18/09/2019
We are currently in a position where parliament has been prorogued at the request of our Prime Minister, not, as he claims, in order to allow for the presentation of a new Queen's Speech, but to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and drive the UK off the Brexit cliff.
Boris Johnson has proven, time and time again, that he is not trustworthy; that he will lie to further his own political ambition.
I think it is worth stressing that point.
He lies to further his political ambition, not his actual political beliefs.
It was likely, it has been argued, that without the prorogation of parliament, the House of Commons (HoC) wouldn't have voted in favour of its usual party conference recess. This is because the majority of MPs recognised the urgent business of the HoC and the need to ensure that plans for the UK's departure from the EU was handled appropriately.
So, the government's assertions that the prorogation has only led to an actual loss of several sitting days of the HoC and the House of Lords (HoL) is deliberately misleading.
However, even if the loss of sitting days was only one week, that would be a week too many.
The country is currently experiencing its most turbulent and frightening time outside of wartime. At this time, it is incredibly important that our politicians are actually in Westminster doing their job. Party conferences, the composing of a new Queen's Speech and other such distractions should be delayed until the whole Brexit mess has been sorted.
A new Prime Minister...
So, who should be replacing the disgraced Boris Johnson as the head of government?
And how should that be achieved?
In actual fact, those questions might be best answered in reverse.
At this stage, having a general election is probably not the best option on the table. If we were to go to the ballot boxes right now, the subject of Brexit would have a significant influence on how people vote. They would therefore be voting on (supposedly) a five year government term, but with expectations of the next month or two causing people to vote differently than they might choose to ordinarily.
The incredibly divisive choice to Leave the EU should not be the deciding factor as to who we elect to run the country over the longer term.
Instead, it would be advisable for a very short term, interim, coalition government to be established using those who are currently sitting as MPs in parliament. A figurehead, interim Prime Minister should be chosen and his cabinet should be made up of representatives from each of the main parties. They should have one key role to perform:
To secure a deal from proper, rational negotiations with the EU and to present the outcome to the British people so that they may make an informed decision about whether to:
remain in the EU;
leave the EU with the deal struck by the interim government; or
leave the EU without a deal.
This referendum must be set as a binding vote; not an advisory one as was the case in 2016. This would mean that the referendum would have to meet certain requirements and, importantly, the Electoral Commission would be in a position to ensure that the rules were adhered to.
Once the decision of such a referendum has been implemented, the Queen should be asked to dissolve parliament so that the country could then have a new general election and could elect a government to take the UK forward, whether this was inside or outside of the EU.
So, who should lead this coalition government with the brief of sorting the situation out?
The obvious answer would be to select the Father of The House, Ken Clarke.
Harriet Harman, who has been dubbed the Mother of The House, could be Deputy Prime Minister; or even Joint Prime Minister.
Going forward, it is essential that we reintroduce trust in our parliamentary system and those who sit in both the HoC and the HoL.
A number of steps should be taken to help the UK achieve this.
Importantly, we must introduce far stricter 'fit and proper' requirements for those who sit as MPs in the HoC or Lords in the HoL. Anyone who is shown to have lied to or deliberately mislead parliament, the courts, the Queen or the electorate (past, current or future) should be banned from holding any such post in the future. If such lies were sufficiently malicious or self-serving, the individual should also be referred for prosecution for the crime of Misconduct in Public Office.
The same standards of good ethics and honesty should also be expected of our MEPs and local councillors. Anyone elected to represent their constituents should be held to a very high standard of good behaviour.
Furthermore, when a manifesto is presented by a political party or an individual politician, it should face certain tests before it can be shared with the potential electorate. Those tests should include an assessment as to. whether the pledges are financially possible, whether they are legally achievable and whether they are presented in a manner which is clear, fair and not misleading.
The same should be true of all political advertising.
This should mean that, in the future, we are not faced with the sort of xenophobic and completely fictitious propaganda such as used by Farage and his ilk in the 2016 referendum campaign.
It is time for us to start ensuring we can have faith that our politicians are doing their job with due skill, care and diligence and that their honesty and integrity is such that they do the role they are tasked with; running the country positively and with due regard to the needs and aspirations of their electorate.
Will we actually achieve this? Maybe, maybe not. Even if we do get to a position whereby our politicians are showing the highest standards of honesty and integrity, there will no doubt be a significant number of people who will never trust them. Sadly, it will probably take generations of exemplary and selfless behaviour before trust will grow substantially.
That shouldn't dissuade us from pushing for such standards to be applied.
We need to rebuild trust in democracy and politics and we cannot sit back and assume this will happen without significant work.
Comments