Who will cover the cost of ’scrutiny’?

Pic: Okko Pyykkö - click for attribution.

Anthony has beat me to a response to the new Green Paper today, so I thought I’d develop his scepticism about the appetite for ’scrutiny’.

For me, the interesting question is – as ever – around the whole notion of representation.

Town Hall Matters has lighted on this question and that post returns to a theme that Jenni Russell picked up on a few weeks ago (covered here at the time, and subsequently as the subject for a session at Reboot Britain) albeit with a focus on local rather than Westminster politics.

THM asks:

“…is a desire to scrutinise really what motivates people to become councillors?”

The post then goes on to recount that John Denham wants to…

“…make council leaders ensure scrutiny is a core function and that it is adequately resourced.”

This raises a significant question – one where I suspect common sense would conflict with the current public mood.

If one were to take Denham at his word, this would justify his claim that the ‘Strengthening Local Democracy‘ consultation proposes “the biggest shift in power in a generation.”

Labour has something of a credibility problem when it demands more emphasis on scrutiny from it’s elected members. It’s hard to know where to start describing the damage that Nick Brown did to Labour’s claim to promote the role of scrutiny when he promised to refuse positions on select committees to MPs that had voted against the government.

This all has an odd resonance with David Cameron’s view that parliament needs to sieze back some powers from our bloated Quangocracy. In the same way that John Denham is right to ask Councillors to take on the role of scrutiny with more vigour, Cameron is right to demand these powers to be returned to parliament.

But do either party really mean this? It brings us back to Town Hall Matters‘ original question:

“… is a desire to scrutinise really what motivates people to become councillors?”

The answer to that question (it’s “no” by the way) shows the challenge that any serious proposer of a stronger, more scrutinising body of MPs and politicians will have to address:

Politicians are political people. They behave in a political ways and their scrutiny will involve political research, political judgment and political deliberation. Their decisions will be based upon their politics and will have political consequences. They will need more researchers and a larger secretariat to help them with this political work.

It will require political resources that will have to be provided by the taxpayer or by political parties. It will also require political parties that are prepared to recruit candidates that exhibit independent thought, as opposed to the compliant outlook that is currently the key virtue.