Jury Team Commentary

If unashamed emulation is the greatest compliment that one can pay, it is remarkably clear from his piece in the Telegraph today that David Cameron is very much a fan of Jury Team

In this article Cameron outlines a number of problems with UK politics and promotes reforms that bear striking resemblance to the Jury Team’s own analysis and solutions. He talks of weakening the whip, strengthening scrutinising committees, and clearing out the Tory old-guard, all of which evoke specific Jury Team proposals. However, I should like to draw your attention to Cameron’s appeal to the public to come and stand themselves for the Tory party, an intriguing and direct challenge to the Jury Team’s own candidate acquisition.

In response to revelations concerning the uses to which Tory MPs put tax-payers’ money, and some astonishingly contemptuous outbursts from Conservatives such as Anthony Sheen following the public outcry about this, Cameron appears convinced that the future of his party lies in attracting candidates with no background in Tory politics. As such, he is advocating a wholesale replacement of the political class within his party with real people, who could reinvigorate the Tories with an awareness of what the public considers acceptable behaviour. The urgent need for more public input into the legislative process is one of the major reasons that Jury Team was set up; however, Cameron’s loyalty to his party alloys his interpretation of the Jury Team approach with a problem.

Cameron cannot avoid retaining the whip to control his party’s MPs; as much as he may advocate weakening it, he cannot strive to remove it altogether. But if any member of the public were to stand for election as a Conservative MP, even if they share Cameron’s core Conservative values of “family, thrift, enterprise and a strong society,” differences of opinion must naturally arise on important issues. When that happens, it is unlikely that the urge to deploy the full power of the Party organisation will be resisted. Through the threat of the whip, the promise of internal promotion, or reshuffles resulting in financial gain, any member of the public standing for the Conservatives will still be pressured to stick to party lines in just the way that their predecessors were. The raw material does not matter, the party machine will still strive to manufacture more lobby fodder.

Cameron is essentially proposing to compete with Jury Team in attracting members of the public to stand for election.

But the key difference is that Cameron wants the public to stand for the Tories, while Jury Team wants the public to stand for themselves.

While Cameron’s total adoption of Jury Team principles is to be welcomed as a significant step forward, his party prevents him offering the level of reform that our parliamentry-system needs; only the Jury Team can do that.

Martin

At the end of last week the Daily Telegraph finally lit the fuse to the barrels of gun-powder sitting under Parliament in the form of expense claims. Let us quickly review the fall-out from the explosion so far

Last Friday (08/05), the Telegraph started leaking the expenses claimed by Labour members. There were a number of jarring highlights. Gordon Brown transferred £6,500 to his brother to cover a cleaning bill. Alistair Darling “flipped” second homes four times in four years allowing him to increase his expense claims. Hazel Blears “flipped” second homes 3 times within a year. Geoff Hoon redesignated his second home in order to improve his family home at the tax-payers expense. Margret Moran claimed £22,500 to fix some dry rot in her “second home” in Southampton, 100 miles from her constituency in Luton South. All this followed the exposure last month of Jacqui Smith’s claims for a bath plug, a fireplace and pornographic material.

Then on Tuesday (12/05) the Telegraph lit the barrels under the Tory party. A number of jaw-dropping claims have been made by Conservatives members. Douglas Hogg had the moat around his house cleaned at a cost of £2,000. Oliver Letwin claimed £2,000 to fix a water-pipe running under his tennis court. Sir Michael Spicer successfully claimed for the cost of having a chandelier fitted in his home. James Arbuthnot, Michael Ancram and Stewart Jackson claimed to have his swimming pool cleaned. David Heathcoat-Amory charged the tax-payer £380 to have horse manure spread over his land. Sir Michael Spicer claimed some £7,000 for gardening, particularly hedge cutting around his “helipad.”

Today (13/05) the Telegraph turned to the Liberal Democrats. We have learned that Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg, champion of expense reform, exceeded the maximum second-homes allowance (£23,083). Lembit Opik claimed £40 back for a court summons he received after not paying his council tax bill. Millionaire Chris Huhne regularly submits receipts for milk, bus travel, hob nobs and other similar items. Sir Menzies Campbell spent £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-size bed and a flat-screen television. It has also emerged that Julia Goldsworthy went on a spending spree last year as the deadline for using expense entitlement loomed, buying thousands of pounds-worth of furniture.

It is a common criticism that there is nothing to distinguish the three major parties from each other. Regardless of whether this can be said of their policies, it appears a fair assessment of their abuse of the parliamentary expense system.

Peter Kilfoyle, Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, uses the Iraq war as an example of the “unholy conspiracy” that can easily unite the political class against the best interests of the public. This is damning enough in itself, but with the Telegraph’s publication today of expense receipts of the Labour Party, and receipts of the Conservative Party possibly to follow on Monday, what danger is there of the political class closing ranks against the public on this issue to protect itself?

The Ministry of Truth have shared this amusing video with us showing the hold of the Party over the way we view issues. It is interesting viewing, especially following our recent blog, which tried to underline how and why the Party organisation is so dominant over our mindset in Britain. Enjoy!