Relaxing The Rules: Swinegate Returns

The good citizens of Wales must be very afraid.

On the very day the government re-announced the last government's "Equality Strategy", Ann Clwyd, MP for Cynon Valley, apparently rose to her hind legs and said this in support of relaxing the rules recently passed by MPs to curb expenses abuse:

"During my election campaign, someone came up to me and shouted 'Thief!' and if I had been a man I would have run after him and punched him in the face.”

So Ann clearly reckons it would have been okay for ex-MP David Chaytor to lamp his outraged constituents - at least, presumably before this week's guilty plea - and now the Equality Strategy means there's nothing to stop her 'aving a go...

I empathise with MPs who say they are struggling with legislation that they misconceived in their haste to get re-elected. Really I do. Because you could say that about an awful lot of their output, including their appalling attack on the digital economy in the course of the infamous "wash-up".

But we soldier on without being entitled to run people down in the street and punch them in the face, and so must our MPs - male or female.

There must be limits to the extent MPs can relax the rules for themselves.

The Turning Of The Screw

All the squealing from MPs about the harshness of their new expenses rules - not to mention the odd high profile resignation - suggests to me the system is working.

We aren't seeing a lot of specifics about why the new system is too draconian. For instance, Emily Thornberry (Labour, Islington South and Finsbury) is quoted as saying:

“It’s not fair that we’re being cut back on the amount of work we can do.”

Nice drafting, Emily. Of course, this is a plea based on moral panic. Only each MP is really in a position to know whether this statement is true. It implies MPs are running their offices in the most efficent manner possible, and they "can" do work now that the new expense rules won't permit. By using the word "can", Emily can wriggle out of any attack on her record, or any other MP's record - she has not said specifically that she or they will no longer be able to do X or Y.

Don't trust 'em, I say. Keep turning the screw.

Britain: No Pain, No Gain

Here are my takeaways from the Spectator Business breakfast debate, sponsored by DLA Piper in the City this morning. The issue was whether political paralysis is the major obstacle to economic recovery. The speakers were MPs Vince Cable, Frank Field and Philip Hammond, along with Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, and financial columnist Neil Collins. Martin Vander Weyer, editor of Spectator Business, was in the chair.

The politicians concede there is a £90bn structural deficit, that is currently driving unsustainably high public borrowing. They agree a clear mandate is required at the next election if the new government is to be able to administer the 'tough medicine' required to reduce or eliminate that deficit. Technically, they disagree on the detail of how and when to disconnect the economic life support systems currently in place (quantitative easing etc). However, they say little of this is actually 'discretionary stimulus', so their debate doesn't really amount to much. Most of the stimulus is the result of monetary policy that is out of their control and is being well-handled by the experts, even if no one is sure how beneficial it will turn out to have been. However, concern remains that not enough of the stimulus is resulting in finance for solvent borrowers.

Households are in no position to absorb much pain in the short term, due to the £1.4 trillion consumer debt mountain. That would seem to rule out a return to the 'bleak and blunt' Thatcher budgets of the early '80s. So it appears we're in for a long period of monetary and fiscal responsibility. In fact, there will be an 'Office of Fiscal Responsibility', to put an end to the farcical gamesmanship around growth and other fiscal estimates at budget time.

Politically, shrinking the structural deficit will require policies that demonstrate everyone is 'sharing the pain'. Realistically, even the Tories have only found £3bn in potential cuts, so higher taxes are a certainty. The Tories say the 50p top tax rate will be a temporary measure that may not raise enough taxes to make a difference, but will show the 'rich' are sharing the pain - in the same way MPs are being told to repay whatever the Legg inquiry finds they owe, even if they disagree with the reasoning. All agreed that the electorate will not accept much pain while there's a perception that big bonuses are being awarded in the City (or the pubic sector retains generous pension entitlements).

The financial regulatory framework will be restructured, probably to ensure that riskier wholesale banking activities require so much reserve capital as to make them either prohibitive or at least sufficiently low risk for the taxpayer. It's suggested that the protectionist elements of the current EC attempts to regulate hedge funds etc will be successfully resisted by UK MEPs, making it 'irrational', or at least premature, for any funds to leave the UK/EU... good luck with that.

Public sector pensions are going to be cut. Heathrow won't be expanded, and there's a big issue about how the delivery of Britain's energy needs can/will be funded.

While the election provides an opportunity for change, its timing is delaying political focus and agreement on the detail of how to reduce the structural deficit and balance the competing economic and social interests. However, the paralysis goes well beyond the politicians to financial and economic experts and the media.

Against this backdrop, there is concern that confidence in the British economy amongst the investment community may evaporate.

Without real agitation by individual voters, I doubt we will see any real economic detail from the politicians until some time after the general election. Even then, any detail we're given prior to the election will be subject to change after it.

I created the word-cloud of this post at Wordle.

Those Squealing MPs Are Back!

Isn't it reassuring to see the piggies back from yet more holiday, fighting every effort to have their snouts hauled out of the trough?

My personal favourite is the one squealing about 'subjective judgements' in the legal review of her own expense claims, but not the subjective judgements made in how she actually filed them. As a chief architect of the Nanny State she should've known better. Experience how subjectively angry this makes you feel, by staring at the defiant face below for 30 seconds. Then exercise your own subjective judgement at Power 2010.

Gordo Got You Down? Try Power 2010!

If you aren't thoroughly disillusioned with UK politics and hell-bent on doing something about it, I don't know how much more mayhem it will take.

The good news is that even Gordon Brown admits he has to unwind his vast public sector binge of the past twelve years. The chips are really down.

But as the great HST himself said, "when the going gets tough, the weird turn pro".

So now is the time to ensure we get to keep and invest in what's important.

Enter Power 2010, a campaign chaired by Helena Kennedy and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.

Like MySociety, Power 2010 uses the internet to enable you to share your thoughts in a way that politicians cannot ignore without being called to public account. It doesn't matter whether Parliament is sitting or not. The internet is always on, 24-hours of disinfecting sunlight shining into the Westminster pit.

So please share your ideas now, at http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/yourideas.

Swinegate and Consitutional Reform

I've just seen some patronising rubbish in the Spectator about concern over MP's expenses being overkill and somehow bad for the British democratic process.

Swinegate is just the straw that broke the camel's back. At different times, on different issues that each of us cares about, we have all felt that politicians are up to no good in their various machinations. Now we've all caught them, red-handed, pulling the same stunt at the same time. It does not matter that we have merely caught a crowd of them failing to do something as basic as filling out an expense form with diligence and propriety. The panic-stricken response right across the political spectrum is clear evidence that the politicians now know that we know just how opaque and unaccountable Parliament is generally.

The great news is that this has alerted a wider community of people to consider what goes on in Westminster. But these are still early days in this process of awakening. So it's way too early to constrain debate by saying that constitutional reform is not the answer, for example. Let's get the whole sorry parliamentary institution laid out on the table and then figure out how to reform it.

More light, please! We have work to do...

Travels in the Blogosphere

It's been a mad week, with my spare time absorbed by an article on the behavioural targeting of internet advertising and responding to a cascade of blogs. Highlights being:

• commenting on Dave's report on SEPA's 50 year plan;



• observing the link between the "Bauman-esque negotiation between moral ideals and the problems and needs of everyday life" and sustainable capitalism;



• debunking the notion of "mass personalisation", which is about as oxymoronic as you can get;



• cheering the Tories' promise to make legislation more accessible, and wondering what on earth the recently re-labelled "Digital Engagement Team" at the Cabinet Office has been doing;



• pushing for publication of MPs and Peers' expenses at mySociety, writing to my MP and wondering what on earth the recently re-labelled "Digital Engagement Team" at the Cabinet Office has been doing;



• and of course eagerly awaiting Blawg Review #214.

I've also updated my own posts on:

• Swinegate;



• Something Decent to Read; and



• Coping with the risk of a spike in mortgage rates.

I suspect that's enough havoc for one week, but I reckon there's more to come...

WE Are The Parliamentary Standards Authority!

How smug and complacent it is for MPs to suggest that a politically manageable Quango act as the arbiter of their "standards". This is simply further evidence that they just don't understand the depths to which they have sunk in our esteem. Expense claims are at the tip of an iceberg.

So let's be clear with them. I suggest a missive be sent to each MP and Peer to the following effect:

We, the citizens of the UK, are your so-called Parliamentary Standards Authority. You work for us. We pay you. It is best that you act in a way that inspires our trust and confidence in you, otherwise you will be thrown out of Parliament. As a guide, we have some standards we want you to abide by. These include, but shall not be limited to the following:

1. You must stop using the title "Right Honourable", because we do not believe that either term applies to you, any more than it does to anyone else.

2. You will abide by the most draconian expense policy that applies to middle managers in a FTSE 100 company from time to time.

3. You will publish your expense claims on your parliamentary web page within 7 days after the end of each calendar month.

4. You must not submit an expense claim that does not comply with the expense policy and is not supported by a valid VAT receipt.

etc - e.g. more transparent declarations of 'outside' interests and income, prohibition on taking cushy consulting roles with industries you are supposed to have been supervising.

We can amend this charter at any time in our sole and absolute discretion. Be good. We are watching you.

And the first job for the so-called "Digital Engagement Team" at the Cabinet Office should be to ensure a public datafeed of MPs' and Peers' expenses so that taxpayers can use the various analytical tools that have already sprung up to determine whether their legislators' interests are aligned with citizens' or with the lining of their own pockets.

PS: Also worth getting involved with the MySociety intiative on this. I wrote to my MP, Andy Slaughter, and he's promised to publish his expenses online. However, we need them all to publish in a format that can be readily analysed.

Private Sheriffs in Cyberspace, Counter-Regulation

Last night I attended the lecture by Professor Jonathan Zittrain on "The Future of the Internet: Private Sheriffs in Cyberspace", organised by the SCL organised in collaboration with the The Oxford Internet Institute. Jonathan is a Professor at Harvard Law School, Co-Founder and Faculty Director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, a great intellect and a fabulous speaker.

As the title suggests, Jonathan was highlighting the role of private rule-makers in the development of Internet-based services. Helpfully, he suggested a quadrant on which you can place rule-making for all scenarios. On the vertical plane, one considers whether rules are decided "top-down" by a dictator or small group of individuals, or evolve bottom-up amongst all interested participants. On the horizontal plane, one considers whether the rules are handed down and enforced via a single hierarchy or via a polyarchy of different people or agencies. I've re-drawn it here for the purposes of discussion, and hope Jonathan doesn't mind:

You can plot various examples on the chart, with a totalitarian regime being in the upper left corner, and Wikipedia being in the lower right.

Interestingly, Jonathan suggests that the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook are top-down rule makers, because their site terms and policies are all decided by the company and not the users of their services, albeit those companies tend to be very responsive to bottom-up pressures. He cites the exclusion of certain lawful, though potentially offensive, applications from the iPhone and Facebook platforms as examples of decisions that might not be consistent with previous decisions, nor deemed constitutional in the public environment. He queries whether, in time, these might result in some alternate form of regulation and considers what that might entail.

My sense is that this scenario is not quite so clear cut, since the evolution of services or platforms provided by those companies (read iPhone apps in the case of Apple) seems primarily based on user participation, feedback and complaint, rather than board or departmental decision-making. I'm not even sure that, when push comes to shove, those companies necessarily triumph. There are significant instances where - to their enduring credit - each of those companies backed down and modified services and terms in the face of widespread user vitriol.

However, it is true that in general terms, at least before push comes to shove, such firms are the 'sheriff' of their own platforms. And it is conceivable that there could be a substantial gap in time, and a significant amount of individual consumer detriment - mild or otherwise - before any arbitrary, inconsistent or harmful exercise of corporate discretion is corrected by some kind of mass user "action". But of course this phenomenon occurs even in the context of highly regulated businesses all the time - e.g. retail financial services, as Financial Ombudsman statistics demonstrate. Offline retailers and distributors also decide not to distribute certain products on their own whim, or due to informal pressure from certain interest groups.

So the responsiveness of a service provider to its users, and the legality of its behaviour, does not seem to be a function of how that service provider or its services are regulated. But is users' trust or faith in the provider a function of the type of regulation that applies to the service?

Jonathan looks at various models for keeping the private sheriffs honest, e.g. vicarious liability for harmful material of which the service provider is on notice (see PanGloss), public law constraints on municipal authorities and 'due process' requirements. But, crucially, he points out that when users start to feel powerless they look to top-down bodies for help - i.e. towards the top left of the quadrant - when perhaps the online world is demonstrating there are more trustworthy solutions to the lower left and right. To the lower left, Jonathan cites the adherence to the robots.txt exclusion standard, whereby researchers effectively agree not to interrogate certain parts of web publisher's domains. To the lower right, he cites the broad editorial body of interested participants in Wikipedia. Either solution might be safer than entrusting control to, say, government institutions that think nothing of bending or breaking the law under the guise of detecting crime, or the vague notion of "national security".

And here's the crux of the problem. When does a trusted service provider suddenly cease to be trusted to make and enforce its own rules?

To me, this seems to me to be answered by whether the service provider is perceived to be acting in its own interests or that of its users - or when it loses its "human effect", as I think Jonathan put it in answer to a different question. Here, the Wikipedia example is an interesting one. As Jonathan noted there is a constant preoccupation amongst the Wikipedia editorial community about what Wikipedia is and what it means to be a Wikipedian. This has also been touched on in the context of brands striving to be facilitators rather than institutions. Is this human element necessary for rule-makers and service providers to preserve users' trust in them?

As I've mentioned previously in a wider context, the rise of Web 2.0 facilitators that have enabled us to seize control of many of our own retail, political and other personal experiences has been accompanied by a plunge in our faith in our society's institutions. Are they causally related, or inter-related?

In this context, it is interesting to consider a shining example of a service provider and rule-maker that has utterly lost its way, and our respect: the UK's own House of Commons. Weeks of attention on MPs' excessive expense claims - widely viewed as a proxy for their attitude to the taxpayer generally - has forced the nation's legislators to reconsider how they themselves should be governed. And it's worth noting that much of that attention has been brought to bear via the Internet. Ironically, and in line with Jonathan's observation about where we look to when we feel powerless, the MPs are looking to the upper left quadrant in suggesting yet another Quango as an external regulator of their activities - a so-called "Parliamentary Standards Authority". That such a body needs to exist raises huge questions about the ethics of the body it is supposed to supervise.

But who on earth should comprise the members of such an authority? How could it bring about a positive change in the attitude of MPs to us, their constituents?

Which brings us to the notion that the private sheriffs of cyberspace may have a lot to teach their 'real world' counterparts about what it means to act in the interests of their users in order to retain their trust. This is a notion that I explored in an article for the SCL in May 2006, entitled "Counter-regulation" - a term I used to describe when the law requires offline businesses to implement the benefits of successful online business models. So, to borrow from Jonathan, perhaps MPs should be looking to the lower left and right of the rule-making quadrant for an alternative regulatory solution that could begin to restore a human element and raise the level of our faith in Parliament. And maybe our suspicion of Quangos as merely a means to reward government supporters with a nice cushy job would also be eased if the Quango in question comprised a very large, active group of UK taxpayers.

The (Further) Shaming of Westminster

It's a feeble institution that allows itself to come to this.

MPs: Please Pay More To Vet Our Expense Claims

Surprise, surprise: the MPs' suggestion for keeping their own noses out of the trough is to create another Quango (number 191). They estimate this will cost the taxpayer £600,000 a year to run.

So, in addition to excessive expenses paid to date, we're now asked to pay even more, just to keep MP's honest.

These people aren't really in it for us, are they?

The Commons Fees Office is already "overseen" by a committee made up of MPs (WTF?) which is in turn "overseen" by the National Audit Office. One might flippantly observe that with so much 'oversight' it's easy to see how Swinegate happened. But seriously, where is the explanation by the alleged oversight committee of how it allowed Swinegate to happen on its watch? Where are the NAO's audit reports on the subject? I see that the NAO was called in to look at expenses abuse in 1995 by the Nolan Committee into "standards in public life". But clearly whatever action was taken only encouraged MPs in their audacity. It also seems from the report of its investigation into a blow-out in MP's expenses in 2005-06 that the NAO doesn't audit the exercise of the Commons Fees Office's discretion in approving accounts, merely the tally of those approvals against budget estimates (see House of Commons Members Resource Accounts). Does this mean there is no compliance audit function?

For the answers to these and other questions, one can always file a Freedom of Information Request on WhatDoTheyKnow.com.

Swinegate's Feeble Whistleblower?

For every scandal there seems to be an heroic whistleblower working tirelessly to expose the thing, ignored by all in authority. For the MPs' expenses saga - "Swinegate" seems apt - we can only look to Andrew Walker, who is said to have signed off MP's expense claims in his role at the Commons Fees Office. Apparently, he "told Speaker Michael Martin more than five years ago that he must act to curb excessive claims. But Westminster sources say the Speaker told him not to meddle, and 'punished' him by refusing to speak to him for weeks at a time." Ah, the poor, poor man.

Just as the revelation of Paul Moore's unheeded warnings to the HBOS board were enough to hole Sir James Crosby's career at the FSA below the waterline, so should Andrew Walker's warnings do for the Speaker - not to mention all the little piggies to the left and right who had their snouts in the trough.

But hang on. Five years ago?! You mean Mr Walker has spent 5 more years signing off the sort of expense claims that he once found unacceptable. You mean that, unlike Mr Moore, he did not continue to make himself a thorn in the side of those he was supposed to be reining in? If that's true, then sorry, Mr Walker, you too have to hit the road. No pay-off. No pension.

"Another soure" is quoted as saying:

"A while back it looked as if Andrew might lose his job and you can't blame him for thinking that he might as well keep his head down. Why should he sacrifice his career for the sake of others?"

This feeble rhetorical question sums up what Westminster is all about. To change that, we need an answer, and it has to be: if you stop doing your job properly, you are sacrificing your career.