Politicians need to learn the art of deference

---

Not broken, but in need of repair.

That was Gordon Brown's assessment of the state of British politics, a view he shared at Tuesday's meeting of the liaison committee.

So how best to fix it?

The clear answer is not to do it yourself.

After an expenses crisis that has now turned criminal, MPs no longer have the credibility to make their own repairs.

Trust is at an all-time low; the only option left to listen to what the public want and to hand the list of necessary repairs to the experts.

This can be both expensive and humiliating, but admitting that you need help from someone else who knows better is, more often than not, the best way to sort out the problem.

MPs need to show a little deference – something which doesn't seem to come easily to them, as Sir Thomas Legg, the man charged with auditing MPs' expenses claims, alleged last week.

However, three times this week that deferential streak still seems to have been missing.

Firstly, and most prominently, is the prevaricating over expenses.

It may sting to hand over decisions over their allowances to Sir Ian Kennedy's Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but MPs must bite their lip and let Sir Ian take whatever decision he sees fit.

No more cap-doffing from the Fees Office, no more saying "but the Fees Office told me it was alright".

Sir Ian is clearly his own man, but at the same time he has been taking soundings.

He is said to be wobbling over where a ban on the employment of MPs' spouses is acceptable.

He is also said to be weighing up the softening of a number of the harder recommendations made by Sir Christopher Kelly, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Sir Christopher had insisted that his recommendations were "not a menu of options", but even if some are seen as overly draconian, MPs need to bite their lip and swallow the menu from top to bottom, however nasty the aftertaste.

Secondly we saw the prime minister's attempt to breathe new life into a political area assumed long dead: electoral reform.

The headlines will be made on Tuesday, when MPs are handed the chance to have their say on whether to replace the much maligned first-past-the-post system with the not-as-popular-as-you-might think alternative vote.

Without becoming embroiled in the labyrinthine knots of the pluses and minuses of all possible voting options, on the face of it the need to secure 50 per cent of their constituency's vote – which the AV system requires- makes life harder for campaigning politicians, while the list system of options – the crux of AV – gives the electorate a little more say.

"A lot of people are sceptical, but I can't understand why - nobody will really lose out, but from the voter's point of view this is a big improvement," one pro-AV Labour MP told me.

"Within a year the status and public credibility of MPs will be way, way improved – having less than 50 per cent of your constituency support is a pathetic basis on which to sit in the chamber", said another pro-reformer.

But the argument has been utterly blurred through the suspiciously late timing of Gordon Brown's conversion to reform.

Tory leader David Cameron had a good line at PMQs when he asked:

"Thirteen years in power, 90 days before an election, what first attracted you to changing the voting system?"

Tory accusations over gerry-mandering are wide of the mark – reform will not be in place until after this year's general election – but with zero consultation, the PM has given the impression that he is forcing change from on high for his own benefit.

And if MPs reject the move, and Labour MPs are said to be firmly divided on the issue, to give a little more power, however small, to the voter, then again it looks like parliamentarians refusing to look beyond securing their own future.

The vote will give him the PM the change to paint the Tories – three line-whipped to reject the reform – as resistant to change, but because the timing is so suspicious the electorate believe this is his primary motive and will once again be unconvinced by his, or parliament's, credibility as democratic reformers.

Deference to the public once again appears to be absent.

The third area rather fell below the radar last week, but is nevertheless one where MPs can show that they listen to public concern.

Returning officers want to do away with the established Thursday night count and be given the Friday to sort through ballot papers.

They cite overtime pay, health and safety, and the uncertainties created by postal voting. MPs are unimpressed, and on Tuesday, in a Westminster Hall debate, they discussed the matter.

This is very tricky ground.

Labour MP David Cairns, who led the debate, hit the nail on the head:
"Countries where politicians have a direct and controlling influence over the administration of elections inevitably end up with intimidation, corruption and the decaying of democracy. Our system, in which politicians set the broad legislative framework for elections but do not actually administer them, is surely the right one."

But the one of the debate was one of intense annoyance that returning officers had the cheek to suggest that they could be the ones to suggest how the vote was counted.

Lindsay Hoyle, Cairns' Labour colleague, told MPs over the defiant chief executive that he had come up against in his constituency of Chorley.

"That is what we are facing, and it is unacceptable.

"It is about time that these faceless, unelected people sat down with the elected Member of Parliament to have proper discussions that are open to all parties.

"That is the way forward."

Ouch.

But politicians must tread carefully with this sensitive subject.

A blunt rejection of the wishes of returning officers will look, once again, as if they riding roughshod over the will of the people and have failed, yet again, to learn the art of deference.

The arguments for and against losing the Tuesday night vote deserve their own article, but on this issue, expenses, and electoral reform, MPs will have to seriously consider taking some pain to regain some trust – and leaving the decision in the hands of people other than themselves.

Sam Macrory is features editor of The House Magazine.