An "apparent" breakdown in public trust

We've started looking at the Government proposals for reform published this morning. Extraordinary how they manage to telegraph their sincerity in the first sentence.

"The Prime Minister and Government have outlined a framework for constitutional renewal that aims to reverse the apparent breakdown in trust in the political process."

It's all there in just one word ;

"apparent"

Can there be any single organisation / individual in the UK today who would say anything other than,"the breakdown in trust"

'Nuff said.

BREAKING NEWS - 'Labour Leadership candidate' supports Ministry Bill

John McDonnell MP, a staunch supporter of our Bill has been touted by the Independent as Gordon Brown's stalking horse, the man behind the campaign to oust him.



John told us not 5 minutes ago in no uncertain terms - he does "not want to be an stalking horse candidate but a serious candidate"... but if there is a leadership contest he "will promote our proposals as part of his platform", meaning the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill would be a key of his plans to make MPs accountable and restore public trust.

All this and No. 10 confirmed this morning that as we speak, they are 'looking at our Bill'. Shame they didn't get around to it a month ago. No surprise - they'd posted their own self-regulatory 'reforms' just before we spoke to them.

You may remember John as the man suspended from the House of Commons - they thought he was gonna deck Geoff Hoon in the chamber.

Needless to say, we like the cut of his jib. If Gordon had decked Blears we might like the cut of his.

No 10 looking at Prohibition of Deception Bill

Well, well...

Just received confirmation from Downing Street that Sue Nye and Gavin Kelly (part of the Strategy unit) are assessing the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill.

Very good news.

Perhaps. At least we'll be able to tell if these guys are now serious about cleaning up their act.

We'll be chasing them for a response and keep you posted.

Meantime, we're trying to figure out who the hell to vote for today.

Xx

Baroness Helena Kennedy signs up

Much excitement at Ministry Towers

Amongst a growing list of MPs, Baroness Kennedy has signed up to the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill.

Some 18 months ago, when we filmed her for our first adventure, she had significant doubts over the merits of making MPs directly accountable via the courts.

Much has changed. We woke the Professor from a deep and dark slumber with the good news.
This may have been a mistake ;

"They called me crazy, insane. Did you see the Harman clip ? Now who's laughing ? I should have hung her out the window by the cankles. Bring her to me now. They laughed at my science, my accent. Bring her to me !"

MPs Code of Conduct

But for a few cracks, Brown gave a convincing performance on Sunday's Andrew Marr show.

The problem with the few cracks is they pretty much leave significant doubt over everything.

Crack 1) All that's gone before.

Up until this point in time, it's not easy to find a single example of good intentions delivering the goods - especially in the Parliamentary ethics arena (where it's safe to say that all previous initiatives can be dismissed with a simple look at the last three weeks of media) but also in other areas as a result of a singular incompetence to legislate for the real world. For example ;

1. Suffering the indignity of some twerp nosing round your house for 5 minutes to charge you £400 for a HIPs pack to sell your home. The real world incentive amounts to, "the cheaper the inspector + the more homes he can inspect in a day = more money for estate agents organising the inpsection". A spectacular mis-alignment from the intention of making homes more energy efficient. Doubly insulting if you've been forced to sell your home.
2. The Government's coal miners compensation scheme. There's rarely been a better example of legislation fleecing the tax-payer. A spectacular example of the government mis-aligning intention with incentive resulting in lawyers with car collections approaching the Sultan of Brunei's.

No doubt the two examples above were down to sheer incompetence as opposed to bad intentions. Cracks 2 and 3 deal with that.

Crack 2) The Freedom of Information Act

Brown's not the first to mention this government's pride in the FOIA. To say they're responsible for its introduction is barely permissable on a factual basis. Yes, they were in power when it came onto the statute books but they've consistently fought it in the courts and tried to ammend it in their favour with more holes than Swiss cheese. We'll be making an FOI request into how much of our money they've actually spent trying to fight our requests for transparency.

Crack 3) A matter for Parliament, not government

Brown can hide behind a eunoch Parliament's inability to hold this government to account as much as he likes but it's hard to deny the government's responsibility for the castration. Blair, Straw and Brown have all talked the talk (see post below) but money pays the rent.

There's little more than his word to make us believe they've the intention or ability to reform. If we're to trust the MPs Code of Conduct delivers more accountability than the existing Ministerial Code of Conduct it won't be on the basis of past performance.

Time well spent

From the Prof :

My time in the Members Library threw up some interesting quotes ;

"We are not the master now. The people are the masters. We are the servants of the people.
We will never forget that.”
Tony Blair, May '97

"Let the work of change begin."
Gordon Brown, June '07
(on succeeding Blair)

"Who guards the guards ?'
Adam Price MP Oct '07

"I'll consider anything that makes the political elite accountable to citizens.”
Gordon Brown, May '09

Brown movement

From the Prof :

With all the parties laying out their "vision for reform", we're pleased to note Brown has finally mooted the right to "recall"our MPs.

Encouraging. Perhaps.

Are we playing the sap again ? Some thoughts on this ;

1) When Brown ascended to the throne he promised constitutional reform, we were excited then. So far...  nada.

2) Given he's delivered nothing in the last 18 months, he doesn't have the time to implement anything - let alone constitutional reform on this scale.

3) This gov (and Parliament) has been responsible for more unenforceable, "message-based" legislation than I care to remember. They are masters of the art. Only last week, after PMQ's, Harriet Harman hailed the "end of self regulation" with the proposed Parliamentary Standards Authority. Her response to Adam Price MP's question illustrates the point ;

20 May 2009 : Hansard, Column 1518

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): My question to the right hon. and learned Lady is this: will the standard of honesty form part of the remit of the new parliamentary standards authority, so that members of the public can refer for independent investigation cases in which they believe there is evidence that Members of Parliament, including Ministers, have misled this House and misled the country?

Several hon. Members rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are only a few hon. Members left, and I have given a lot of leeway, particularly in this matter, but it really should just be a supplementary question that is asked. I ask the remaining Members to do that.

Ms Harman: We are, of course, answerable to our constituents for the honesty and integrity with which we represent them and go about our work in the House, and to the Chair for not misleading other Members. I think that the regulation of our democracy is ultimately with those who elect us. We are currently considering regulating our pay and our allowances, having codes of conduct and making proposals for their enforcement; that does not cut across the basic fundamental principle of democracy.

Can anyone decipher that answer ? As far as I can tell it simply re-affirms the status quo with regard to Adam's question and states they are merely "considering" regulating pay and allowances via the proposed Parliamentary Standards Authority. Now that all the parties are trying to outdo each other with measures for reform the goalposts moved on this week . Which means, once again, these guys aren't leading, aren't coming from the same direction as the public and have to be forced into concessions on accountability - as per the Freedom of Information Act.

4) The process of recall. Given it's tough enough deciding whether it's easier to pay a £50 parking ticket than go through the process of appealing - what does that mean for the process of recall ?

Generally, it's too early to say whether these guys are really serious this time but all the history points to fact that even if they were serious they'd come up with something that's unworkable and you'd have to give up your day job to get the thing done.

5) Possibly the question that puts the final nail in the coffin - do we trust them ?

What next ?

From the Prof ;

One thing is clear from the last 10 days in the Members Library.

• Without the Freedom of Information Act we would be none the wiser re. expenses.

Pertinent to this is the following ;

• The government has spent a considerable amount of our money opposing FOI requests (exactly how much will be the subject of an FOI request from ourselves)
• Andrew Marr stated to the ex-Lord Chancellor that this government "shepharded" the FOI onto the statute books - this is not the case. A more accurate description would be, "the shephard was dragged kicking and screaming.".

As the press moves on from exposing the crooks to "what next ?", but a handful have actually announced they will be standing down. Others, for example the insufferable Hazel Blears, have announced they will be handing the stolen cash back. Blears warrants particular mention because she had the audacity to do it in a "here's-your-Lottery-cheque" style press call with a rictus grin smeared across her face and a stock "on-message" phrase to hand, "I acted completely within the rules".

Unacceptable from a government minister. Brown should have thrown her into the Thames. Perhaps his back's playing up again with lack of vertebrae.

All of which still leaves us with, "what next ?". All parties have remained silent on the one area that we know has worked, a statute that gives their employers the power to find out what they've been up to and offer up a method of dealing with it.

The FOI is enforced by the courts. They can overturn the governments objection and force publication of the information requested (Note : with the exception of Tony Blair's 2000-2001 expenses which were accidentally shredded).

In the current situation, the government's proposed "Parliamentary Standards Authority" would have responded to a complaint with, "there's no case here, they've acted within the rules". Harman and Ben Bradshaw (more on him tomorrow) have declared the proposal, "an end to self-regulation".

It is not.

All of the afore-mentioned point to the following ;

1) The FOI provides transparency. It needs to be emboldened.
2) The courts have a good record of protecting the public interest.

I'm off for a quick nap before some final research on Ben Bradshaw's voting record. On Questiontime last week he stated emphatically that hs voting record on transparency speaks for itself. Our researchers have questioned this. More tomorrow.

Another twilight despatch from the Prof

This just in, though we note it was sent at 4.47 this morning ;

Research going better than expected. Photo as promised.

Could barely work yesterday afternoon with racket coming from yesterday's PMQs...

More show-boating from Clegg and Cameron for a general election. If the media buys that line without seeing their proposals for change and ensuring they're on the election agenda we'll have been sold a pup.

The real action was in the hour after Brown had finished speaking...

Harman stated she's now in favour of external regulation.

An apparent u-turn since we fronted her with the Misrepresentation of the People Act - she said external regulation negates Parliamentary sovereignty (please dig out footage from archive for posting on-line). Is this a genuine change in thinking or will her proposed Parliamentary Standards Authority be yet another 'independent' committee that simply reports back to the body it's supposed to regulate ?

I'll see if I can collar her - have found her office and am contemplating greeting her as she walks in for work.

Still trawling through Hansard. Librarian's extremely knowledgable. Can we put her on payroll ?

Nearly done here. Please send change of clothing.

Xx

Bound to happen

No sooner had the Professor landed than he disappeared. Only to resurface four days later in the early hours this morning at the centre of the current constitutional crisis, his favourite watering hole, the Members Library at the House of Commons.

His message was to the point. We relay it verbatim...

1. Re : Martin resignation, expenses scandal + resolution a sideshow as suspected. Answers in Hansard, members voting records etc. It's all there, but barely decipherable from Parliamentary language, procedure etc. Am distilling now into digestible form.
2. Question : Cameron call for dissolution, alongside Clegg's similar solution not much more than a power move. Do we believe a change of faces will solve the problem ?
   
3. Renewed contact with Adam Price MP as promised. Much to report on this.
   
4. Apologies, no time to post. Haven't forgotten the anonymous twat. No hurry to expose now. Will deal with him later. Let him sweat a little more.

No need to send help, librarian both charming and knowledgable. Will send photos.

Much Love

How sweet it is...

...to be loved by you.

No sooner than the announcement of the Professor's return and there are strange goings-on at Ministry Towers.

1) The van above appeared outside our offices. Please note, in no way can we justify anything like £250k for after-dinner consular services (despite the Professor's astrological expense allowance)
2) A web domain request was made for confirmation of current address details
3) A comment appeared under the announcement post on the blog.

With regard to item 3)...

Let it be known that in exchange for this anonymous unpleasantry we intend to reciprocate. Had you the balls to identify yourself we'd have smiled and be done with it.

Sadly, this was not the case, and we know who you are, where you sit, which network you posted from etc. etc.

Given the current political climate we're not sure the taxpayer would appreciate you spending your time like this. If an explanation for your anonymity isn't forthcoming, next week we shall start by revealing your details in reverse order - beginning with city, then post-code, then network... get the picture ? Get in touch.

We await your response.

Meantime, classes start soon. Spread the good word - the Professor won't be satisfied until every name on the UK's electoral register has enrolled

The Professor is Back

It's been some time now since our last post. Much has changed - and yet not.

Though circumstances now allow The Professor to return from the wilderness and reveal his true role in the Ministry, it seems, regrettably he is needed more than ever as Parliament implodes. In private conversation he's let it be known the current expense scandals are no more than a dangerous distraction, a mere sideshow. We await his world-renowned insights.

Unshackled from the chains of a broadcaster's public remit, he's chosen to make his life-changing correspondence course available to us all via the interweb. He assures us that through it, we can change not only our lives but also the country we live in. We're doubly delighted with his return as he's promised to write for the blog (we'll be ensuring all utterances are run by lawyers) without recourse to substances that led to revelations like this.

However, he's keen to remind us that throughout the Ministry's original journey, there were signposts a-plenty in the blog - he quotes from as early as July 2007, "We googled Damien McBride – he’s a 'special advisor'. Little more is known." 

Much has changed.

Despite his self-confessed slovenly behaviour and poor time-keeping we remain quietly confident he'll deliver on his promise and begin posting - we've never seen him so fired up.

Naturally, we'll keep you posted

Law Against Lying Passed !!!!!

Sincerest apologies for the lack of posting.

We've been inundated with questions, abuse, requests etc.

Most of the abuse came from the armchair politician brigade, requests from schools and universities asking to show the programme - one of which led to a rather extra-ordinary discovery.

A professor of law asked us whether our proposed Act hadn't in fact already been dealt with by the Fraud Act 2006 (introduced in 2007), "This Act effectively criminalises
lying. See the article by Professor David Ormerod ('Criminalising Lying', Criminal Law Review, 2007, March, pages 193-219) and sections 2,3 and 4 of the Act itself "


Whilst our interviewees were chatting to us on camera, sputtering about how "you can't have a law against lying" (Jack Straw, Lord Falconer etc...), it seems that if they'd been in the legislative chamber they'd have noticed the aforementioned Act being passed onto the statute books (isn't that what we pay them for ? -Ed) and rather taking the wind out of our sails.

The old Fraud Act requires a material gain (or infliction of loss) by deception, the 2006 Act requires only the intention to make that gain or inflict a loss via deception. Indeed, it goes so far as to state the deception can be made by simply witholding material information. We've consulted the various oracles and all of them concur - depending on your definition of material gain, the Act effectively makes lying a criminal offense.

The question is - can it be applied to elected representatives making misleading statements ? If they hang onto office, or obtain an office is that a material gain ? If they cause someone else to lose their office have they inflicted a material loss ? On the surface the answer appears to be yes and certainly all the lawyers we've spoken to have said they'd be happy to have a crack at it in court (they would wouldn't they ? -Ed). Unfortunately, because the law's only just been introduced there's little in the way of case law to guide us.

Needless to say, if anyone out there's interested in having a crack don't let us stop you

Meantime, our job seems to have been done some time ago. Regrettably no-one, including the law-makers, realised.

'Nuff said.

MPs support growing

Just as we were packing our bags - word comes in that the number of MPs either signing the EDM or directly supporting the Bill has grown to 35.

If one of them's yours, e-mail and tell em you love him.

This response from Desmond Swayne MP, forwarded to us from Nick Hughes

"Thank you. I have yet to see the published bill but the principle sounds daft to me.
If I am guilty of fraud charge me. If my deception has damaded you or anyone else then sue me. Elected representatives are not imune from the criminal and civil law as in some other countries.

In any event elected representarives are properly held to account by voters: if you don't trust me then vote foe somebody else, or stand yourself." DS

Please feel free to write to Desmond and let him know your thoughts.

Nick's original letter to Desmond follows ;

Dear Desmond Swayne,

I'm writing to you to ask about your position regarding the 'Elected
Representatives (Prohibition Of Deception) Bill'.

As I understand it, so far, you don't have a position on this bill and
I would like to know what that is; since Adam Price MP will be
re-introducing the bill in the next parliamentary session.

If your position is to oppose this bill, then I would respectfully
insist that you reconsider and support the bill, at least in principle.

I feel that a self-regulating parliament (being judge and jury to
itself) is simply not acceptable, and that there should be an
independent, transparent method of legal recourse when MPs have been
found to be lying or deceitful in matters relating to government and
privileges.

The public and business are both held accountable, in law, for
misrepresentation and deceitful practice; so why aren't MPs?
This bill seeks to redress that imbalance - please support it for the
sake of a fairer, more transparent system and renewed public trust in
parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Hughes


We'll be back with Parliament on the week of the 6th. Spread the good word.

P.S. Nice post from Webwonder's blog.
P.P.S. Don't forget to sign the petition.