What do we want our MPs to be?
Posted by Steven Baker, MP for Wycombe, at 18:20, Sat 26 June 2010:
First of all, thank you for signing up to www.hearfromyourmp.com. It is a great privilege to be your MP and I am glad to have this chance to learn what you think.
Over at Policy Exchange, my predecessor, Paul Goodman, has published a paper, "What do we want our MPs to be?" From the introduction:
"Paul Goodman writes for Policy Exchange on what it is that we want from our MPs, at a time when the whole political class has rarely been held in lower esteem. He argues that MPs should be more independent and less scrutinized by officialdom than they are now.
"He sets out the choice: should MPs be elected representatives, free to use their time and judgement as they see fit and not wholly dependent on the taxpayers’ money and the quango state’s approval?
"Or should we continue down the road to professional politicians, answerable only to their whips, party machines and anonymous quangos, solely reliant on the taxpayer for their income and taking on mountains of inappropriate constituency case work for something to do."
You can download the paper here:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=193
I would be interested to know what you think!
Best wishes,
Steve
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Ian David Burrell, 19:42, Sat 26 June 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
The question seems loaded against the professional politician. Personally, I would prefer to have a professional mp, free from the influence of wherever their financial independence is derived, be it the backing of big business or unions or any other interest. And as for those with independent means, they have little understanding of the lives of the majority of the UK's population and are unrepresentative.
Posted by Brian Lewis, 12:19, Sun 27 June 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
A professional mp should be just that with no other outside interests or income.If could get them down into the real world of the electorate then maybe just maybe we all might get a fairer country in which to build a better future
Posted by Jeff Baynham, 13:27, Mon 28 June 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
An MP should be a full time Professional. The implied criticisms of this status in Paul Goodman's paper need not be the outcome of such a Professionalism. 'Inappropriate' constituency casework should have practical and acceptable mechanisms to avoid such vexations. Inappropriate mountains can be moved elswhere. Loyalty to the whips/party should be recognised as secondary to the loyalty of the MP to their constituents when a moral conflict is recognised. Pros don't have to be poodles. A coalition Government especially, almost by definition, allows for different views and the subsequent compromises/agreements.
Under a proper system, a Professional MP would have a similar democratic right for responsible free thinking. Mature persuasion by Whips rather than a whiff of bullying. Or even the dismantling of the Whip system altogether, in its present form, in order to prevent the skewing of democracy by unreasonable pressure and the implied threats to career.
Posted by Barry Evans, 18:36, Mon 5 July 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
An MP is elected by a constituency to represent the people of that constituency, regardless of who they voted for. An MP needs representative the view of all those people in parliament. He clearly has a commitment to the Party and the highest number of constituents that voted for them at the election, (Party Whip, local constituency members etc.). However they do still need to have their own views and the constituencies conscience. (The Iraq War was a good example where the government wanted war, the other parties kinda supported but High Wycombe was against.) As for professionalism – it is just that – they are paid a salary to represent the people and reasonable expenses for out-of-pocket costs. If they want to earn more money that the going rate then they are in the wrong job. They should be working for the satisfaction of doing a good job not the amount they are rewarded – like the rest of us.
Posted by Imelda Barlow, 14:59, Thu 8 July 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I have to point out that the question is slightly leaning towards an MP being an elective representatove instead of a professional one. However despite phrasing of the question representation must come first. MP's should follow the system as long as it benefits the people that they are representing otherwise ignore it or rebel, I know this is a bit risky due to a usual strict whipping system but it is not at all impossible. Afterall if an MP does not represent the people which they was elected to do then they are not fulfilling their role as an MP. A strong relationship with the consituency an MP represents is vital if the public is going to start regaining its trust in politics.
Posted by Dennis Craggs, 08:21, Wed 29 September 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
The party is a broad church but needs to show unity towards the electorate so inevitably an MP will be beholden to the whip to a large extent but woe and an exit at the next election to any MP who fails on important local issues (Hospital, HS2, broadband, whatever) where they diverge from the party line. MPs are inevitably dependent upon tax payers money but that does not mean they should not be able to exercise idependence as they see fit. Sorry Paul describes [some]casework as "inappropriate", many electors clearly consider it an important part of the role and much can be achieved that way. You won't be able to educate/persuade/cajole them otherwise. I'm pleased it's your job, not mine.