blame, there will be no excuse. Too many voices are already excluded from representation by the electoral system, without Parliament itself also being excluded. Responsible government has to become the reality - and it is best to start as you mean to go on.

Return of Charles Kennedy's proposal of a penny on tax for education signals worries that more needs to be done on inequality

The late Charles Kennedy, whose practical policies have returned to the table for consideration in Scotland. Photograph: Charles Kennedy speaking at the Friday Rally at the Scottish Liberal Democrats Spring Conference, 2015 from James Gourley/Liberal Democrats (License) (Cropped)

One of the more worrying statistics of the moment is that generational inequality is rising, as the doors that allow social mobility are closing (Inman, 2016). One particularly telling factor is that home ownership has become a distant and fading dream for young people, as modest incomes are no longer enough to get started (Elliott & Osborne, 2016).

So far, George Osborne's efforts have been aimed at finding ways around tackling the key problems: making larger and cheaper loans available, turning rents into deposits and selling off social housing cheaply to tenants. All of these moves are attempts to stimulate the private sector and take care of the middle class - largely at the expense of those worse off. What they don't do is fix the core problems, like a lack of supply that drives rents and prices through the roof.

But Osborne's austere laissez faire isn't going to close the inequality gap. For schools, for example, the place where inequalities first begin to take their substantial toll - whose teachers and administrators are buried under mounting stress that is driving employees away (Harris, 2016) - a place to start would seem to be a simple, practical acceptance: more money is needed. Yet with austerity ascendant, that will be a difficult thing for this government to accept.

Under the present conditions, its really no surprise that the late Charles Kennedy's penny on tax policy has seen a resurgence. Kennedy proposed, as Ashdown did before him, to add one penny in the pound to income tax - an increase of 1% in search of £3bn in additional funds - to support extra spending on education (BBC, 2001; Marr, 2001; Taylor, 2016).

The same policy has now turned up in Scotland. Will Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, announced the return of this policy to the Lib Dem's platform at the end of January (Carrell, 2016) - only to be upstaged a week later by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's adoption of the same policy (ITV, 2016).

Under Kennedy, this was seen as a bold, but practical measure at a time when the economy was improving dramatically. Under Kennedy's successor Nick Clegg, the emerging financial crisis led to these ideas being translated into 'fairness'. Clegg's, now much missed, red lines in government involved sharing the burden  (Parkinson, 2012) - refusing to have cuts impact on the poorest without the equivalent be expected of the richest.

Amongst the things Clegg fought for was increased spending for the early years at school (Ahmed, 2015), hoping to close gaps so that children might grow up with the skills necessary to seize opportunities on their own merits. During that time, Conservative supremacy and lust for cuts was barely restrained by the Coalition. Now it doesn't seem to be restrained at all.

All in it together, to protect the next generation from crippling public debt, seems to have become the means to disenfranchise the next generation - denying young people public services and affordable housing. Meanwhile, the wealthy are doing just fine (Inman, 2016).

And yet, austerity has laid bare and made finally visible in the UK the true extent of the financial crisis - from which the UK was largely sheltered by the government funded public sector. From homelessness at the extreme, to the now common shortages of affordable homes, the public may now finally - thanks to austerity - be realising the full weight of the burden falling on them.

In those conditions, the re-emergence of policy's like Kennedy's penny on tax is not surprising. A general outcry for more the government to do more cannot be far away. While that, of course, doesn't necessarily always have to mean constant high levels of public spending on fully nationalised services. But more has to be done.

Mariana Mazzucato, economist and one Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's anti-austerity economic advisors, has argued that the private sector is a weak innovator that is loathe to take risks. Quoting Keynes, she argues that most innovation - the opening of new economic spaces - is done best by government (Mazzucato, 2013) - in the form of a smarter state.

Inequality has many facets that need to be tackled. Education needs more support. Housing needs to be more widely available and cheaper. Young people need to see more opportunities in more fields. None of these things can be achieved without some additional government funding at some stage. Public bodies have the ability, and the right, to act: to open up new economies, to create new opportunities where there are now none, and to invest in new futures.

 

Breakthroughs in all of these areas would lead to new economic growth and wider spread shares of the spoils. A penny on tax for education is a modest, practical start. A small, subtle, rejection of the austerity doctrine. But it is one small solution, for just one part of a huge and interlinked problem of inequality that the government cannot for much longer simply trim around the edges.

Second jobs for MPs, conflicts of interest and separation of powers

In response to the recent lobbying scandal, Labour took the opportunity on Wednesday, 25th February, to test the government by making a motion in the Commons to ban all Members of Parliament from holding second jobs (BBC, 2015). However, squabbling between the two main parties as to what payments or sources of income are considered a conflict of interest - Labour focussing on consultancies and directorships, the Conservatives on the trade unions - killed the chances of the Labour motion passing.

Under the present rules MPs are allowed to have second jobs, with the majority of those taking advantage being Conservatives - although two of the three highest earners are former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Respect MP, and former Labour MP, George Galloway (Moseley, 2015). Yet, support is low for MPs juggling their time between public and private commitments (Shakespeare, 2015). There are understandable fears of corruption and conflicts of interest.

These problems are exacerbated by the fact that conflicts of interest are virtually built into the Westminster system of government used in the UK. The Prime Minister is also an MP, the Ministers in the Government are MPs, the Speaker is an MP, the members of the committees are also MPs.

In the Westminster system the executive branch - the government, that carries out the business of state - is formed by members of the legislative branch - the parliament where laws are subject to debate and vote. Theoretically this ties the everyday business of governing to the will of the people as embodied by the parliament, in what is known as responsible government.

In the UK, however, this creates a situation where MPs, elected by constituents to represent their interests in debates regarding lawmaking, are caught between various allegiances, ambitions and duties. They are conflicted between the interests of their constituency and their office, whether just an MP or a Minister in the government; the interests of their constituents, their office and their political party, from which stems the opportunity to take office; and between the conflicting duties of the parliament, to make laws, and the government, to administer and enforce them.

Furthermore, the system creates a conflict of interest between Parliament and the Government. The Government cannot govern effectively without the majority support of the Parliament, and yet if majority support is given the role of the Parliament is significantly reduced. These pressures have, over time, changed the Parliament into more of a factional power-base for Government action, than a body of representatives, itself carrying responsibilities on behalf of electors.

With the private and financial interests of MPs placed on top of these conflicts, inherent to the system, Parliament becomes mired in competing interests. The Labour Party's attempt to ban certain additional roles for MPs is just the latest, with previous attempts at restricting various outside political interests including a government-sponsored lobbying law drawing heavy criticism (Mason, 2014).

In other countries, and other systems of government, there have been attempts to avoid the inherent conflict. The separation of powers has been used, by dividing the functions of government into separate branches - typically known as executive, legislative and judicial - to, at once, ensure that the different branches might hold each other to account, and keep separate the different functions that might result in conflicted allegiances.

That idea of separation, used to address the inherent conflict, might also be applicable to our thinking regarding the public and private interests of MPs.

While serving as Members of Parliament, these elected individuals are representatives with functions, responsibilities and duties, which they carry on the electorate's behalf, in the public service. For the carrying out of their role they are compensated, to the amount of £67,000, plus expenses (White, 2015). The aim of paying these elected representatives is to ensure that they were able to devote their full time attentions to the role, and to ensure their independence.

There are understandable and reasonable arguments for a public representative to be grounded in the working realities of the world outside, or to be able to keep themselves in practice in technically complicated professional fields, such medicine or law (Wintour, 2015). Whatever the fears of the emergence of a class of career politicians, it becomes problematic for those representatives to continue to pursue - beyond some limited practices - their own financial interests while in office.

There must be a middle ground, with some room for compromise and compensation for individual service, that maintains the independence of public bodies. However, while there are no straight forward answers, it is clear we need to keep competing interests separate. As we need to remain wary of letting the powers and functions of government merge, to ensure oversight and avoid corruption, we also need to keep the private interests of individual representatives separate from the public interest which they serve.

==========
References:
==========
+ Frances Perraudin's 'Straw and Rifkind deny wrongdoing amid 'cash for access' claims'; in The Guardian; 23 February 2015.

+ 'MPs reject Labour's call for a ban on second jobs'; on the BBC; 25 February 2015.

+ Tom Moseley's 'What MPs do as second jobs'; on the BBC; 25 February 2015.

+ Stephan Shakespeare's 'Voters support ban on second jobs for MPs'; from YouGov; 25 February 2015.

+ 'MPs' second jobs: What are the rules?'; on the BBC;

+ Rowena Mason's 'Lobbying bill passes through House of Lords'; in The Guardian; 28 January 2014.

+ 'Lobbying Bill to become law after Lords rebellion falters'; on the BBC; 28 January 2014.

+ Michael White's 'Straw and Rifkind were loose lipped but MP salaries are part of the problem'; in The Guardian; 23 February 2015.

+ Patrick Wintour's 'Straw and Rifkind scandal renews questions about MPs' outside interests'; in The Guardian; 23 February 2015.

In Defense of Welfare

Last week I made some mention of Disraeli and his constitutional reforms that enfranchised hundreds of thousands of people. His great rival had been Gladstone, a staunch 'Classic' Liberal. Following the era of Disraeli & Gladstone's rivalry there was a shift away from 'Classic' towards a 'Progressive' Liberalism.

The dichotomy between Disraeli's policies of enfranchisement and Gladstone's freedom through a free market in many ways could be seen to have produced this progressive shift, paving the way for Asquith & Lloyd George's more moderate and proactive government. You see the struggle between the two rivals that led Disraeli's Conservatives to push through constituency reforms, generated a newly powerful working class voting block. This new voice had gotten a taste for reform and the progressives where quick to push their legislative agenda.

The gem in the progressive crown was the Liberal Welfare Reforms. Through the combination of a policy program and budget, the Liberal government brought about a complete shift in the British approach to poverty and responsible government.

My concern is that 'Workfare' is missing the point of a century's worth of scientific research. It seems be attempting to reverse the progressive shift, favouring instead the idealistic traditionalism that the Tories have been criticised for in other policy areas. (Teacher Talks, 2010).

The crucial point they are missing is that money is not the motivator they think it is. This has been shown time and again by the studies of institutions such as Stanford and MIT. Professor Ariely discusses the merit of money motivation here (Ariely, 2009).

It strikes me then as an ideological attempt to enforce unrestricted competition that favours those that start with means, the strongest and the most imposing. It also risks a return to the 'poor laws' and utterly unethical 'workhouses' of old for those who cannot keep up.

This should not be taken to mean that competition is evil. But rather that unregulated competition leads to destructive, ruinous and counter-productive mentalities that put the market at as much risk as it does society.

Welfare can be a great leveller. It demands that no one gets left behind. It demands that those who are born into privilege are not able to exploit those unfair advantages at the expense of those who were not so fortunate in their economic background. It demands that the privileged and not so alike begin from a level playing field, to all have a fair chance.

But welfare is more than that. As it enfranchises those without, it enriches those with, by creating the fair competition that those so enamoured of the market tell us is the key to getting the best from people.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg has been trying to provide a counterpoint to Mr Duncan Smith's presentation of Welfare Reform (Clegg, 2010), trying to convince us that this is what the Coalition policy will achieve. The Tory minister has advertised this reform to voters as a means to curtail abuse of Welfare, through harsher penalties and stricter terms. The Liberal Democrat leader on the other hand has been trying to push it as a 'work positive' approach.

But the more Mr Clegg tries to make us see these reforms as 'making work pay', the more I cannot help but see it as a thinly veiled acceptance of a policy of 'work because you have no other choice'. It is motivation less in the form of 'follow this carrot to freedom' and more 'chase this carrot or we'll beat you with this stick'.

The Liberals are doing all they can to honour the responsibilities of being in government, a coalition government no less; dealing with the compromises of everyday politics. But it is a difficult tightrope walk to balance duty & conscience.

That conscience is well summed up by David Lloyd George, on presenting his budget to fund the Liberal Welfare Reforms:

“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".

It is well worth watching this video if you want to learn more about the science of motivation.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Coalition Welfare Reforms:
21st Century Welfare, Forward by the Secretary of State
Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits
Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'
The existing New Deal scheme already includes four weeks labour

+ Teacher Talks' 'Gove scraps a rule that doesn’t exist';

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; Technology Review, 2009.

+ Nick Clegg's 'Poverty plus a pound isn't enough';

+  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

+ Dan Pink's 'Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us'; RSA Animate, 2010.