The coalition and political biodiversity

I miss Matthew Parris.

I always used to read his Times columns but since that paper disappeared behind the paywall last year I have (so far) not succumbed to the temptation to sign up. But listening to him this week on Radio 4's Any Questions gave me a reminder of what I am missing.

I was particularly impressed with something he said about the coalition government with respect to control orders. He explained that he is a card carrying Conservative member and always will be but that on this and related subjects he does not trust his party's own instincts and the fact that Nick Clegg is coming at this from the direction of having been sceptical about them and will come to a judgement based on the facts presented to him is a good thing. He even said that he would trust Clegg's judgement on this basis and go along with whatever he decided. He went on to suggest that this is an excellent example of where the fact that the government is a coalition is a benefit to the country and that its decision making processes are the better for it.

I think Matthew is right. I would not go so far as to say that I personally would defer my own judgement to Clegg on this particular issue, I have my own view, but I certainly think the fact that politicians from two different parties are involved in the decision making process is ultimately a good thing.

I think for me it is a bit like biodiversity. In nature if there are not enough of a range of genes available within the pool of a particular species then eventually it atrophies and ultimately dies. I think that is what can happen with single party government and it certainly happened with the recent Labour administration. But with more than one party in government, the body politic has an infusion of different and in some cases disparate ideas from which the governing programme emerges.

Following this, I may even be tempted to do a month trial of the Times to get a more regular infusion of Mr Parris' disparate ideas!

MPs should not have outside jobs Mr Parris

Matthew Parris' article in the Times from Saturday this week suggests that MPs should be allowed to have outside jobs, it's just that too many of them have the wrong sort of outside job (by his definition that is things like Company Director, Barrister - i.e. the sort of job that is likely to give them experience of a rarified world that most do not inhabit). On the other hand he claims that MPs doing outside jobs like being a Doctor or participating in charity work are fine.

I am afraid I have to take issue with the redoubtable Mr Parris on this one. As I have mentioned before, I do not think MPs should have any significant outside job. I understand the argument that MPs need to have rounded experience of the outside world of work but I think that should come before they get into parliament, not whilst they are there. I accept that in order to have a decent cross-section in the house there will be younger members who will naturally have less experience but there will be plenty who will have had 10, 20 or even more years of experience in the outside world and doing "proper" jobs. For me, that is the key.

Also, as part of their standard duties MPs are kept in constant contact with their constituents and members of the public and should therefore be in touch with the issues of the day in this way.

MPs are (or should be) busy enough as it is without devoting some of their precious time to outside interests even if they would be worthy pursuits. Representing tens of thousands of people and holding the government to account is more than a full time job and I do not accept that MPs can be giving maximum attention to this if they are off doing other things part of the time.

I should just clarify what I meant above by "significant outside jobs". I understand that some MPs will be directors or owners of companies that they may have started before they became an MP and I would not expect them to completely abandon these. However input should be kept to a minimum and certainly any day-to-day operations stuff should not be their responsibility. But I do not think MPs should take on new directorships after they enter the house.

UPDATE: I thought this post might prove a little controversial and already a couple of other Lib Dem bloggers have voiced their opposition to my comments here. Lady Mark has done so here and Bernard Salmon here.

Matthew Parris is spot on comme d'habitude

The Saturday article by Matthew Parris in The Times today is spot on about Gordon Brown and the situation the government now finds itself in. He compares Mr Brown to one of the deathly sick Soviet leaders limping on, dragging the rest of his party to political oblivion.

From the corner of my eye I see that the Prime Minister has joined his press conference. He is standing at the podium, waving his arms and saying repeatedly “look”. Deathly pale and grinning waxily - that disembodied smile robbed, it almost seems, from another discarded dummy - he is moving and talking with sort of desperate swagger. Across the bottom of my television screen a moving strap conveys breaking news. “Alan Sugar to join Lords.” “Look,” says Mr Brown, “when the fight is on you don't quit...” “Conservatives gain Staffordshire”. “...I've an excellent team...” “Caroline Flint resigns.” “...She's done a very good job... ” “Geoff Hoon resigns.” “...And there's work to be done...” “Margaret Beckett to leave the Government.”

“I don't think anyone can say that Glenys Kinnock hasn't done important work as an MEP,” he says, as if anyone was saying that. “Conservatives gain Derbyshire.” “Ever since I was a boy,” he begins his spiel on Values. “Conservatives gain Nottinghamshire.”

It is a pitiful sight to watch all of this and I am now fearful that we will get another 12 months of it. Like Matthew, I can remember the last period of John Major's premiership but this is much worse.