What makes an effective MP?
Today the House of Commons saw the beginning of Nick Hurd’s, MP for Ruislip and son of Lord Hurd (who I now know was MP for Witney until 1997), Sustainable Communities Bill passage through the requisite legislative hurdles that may see it become law. Mr Hurd only has the platform to present this bill to the House because of his luck in winning the Private Members Bill ballot. This creates a question in my mind: what are the strategies of the 400 or so backbench MP’s for making a difference?
The Maverick: Dennis Skinner and Nicholas Winterton are examples of MP’s who take this approach. On many issues they are prepared to ignore the party whips and take stances which they believe to be just; the frequency of their rebellion and a knowledge they do not aspire to ministerial office makes them very hard to discipline. Does this approach give the public voices of originality from the monotony of party spin or are they egotists given a public stage at the taxpayer’s expense?
The Whip’s friend: Until recently Oona King was a good example of such an MP. They appreciate that the overriding reason for their election was the party logo next to their name on the ballot paper and so will vote as the party leadership indicates. Is this approach the best method for fulfilling their election promises, or is a supine representative the last thing an elector should be pleased with?
The Careerist: I shall use another Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw - Exeter, as an example because it can be seen as a term of abuse. These MP’s are in Parliament to climb the greasy pole and will do what is required to achieve their objectives. The country takes the vast majority of its Executive from the Commons so we do require such men and women, but is the use of a mandate for representation as a basis for building a self-fulfilling career the ultimate way to patronise a constituency?
There is no doubt that the Mavericks provide the best source of entertainment, but what sort of MP do you want representing your interests in the House? Indeed, can you think of any other categories of MP’s?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
It is a hard choice; I want an MP that follows/supports the Party whilst still being his own man and thinking of his constituents. It is also nice, but not that important, to have a “Careerist” as he/she may put your constituency on the map.
I would hope though for an MP who supports the Party, but would put his constituents first; even if that is against the Party line and considered “Maverick”.
I do think you have summed up the MP’s categories well Stuart overall although I am not so sure about the title Maverick; by listing Skinner and Winterton as the examples I think it diminishes it when an MP does actually vote for what he believes to be right. The Party may think he/she is a maverick, but is it fair for us to?
January 20th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I used the examples of Winterton and Skinner because they give the impression of occasionally playing up to their credentials as political “bad boys”. Sometimes, and this is very much open to debate, they may vote on an issue just to be plain stubborn.
You make it clear that you would like to have an MP with attributes from all of my categories. Is that possible? Can a careerist really have an open mind over issues when he/she always has a clear eye on the ministerial limo?
There is also the other factor of the nature of the particular seat. Can MPs in marginal seats afford to tow the party line when it is unpopular? This is brought sharply into focus when the national issue has a local bearing on the constituency being represented.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Your category of ‘maverick’ is invariably going to be a wide-ranging one. Some ‘mavericks’ will represent their constituents’ interests to the end of the Earth, no what matter the party platform is; I’d like to think that my former MP, Richard Page, fell into this group. Others will continue to argue the toss on a particular policy area that appeals to them; Keith Vaz’s obsession with race relations and Bob Spink’s campaign to bring back the gallows come to mind. Finally, you have the true mavericks, who argue for the sake of arguing, and love the attention that such argument brings; these are the Skinners and the Wintertons of the world.
There is one last caste into which MPs can fall that you have overlooked:
The Parliament man: A true Parliament man does the nitty-gritty work that facilitates the workings of the House, and of Parliament as a whole. Some of these tasks are vital, such as sitting on select and standing committees, without which, neither the executive nor the legislature could be properly scrutinised. Other tasks contribute nothing to the general well-being of either constituency or country, but help give the individual MP the feeling that, by setting the House of Commons canteen menu, have helped the abstraction of democracy. These are the people of which you’ve never heard, and are never likely to want on your side, unless you really don’t like chicken kiev.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Of course ideally we would have a party which we backed 100% of the time, but the truth is that no such political party would be feasible. If this were the case, then the choice would be a ‘Whip’s friend’ every time. This would be good for the party, who would always rely on the support of their back benches.
However, there are always occasions when you disagree with the party, and in such situations, I would want my MP to rebel against the party. This of course assumes general support in his constituency. I take Oliver Cooper’s point about splitting up the ‘Mavericks’, and obviously refer to those who represent the views of their constituents here.
I would also say that the ‘back benchers’ can act as a form of regulation on the party, and can stick to the traditional party beliefs. So surely they are useful in this sense in ensuring that a leader doesn’t try to move his party too much from the electorate.
So, I would want a politician who is mainly a ‘Whip’s friend’, but on major issues which affect his district to represent them rather than just agree with his party.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Oliver, I do agree that many members become engrossed in the arcane procedures that the House is run by but, it is not really a defining characteristic of more than 1 or 2 current members. In fact government whips have a tendency to put members with no interest in a particular issue onto the standing committee for bills relating to that area; it prevents the debate from being prolonged!
I assume you are thinking of the current Father of the House (Alun Williams) when you gave your description of ‘The Parliament man’? He does offer a good example of such creatures but, I still find it hard to believe a single constituency from any party would select a man/woman who made it clear their passion was the codification of conventions within the Houses of Parliament.
Stuart, your description of an ideal MP sounds very sensible to me. I would like my representative to augment his willingness to rebel over local issues with an fairly open mind when it came to national issues though. In conclusion, any MP who votes against his party line should not do so lightly.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 am
I did not envisage a single Parliament man (which is not my terminology), nor do I suggest that there is any reason for a constituency to go out of its way to elect one over a more ‘proactive’ member of the legislature. Merely, they are the result of a system in which two-thirds of seats are ’safe’.
There may be two reasons that one might give for not using Alan Williams as the archetypal Parliament man. First, he is one of the few voices that still speaks out against the debacle of devolution, and he does so with consistency and clarity such that I may be tempted to put him in the ‘policy advocate’ section of the ‘maverick’ pile. Second, he’s really only so active in committees because he’s already done all the front bench malarkey; he’s spent 15 years on government and opposition front benches, so that might be considered a function of his age, rather than personality.
That said, I can’t think of one that exactly fits the bill, which is a problem of their species. I take the categorisation from Donald Searing’s study of political roles under the Westminster model, which is the standard in political science and which found that, in 1972-3, 10% of backbenchers were ‘Parliament men’ as I have described them (and their lack of utility). That idea, that there are 65 MPs that concern themselves primarily with work that is better done by canteen staff, does chill my perception of our democracy. Maybe someone that doesn’t notice only people that actualy do things could point out a few pieces of deadwood floating on the surface of the parliamentary sea!