Relationship between Executive and Legislature

An affirmation of the principle that the Executive (Ministers) and the Legislature (sitting MPs) are equals in our system, that the Legislature is entitled to consultation on any matter it deems requires it, and very significant weight is given to the views it expresses. If at all possible, this should be enshrined as more than a 'convention' that can be broken at will.

A particular aspect of the current system I find objectionable is that of 'whipping' MPs. While the Executive informing MPs of their opinion is of course acceptable, there should not be any requirement by the Executive for any MP to vote in a particular way: to require this is to subvert the relationship referred to above. It also negates the trust put in the MP by their constituents, who have voted for that person as their representative who is responsive to the their concerns, not simply as an Executive prop.

Relationship between Executive and Courts

An affirmation of the position of the courts as the impartial implementer of legislation, and not a valid target for antipathy; that if cases don't go the way the Executive want that is (usually) because the Laws were incorrectly drawn up, not because the Courts were wrong. If at all possible, this should be enshrined as more than a 'convention' that can be broken at will.

A corollary of this is of course to take additional care in the drafting of legislation and the especially the way it interacts with existing law. A priority should, in my view, be made of radical simplification of the law to enable people to more easily understand and follow it, and also to reduce the opportunities to evade it.

Relationship between Executive and the Civil Service

Recognition that the status of the Civil Service is that of informed consultants and implementers of the work of Government, and their expertise in their chosen fields must be taken into account. As such, Ministers should not and do not need "special advisers" or similar extra people brought in (at public expense or otherwise). Should additional experience of the matters at hand be needed this need must be raised with the relevant Civil Servants for resolution.

Responsibilities of MPs

I know that many MPs are very hard working individuals, but it is also very dispiriting watching debates in parliament that are of national importance where only a very few MPs are present, and where it seems very little is achieved. Points are expressed, but it seems very rare that anyone makes a change as a result. I would like to see progress made in the nature of debates, moving towards a meeting of minds and away from confrontation. How this may be achieved is currently beyond me. I am more encouraged by the meetings of the various select committees, which do seem to be somewhat more effective. Perhaps the parody of debate in the Commons is already being replaced?

In general, MPs need, it seems to me, to be reminded that their collective work in Government is to promote the safety and welfare of the whole of the UK (and consequently, of the Earth). Welfare is a social goal, not a financial one, and while finance and commerce play a part, it must be remembered that some of the least wealthy people in the world consider themselves to be fulfilled, while richer people are more likely to consider themselves not rich enough. We all live in a Society with common goals and constraints and in which people strive in concert to achieve things not possible alone. Without Society there would be chaos and, in the long term, death. Therefore, I view it as paramount that the Government promote and nurture our shared Society.

Government Communications

It is important that all of those involved in Government act in ways that does not breach the legal or moral constraints expected of them, and as such the use of private communication systems (be they smartphone or otherwise) must always be subject to the controls already applied to most Civil Servants.

Because of the position, place, and hours of work of members of the Legislature and Executive, it may be the case that this should include any and all personal communication systems they may use or have access to. Appropriate oversight is required of these communications, although I do not know what form that would take.

Personal Gain

Too many of those involved in Government have made use of their positions to personal gain (sometimes directly at public expense) or gain for family & friends, both during and after their service. While limiting this may result in unforeseen consequences it seems the known consequences are bad enough that steps taken should include:

1. A requirement that anyone involved in Government must relinquish their connections to other entities, including those of employment, directorships, societies and trusts, excepting being simple members of charities.
2. Severance of connections must be completed within 1 month of taking up such a post.  Full time Government employees are expected to work full time for the Government.
3. An undertaking, enforceable in law against the employed person, that the family and friends of those in Government will not benefit (either financially or by "advancement") from such a position.

In general, being an MP or Minister should be a goal in itself, not a means to enrich themselves or others.

One form of personal gain is by "gaming" the rules around accommodation. I propose that the Government maintain what amounts to a Parliamentary Hotel, with allocated suites for all those MPs whose constituencies warrant it (e.g. over 1.5hr minimum travel time door-door), and some number of additional 'as required' rooms. No other provision will be available. Allocated rooms may be furnished by the occupant at their expense but must be returned to the standard state on leaving.

Status of Public Inquiries

A change of status of Public Inquiries, such that:

1. Inquiry recommendations must normally be released promptly and also implemented by the Government without undue delay;
2. Where the Government decides that Inquiry recommendations cannot be implemented it must issue a detailed explanation why not that can be challenged in Parliament. In particular, "because we don't like it" is not an acceptable reason: Inquiries are expensive in both money and social effort and their results must be respected.
3. Prompt release of Inquiry results is necessary for similar reasons. Should "National Security" be invoked as a reason not to release results or implement recommendations, the Government must seek the agreement of both the Legislature and the Courts in some way. This is intended to be hard.
4. An Inquiry can be set up not only by the Executive, but also by the other two arms of Government if required. This is to impose a form of constraint on the Executive.

For many years now I have occasionally looked at the world through a lens of "what is good for Society", as distinct from any individual or group, and where we are now has frequently fallen a long way short. Humans are of course social beings who naturally form groups, but Society is a construct that transcends any individual group. Society is the framework of expectation of behaviour humans in that Society have to each other. It is one of the largest components of Culture.

Society is important because without it we would (in our current world) die. That is not hyperbolae: without Society defining roles and expectations, nothing would happen that wasn't in an individual's interest, or possibly that of a group, but it has been shown that humans don't form successful, stable groups of more than about 100 people, because such groups depend on people knowing each other and 100 is about as many as normal individuals can know well enough. Society is the way humans have evolved to live in groups beyond the 100 person "limit". So without Society, human existence would degenerate into many tiny groups, most resources would become unavailable (because they require too much cooperation to produce), infighting and inter-group squabbles would become commonplace, and most currently living people would die. We know this - most of the "apocalyptic" movies stories are based around exactly this premise.

So Society is important, but what is it? It is a system of shared expectations which serves to both bind people together and define how they can work towards common goals without the backup of individually gained trust. Some people have referred to this as the Social Contract. So, when I go to work I trust I will be paid, and the boss trusts I will do the work they want done, even though we are not friends and have no á priori shared trust. When I go to the shops to buy food I expect the food will be fit for consumption and the trader will deal honestly, and the trader trusts that I will recompense them fairly. We acquire these expectations and grow this web of trust because we grew up in it and absorbed it, and when it breaks (as happens) we express outrage with each other as a method of shared, social enforcement. In the limit, we construct Laws and legal systems to impose a higher cost to those who break expectations of the desired behaviour patterns. Note that Laws are an expression of an existing state of Society, not a precursor to it. Equally, Laws cannot create (or improve) a state of Society on their own.

Why does all this matter and why am I writing this now? Well, one of the features of social changes in the last half-century (possibly longer) has been a breakdown in Society. Our Societal expectations are not being met, and our outrage is increasingly evident, though to limited effect. This serves to increase the feeling of outrage and pushes people into a mindset of closing down their trust circles to those they perceive as already having shared goals, that is, people that are "trustworthy". This in turn fosters an "us and them" mentality which can actively work against whatever trust remains between that group and others. A focus "by them" of forcing individual responsibility persuades many that they cannot rely on outside help, which both increases tension in both individuals and groups, and reduces overall efficiency (unlike groups, individuals cannot be good at more than a few things), both things we have seen in recent years with rising levels of fear and stagnant or falling GDP. Many people are fooled (by aforementioned "individuality" pressure) into thinking that the problem is them: that they are not working hard enough, that they are slackers. This then piles on a feeling of impossible goals and diminishing rewards. In many countries median real-terms incomes have stagnated or are falling. This increases mental and physical health stresses which combine to further reduce worker efficiency, while loss of Society at the largest scales results in food and environmental contamination in the quest for profit. Nature being a closed system, this contamination then comes back to bite us.

Dealing with these problems individually is not sufficient: just like the cause, the solution must address the basic problem or the result will be a sticking plaster that will not last and may not even cure the symptom.

Some people may equate this Society with "Social" in the political or communist sense, and while that is not correct it is not unrelated. The original ideas of the Communists (which were a long way from their supposed implementations in China or Russia) take the ideas of Society above and extend them to the next level: not merely a way to share common goals, but to share much more. I do not believe this can work in general, for the same reason that Society is needed. It can work when everyone knows everyone (but there's that 100 limit again) and the group can therefore self-monitor and self-censor, but it doesn't work at scales of thousands or millions. At such sizes the scope for bad actors to game the system increases dramatically and the ability to effectively monitor and censor behaviour diminishes.

In some countries, such as the UK, we have a Social part of government, which is these days seen as "soft" both as in "real people don't need it" and "a soft target for cuts". With my Society viewpoint I find this incredible: Social outcomes are human outcomes, and none of us -- especially the richest -- lives isolated from that even if they do live on an Island. Education and health are seen as economic drags but without either we have an illiterate, unhealthy and probably short-lived workforce that cannot cope with 21st Century demands like extensive use of computers, broad and deep knowledge, and flexible learning. "Welfare" aspects such as looking after the elderly and the young bolster people's feeling of place and the value of Society to them, which then boosts their ability to work and live, and it has been shown by researchers a countless times that a healthy and happy worker is far more effective than one who is not. Adaptations for the disabled do likewise, and in many cases bring people who otherwise could not participate in Society into it. These are not the selfless gifts of a generous leadership overly fond of laziness, but the prudent behaviours of leaders who understand how Society works and how to make it truly effective for everyone, including themselves.

Next time I will look at some of the changes we need to make.