newsjunction.co.uk

The Conservative Penrith and the Border MP David Maclean is to step down at the next General Election because his multiple sclerosis has worsened this year. The MP was taken by ambulance this week with the support of two medics to vote for a new Commons Speaker following what he described as the worst exacerbation yet of his illness.

His dedication to Parliament is obviously incredible, there was no need for him to attend the vote beyond his dedication, and despite his role in trying to exempt MP’s expenses from the Freedom of Information Act it is certain Parliament will be a lesser place without him and his experience. A former officer in the 51st Highland Volunteers, he was elected in 1983 and his Parliamentary career included a stint as chief whip and ministerial posts in Agriculture, the Environment and Home Office. He turned down a Cabinet role in 1995 and was diagnosed with MS in 1996.

But Maclean’s decision to step down because benefits of treatment - which will increase his quality of life and expected lifespan - would be cancelled out if he continued an MP’s workload, shows in part how Parliament needs reform beyond what others are considering. Parliament benefits from having a diverse range of Members with diverse experience; but requiring attendance to vote and having MP’s act as uber-councillors/social workers puts many off and - in Maclean’s case - out.

Why can’t MP’s vote by proxy or by electronic means, as they can in Scotland?

Why do MP’s work as uber-councillors?

Maclean said his constituency – the largest in England – deserved an MP who could go at it “full pelt”. But if we have a system where only those with the time, inclination and - in this case - physical ability to attend all the odd-hours Parliament works and act as uber-councillor “full pelt”, the pool of interested applicants is greatly reduced. You’re ruling out anyone with kids really, especially women or single parents, anyone with a health issue…

What we need is MP’s to be MP’s - scrutinising laws, representing us and holding the executive to account. Axe the uber-councillor stuff, set normal hours and let MP’s vote from elsewhere by remote and suddenly being an MP will become compatible with being a normal person - doing the school run, having a family and social life beyond work, having health issues - and we may just then get such normal people.

David Cameron must be in a cooking mood. A round-robin letter by an anonymous person - claiming to be a Tory MP - accuses him of using ‘Stallinist tactics’ and anger at the expenses scandal to remake the party in a new image, using ‘kangaroo courts’ of his close supporters to force out old MPs. The old adage that you can’t make on omelette without breaking some eggs springs to mind.

Now I am certainly not in favour of Stallinist tactics or the ousting of elected representatives by party leadership. But - and it’s a big but - many MPs have acted very badly, breaking the expenses rules or at the very least having their snouts very firmly in the trough.

Caught out, many of what are described as ‘old guard’ have reacted terribly to the revelations. Disgusting arrogance, rudeness, dismissive responses, a ‘my right’ culture. Douglas Hogg walking away from reporters. Anthony Steen accusing his constituents of jealousy. And now Brian Binley - who claimed over £50,000 for a flat rented from his own company and £2,115 for a truly dire website I half suspect he made himself - being absolutely petulant in his assertations that he won’t repay anything even if asked!

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Each are surely guaranteed to lose their seats if they stand again - they simply have to go! Yes it is a blessing in disguise that a few people who are tired, stale and old (in the sense they have been MPs for too long, not actual physical age) are being replaced by hopefully better new recruits, but it is still vital.

Of course if we had Open Primaries and Voter Recall, we wouldn’t have this problem, but I can’t see these ‘old guard’ wanting that. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Last night was without doubt the worst night you could realistically imagine for Labour. They already have less councillors than the Lib Dems from Friday’s results, lost top spot in Wales for the first time since 1918 (when Welshman Lloyd George was PM), and scored their lowest GB wide vote share since 1910. Back then Edward VII was King, the Titanic was still safely tucked away as a work in progress at Harland & Wharf’s Shipyard, Winston Churchill was Home Secretary under Prime Minister Herbet Henry Asquith and Liberal MP for Dundee, and the Labour Party was just four years old!

They polled third behind UKIP - with their vote share lower even than that of Stanley Baldwin after his unpopular coalition with the Conservatives - and only escaped the humiliation of 4th because of the Greens heavily eroding the Liberal Democrat vote. (Did anyone else spot Simon Hughes’ Freudian Slip when discussing the rise of the BNP with David Dimbleby he accidently said (not verbatim) “We are totally opposed to the views of the Greens and are very worried about the Greens, I mean BNP.”)

But although Labour very much lost this election, the Conservatives cannot truly claim to have won it either. They may have topped the poll in Wales, but the national vote share was up less than 2% and was still below 30%. In some regions the vote share had even dropped. Last night was a victory for the minor parties more than anyone, and this poses two questions: will these votes return to the main parties at the general election, and will they go blue?

The risk for Cameron is that people have taken a ‘curse on all your houses’ view under the opinion that “you’re all the same” and - having had several Euro elections under PR - become used to voting for other parties. Do some people now even identify themselves as Ukippers or Greens, rather than just voting for them as a one-off, in the same way traditional Labour or Conservative voters proudly view themselves as such?

I still think the odds are in the Conservatives favour, but to form a majority they need the third biggest swing recorded in post-war history and there is still everything to play for.

For Labour to win they would have to be radical - personality wise, rather than with policy. Brown would have to go, as would all of his hated, creepy cohorts. Both of the Millibands, Ed Balls, Harman et al would have to go (if they haven’t already, it’s so hard to keep up). But a fresh face, the fresher the better, and preferably (for them) as surprising as possible. But if Labour did go for electric shock treatment - say Frank Field, Caroline Flint or Diane Abbot - with a cabinet featuring these along with say Kate Hoey, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Tony Benn as a sop to the oldies, Hazel Blears as a sop to the Blairy-bunch… It would be a disaster policy wise (no change there then) but be such a shock it could bounce enough to pull through.

It’s roughly the same as the Conservatives should have done in the 1990s! It’s a case of ‘new broom sweeps clean’; and if you want it to be your party you have to become a new broom.

Even so the Conservatives can win - but they must close their right flank with Ukip by promising a Referendum, and then be free to attack Labour on the issues that move Lab/Con swing voters without fear of losing votes of core voters. Ukip cost them 30-odd seats last time, they can’t be left to cost them the election.