This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/27/parliament-lawmakers-pmqs-special-advisers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
It is not just parliament’s buildings that require extensive renovation It is not just parliament’s buildings that require extensive renovation
(5 days later)
The most famous parliament in the world is falling apart. That neo-gothic pile on the banks of the Thames needs a multi-year, multibillion-pound restoration. But it’s not just the building that’s in disrepair: the institution itself cries out for a thorough overhaul.The most famous parliament in the world is falling apart. That neo-gothic pile on the banks of the Thames needs a multi-year, multibillion-pound restoration. But it’s not just the building that’s in disrepair: the institution itself cries out for a thorough overhaul.
Yesterday, when MPs left Westminster to plunge into the election campaign, John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, survived a slimy government manoeuvre intended to make his own re-election unlikely. Bercow’s personality may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but he has been a genuinely reforming Speaker. Over the fixed term of the next parliament, he should lead a renovation not merely of its stones but of its democratic functioning.Yesterday, when MPs left Westminster to plunge into the election campaign, John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, survived a slimy government manoeuvre intended to make his own re-election unlikely. Bercow’s personality may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but he has been a genuinely reforming Speaker. Over the fixed term of the next parliament, he should lead a renovation not merely of its stones but of its democratic functioning.
Related: Parliament is falling down. So what can be done about it?Related: Parliament is falling down. So what can be done about it?
If you were to ask me spontaneously to identify the symbol of German national identity, I would probably say the Brandenburg Gate; for Poland, perhaps the Royal Castle in Krakow; for China, the Tiananmen entrance to the forbidden city, still decorated with an outsized portrait of the tyrant Mao. For Britain, it is the Houses of Parliament. Even when you have stripped away all the layers of mythology and self-congratulation, the pioneering and continuous history of parliamentary government – which eventually became representative democracy – is something particular to England and, subsequently, Britain.If you were to ask me spontaneously to identify the symbol of German national identity, I would probably say the Brandenburg Gate; for Poland, perhaps the Royal Castle in Krakow; for China, the Tiananmen entrance to the forbidden city, still decorated with an outsized portrait of the tyrant Mao. For Britain, it is the Houses of Parliament. Even when you have stripped away all the layers of mythology and self-congratulation, the pioneering and continuous history of parliamentary government – which eventually became representative democracy – is something particular to England and, subsequently, Britain.
The historian John Maddicott traces first mentions of an English “parlement” back to the 12th century. He argues that by the 14th century the extent of deliberative participation in monarchic government was unique in Europe. In the 17th century this parliament asserted its power over the monarchy, in two very English revolutions.The historian John Maddicott traces first mentions of an English “parlement” back to the 12th century. He argues that by the 14th century the extent of deliberative participation in monarchic government was unique in Europe. In the 17th century this parliament asserted its power over the monarchy, in two very English revolutions.
To be sure, there never was a golden age; there never is. We are told that when the old parliament building burned down, in 1834, the crowd applauded as the roof fell in. When John Bright talked in 1865 of “the mother of parliaments” he was actually referring to England, not to parliament itself, and lamenting the fact that so many people were still denied the vote.To be sure, there never was a golden age; there never is. We are told that when the old parliament building burned down, in 1834, the crowd applauded as the roof fell in. When John Bright talked in 1865 of “the mother of parliaments” he was actually referring to England, not to parliament itself, and lamenting the fact that so many people were still denied the vote.
Related: Damning charge list of Westminster scandals | Letters
Yet this is undoubtedly a low period in public esteem for Westminster. When it was suggested that MPs would have to move out during the building works, to set up temporary shop somewhere outside London, radio phone-in programmes were full of callers saying that our parliamentarians should buzz off and preferably never come back.Yet this is undoubtedly a low period in public esteem for Westminster. When it was suggested that MPs would have to move out during the building works, to set up temporary shop somewhere outside London, radio phone-in programmes were full of callers saying that our parliamentarians should buzz off and preferably never come back.
There are good reasons for this contempt, as well as less good ones, and they need to be addressed. Here are just a few. The weekly questioning of the prime minister, known as PMQs (prime minister’s questions), is a great institution. Germany, America and France have nothing like it. But everyone agrees that it has descended into a childish, playground shouting match.There are good reasons for this contempt, as well as less good ones, and they need to be addressed. Here are just a few. The weekly questioning of the prime minister, known as PMQs (prime minister’s questions), is a great institution. Germany, America and France have nothing like it. But everyone agrees that it has descended into a childish, playground shouting match.
David Cameron took his children to watch what might be his last PMQs on Wednesday, and reported that they told him afterwards: “You know, if we behaved like that at school …”David Cameron took his children to watch what might be his last PMQs on Wednesday, and reported that they told him afterwards: “You know, if we behaved like that at school …”
In one exchange this month, the prime minister said of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband: “The truth is, he is weak and despicable and wants to crawl to power in Alex Salmond’s pocket.” To which Miliband replied: “There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and it is this useless prime minister.” Yah-boo snubs and kicks in the shins. MPs on the benches behind them were shouting like football hooligans. The Speaker describes this as a “disgrace”, and most people agree with him.In one exchange this month, the prime minister said of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband: “The truth is, he is weak and despicable and wants to crawl to power in Alex Salmond’s pocket.” To which Miliband replied: “There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and it is this useless prime minister.” Yah-boo snubs and kicks in the shins. MPs on the benches behind them were shouting like football hooligans. The Speaker describes this as a “disgrace”, and most people agree with him.
Related: Pass notes No 3,213: spadsRelated: Pass notes No 3,213: spads
What is worse, this is not even a genuinely robust debate on matters of substance. All the punchlines are prepared in advance by a bevy of spin doctors. As the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve recently observed, these are “angry exchanges, but with very little content”.What is worse, this is not even a genuinely robust debate on matters of substance. All the punchlines are prepared in advance by a bevy of spin doctors. As the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve recently observed, these are “angry exchanges, but with very little content”.
One reason for this is that so many MPs depend so directly on the party leaders. At the last count, there were roughly 150 ministers, parliamentary undersecretaries and parliamentary private secretaries. If you add a similar number for those shadowing them on the opposition benches, that brings you close to half the lower house (even allowing for some of those ministers being peers). How many will step out of line to ask a critical question?One reason for this is that so many MPs depend so directly on the party leaders. At the last count, there were roughly 150 ministers, parliamentary undersecretaries and parliamentary private secretaries. If you add a similar number for those shadowing them on the opposition benches, that brings you close to half the lower house (even allowing for some of those ministers being peers). How many will step out of line to ask a critical question?
Everything is coordinated by an army of special political advisers – known as spads; hence “the spadocracy” – and heaven help the aspiring politician who departs from the script to say something original interesting or (perish the thought) honest.Everything is coordinated by an army of special political advisers – known as spads; hence “the spadocracy” – and heaven help the aspiring politician who departs from the script to say something original interesting or (perish the thought) honest.
One grilling by Jeremy Paxman achieves more than a hundred parliamentary exchangesOne grilling by Jeremy Paxman achieves more than a hundred parliamentary exchanges
Of course, this controlled, synthetic political language is not unique to Britain. You find it in most continental European democracies – but they don’t pride themselves on having the adversarial Westminster model of robust debate. Between the childish Punch and Judy of PMQs and the PR Stalinism of the spads, the substance of deliberative democracy is lost. Or rather, it is left to journalists. So one grilling by the veteran television interviewer Jeremy Paxman achieves more than a hundred parliamentary exchanges.Of course, this controlled, synthetic political language is not unique to Britain. You find it in most continental European democracies – but they don’t pride themselves on having the adversarial Westminster model of robust debate. Between the childish Punch and Judy of PMQs and the PR Stalinism of the spads, the substance of deliberative democracy is lost. Or rather, it is left to journalists. So one grilling by the veteran television interviewer Jeremy Paxman achieves more than a hundred parliamentary exchanges.
The scrutiny of legislation in the lower house is often woefully inadequate. We depend on unelected lords and then on unelected judges to defend our civil liberties against badly worded and over-broad legislation. These bills have usually been produced as a kneejerk reaction to some event or popular outcry, on the lines of the great satirical syllogism: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this.” The best select committees do a fine job of cross-examining the powerful, both from government and the private sector, but they need more funding and staff.The scrutiny of legislation in the lower house is often woefully inadequate. We depend on unelected lords and then on unelected judges to defend our civil liberties against badly worded and over-broad legislation. These bills have usually been produced as a kneejerk reaction to some event or popular outcry, on the lines of the great satirical syllogism: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this.” The best select committees do a fine job of cross-examining the powerful, both from government and the private sector, but they need more funding and staff.
And then, of course, there is corruption. When the scandal about MPs fiddling their expenses broke a few years ago, a cartoon showed a pinstriped gent fending off an angry crowd in front of the Houses of Parliament saying, “No, no, I’m a banker!” Call me naive, but I did find it shocking to see two former foreign secretaries caught on camera by a journalistic sting offering their services to a bogus Hong Kong-based company for about £5,000 a day. Yes, money howls still more loudly through American politics; but we don’t want to descend to that level, do we?And then, of course, there is corruption. When the scandal about MPs fiddling their expenses broke a few years ago, a cartoon showed a pinstriped gent fending off an angry crowd in front of the Houses of Parliament saying, “No, no, I’m a banker!” Call me naive, but I did find it shocking to see two former foreign secretaries caught on camera by a journalistic sting offering their services to a bogus Hong Kong-based company for about £5,000 a day. Yes, money howls still more loudly through American politics; but we don’t want to descend to that level, do we?
All this is before we even get to the stuffed House of Lords and Britain’s increasingly incoherent constitutional arrangements between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I could go on, but the point is clear. On 7 May we Brits are not directly electing a government, but a parliament. It will require extensive renovation for that parliament, like the building in which it sits, to be worthy of a great history.All this is before we even get to the stuffed House of Lords and Britain’s increasingly incoherent constitutional arrangements between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I could go on, but the point is clear. On 7 May we Brits are not directly electing a government, but a parliament. It will require extensive renovation for that parliament, like the building in which it sits, to be worthy of a great history.