Misreading the Signals - or Life in a Parallel Universe

Carry On films made us laugh - but even in the 1950s we
knew they were made up.  Now we know it actually happens
at our expense in Parliament 

The press in the UK has been filled in recent days with yet more political scandal. Maria Miller, the Conservative MP who was the Minister for Culture (can there be a vacuous title or job description?) at last resigned after several weeks of being under the scrutiny of the media for alleged cheating on her expenses. The Prime Minister accepted her resignation – having supported her throughout – and hoped that she would soon return to government. Well, that’s all right then. Move on. And at the end of this week the  homosexual Conservative MP and ex-Deputy Speaker of Parliament Nigel Evans won his legal battle against charges of rape and sexual assault and the wheels are already in motion for him to return to front line politics. In addition there have been other scandals – Lord Rennard, the Liberal peer is still fighting a battle against his expulsion from the Liberal party following accusations of his sexual misconduct towards women; David Laws left government after cheating on his expenses but is now back in the fold and I read this morning that the Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, who died in 2010 is in the press again because of more “discovered” evidence of his abuse of children.

Whatever the rightness, wrongness, legal niceties or justice of each of these cases, Westminster comes out of it very badly. It bears all the hall marks of a badly made "Carry On" film from the 1950s - laughable were it not real and deadly serious. Over the weekend the Guardian one of the world’s great bulwarks and protectors of Parliament and democracy - described Westminster as a dysfunctional institution and it ran a headline entitled“Welcome to Westminster where lecherous shysters get pissed at our expense.” Hardly a vote of confidence upon those who rule us and upon those we are supposed to respect and look up to. The Guardian was  not unique in its criticism – every paper, whatever its political affiliation, was equally scathing. In a TV (Channel 4) investigation into  sexual conduct in parliament a third of those involved in the survey  had personally experienced sexual harassment, and a further 21% had witnessed others being harassed or had been the confidant of someone who had been a victim. The survey also suggested that “young men were more likely to be sexually harassed than women”.   Needless to say, no one felt able to speak on the record for fear of harming their career prospects.

Don't I look the epitome of good breeding and honesty -
if only you poor fools knew!

It would seem that the mother of parliaments is actually not a very nice place and the people who work there even less desirable. Given this back drop it is unsurprising that politicians and government are held in such low esteem by the general public.

Earlier this week when Maria Miller eventually gave up ministerial office (until she is reappointed!) the retired Speaker of the Commons Betty Boothroyd, a lady steeped in the tradition of Parliament said that Mrs Miller should resign “It is a matter of honour” said Ms Boothroyd. Sadly, I do not think that “honour” is a concept much understood in modern Britain and certainly not in Parliament. Indeed, this was reinforced when Nigel Evans was acquitted of the charges of rape and sexual assault. Clearly the relieved Mr Evans was understandably pleased – and in legal terms it may well have been the right decision - whatever my views.  But on the acquittal he said that  he was "deeply ashamed and embarrassed by his arrest". He was not, it seems  deeply ashamed and embarrassed by the fact that evidence had shown that he indecently assaulted two young men  when he approached them in public places while drunk and put his hand down their trousers – one in a Soho bar and the other at a hotel during the 2003 Tory party conference. He was not humbled by being called a “drunken letch in a bar”. He was not ashamed that a number of people had described him as a “high functioning alcoholic”  or that Conservative party officials had on several occasions had to warn him about his behaviour – all to no avail. No, none of these. He was ashamed at his arrest – in other words being caught with his proverbial trousers down. He had broken the 11^th commandment “Thou shall not be caught!” And already he is requesting the state to pay his legal costs for the court proceedings! Do people have no shame? Betty Boothroyd’s plea for honourable actions and behaviour from MPs is likely to fall on deaf ears in 21^st century Westminster.

"Ah, now I'm Nigel Evans (on the left) -  I'm one of the
shakers and movers at Westminster. This is my idea of
good taste, professionalism and the persona I would like to
project to those who elected me and who trust my judgement.
Clearly when it comes to the right judgement on matters
affecting you and your family, or on national security or any other
great matter of state I'm your man"

Clearly Westminster is not a pleasant place. Only a few months ago the Labour MP Eric Joyce was expelled for alcohol fuelled assault in the Commons bar – behaviour which he had had  been guilty of on more than one previous occasion. And this was sadly confirmed by the former shadow Home Secretary David Davis  when talking about the Nigel Evans allegations. Davis  amazingly announced that  he didn’t consider Evans’ behaviour criminal. - "It’s the sort of thing that happens in every bar. No big deal.’’ Now, I don’t know which bars Mr Davis and Mr Evans frequent but I’m not too aware of hands being put down trousers in the bars that I frequent. Nigel Evans, in his evidence, suggested that it was all a misunderstanding – he “misread the signals” from the victims of his attentions, and the jury accepted this excuse. However, in half a century of visiting pubs and bars, I can honestly say I have never once seen anyone put their hands down the trousers of another drinker or to have been so drunk that they could be described as a “high functioning alcoholic”  or a “drunken letch”. Obviously I don’t go into the right bars – but I have been in enough of them, including some pretty rough places, over the years to know that had Mr Evans “misread the signals” and put his hand down the trousers of a fellow drinker, then he would have soon had the “signals” very clearly spelled out to him – probably with a glass in his face or at least a fist which would soon have made everything abundantly clear to him, despite his drunken state. 

And this is the problem – clearly the culture at Westminster and amongst politicians and the places that they frequent is in a different universe. At the trial of Evans, Westminster was described as  “drink-fuelled and promiscuous”  where “a small group of Tory MPs  make unwanted  sexual advances on young male parliamentary staff”, A parliamentary worker  described  how a group of mainly Tory MPs would regularly go drinking with staff in the building - which could lead to compromising situations. "There would be quite senior MPs very drunk - flirting with us and sometimes more.....No one batted an eyelid”. Mr Evans had a reputation for being a “bit touchy-feely”.  It was further suggested that “If [Mr Evans] had worked for a private company somebody would have taken him aside to say, ‘Look mate sort out your drinking’. If it was a really nice private company they might have paid for him to go into treatment,”. I might add that in many other walks of life, and for the majority who are not employed in these wonderful "nice" companies the reality would be  instant dismissal.  As a teacher I would have expected to have been dismissed for far less dubious actions than those faced by Nigel Evans.  And throughout it all Nigel Evans simply clung to the view that it was all a big mistake. When asked if he had put his hands down the trousers of a young man he could not give a categorical “No” – simply that he had “no recollection”. Presumably because he was too drunk at the time. And against this back ground the politicians have closed ranks – defending their "culture".

We can boldly go to any universe and defeat
any alien monster.........but please don't send us
to Planet Westminster

Westminster is a parallel universe that even those intrepid space travellers Captain Kirk and Mr Spock on the Starship Enterprise would have difficulty fathoming. This was made absolutely clear towards the end of this week when the Conservative party, anticipating a dip in their fortunes following all these revelations published a new voluntary code of conduct to all its MPs telling them not to "bully, abuse or harass" their employees. “Staff are entitled to work”, the Code tells us, "in an environment free from unwelcome behaviour and inappropriate language". In future staff will “be free from any form of discrimination, victimisation, harassment or bullying. And MPs were expected to “interact with their employees in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner; ensure their employees act in accordance with the spirit and ethos of this policy in their dealings with House staff; lead by example to encourage and foster an atmosphere of respect and tolerance; not use their position to bully, abuse or harass employees or assume a threatening or intimidating style or discriminate against them”.

Mmmm! Sounds good to me! But I ask myself why is it only voluntary? Presumably Mr Evans and the those identified in the Channel 4 survey as having being guilty of  sexual harassment can simply say, “Sorry I don’t want to sign up to this – it’ll spoil my fun”  And, I ask myself, why, in the seat of government of one of the greatest, most advanced nations on the planet, a nation that is looked up to (or was) for its parliamentary democracy, its traditions and its values the Conservative Party feel that they have to spell it out in big easy to read letters to their members something that every other employer and employee in the workplace knows. And, I would add, something that I guess to most people in the 21^st century is a given – that  you don’t discriminate, you don’t harass or bully your employees or those who you are responsible for, you don’t allow unwelcome behaviour or inappropriate language. If you do then you know you will be sacked, or brought to judgement or maybe even find yourself in court. Surely, Mr Evans putting his hand down the trousers of a young man in the Parliamentary bar fails on every count – but hey, this is the parallel universe of Westminster, where honour is dead and where, as the Guardian noted  "lecherous shysters get pissed at our expense”.

I would suggest that Mr Evans comes and touts for business and “misreads the signals” in one or two of the Miners’ Welfare and Working Men’s Clubs that I have sipped my pint of beer in over the years.  After he had been transferred to the local A&E department he could reflect, as he sobered up and nursed his reconfigured face, that his  universe is not the universe of the ordinary man.  And maybe that, is why politicians and Westminster are held in such low esteem. It is the same with Maria Miller – she had cheated on her expenses to the tune of about £90,000 pounds – originally the enquiry into her cheating recommended that she repaid about £45,000 but MPs thought that a bit stiff so they said “Repay just £5000 and we’ll forget about it”. (I suspect that a lot of MPs were thinking, as Maria Miller squirmed in the face of the media assault on her actions, “There  but for the grace of God go I” ). She showed no contrition simply a sense of entitlement and victimisation – and even now still seems confused that she is being damned. To the man in the Miners’ Welfare or the Working Man’s Club – and indeed in the Poppy and Pint Pub in well off suburban West Bridgford here in Nottingham where I enjoyed my drink on Friday evening £40,000 is a huge amount of money. It's the sort of amount that many people will never ever see despite working hard all their lives – but in Westminster it is an entitlement, merely an amount to be "fiddled" to boost the salary.

As I said at the top of this blog, whatever the rightness, wrongness, the legal niceties or justice of each of these cases, Westminster comes out of it very badly. In the final analysis  in a democracy we elect MPs for two reasons – to represent our views and to use those views combined with their own expertise and  sound, serious and mature judgement to make decisions on our behalf. It seems increasingly that the Westminster Village is increasingly out of touch with the life and times of much of the electorate so it must find it very difficult to represent their views.  But, more importantly, there is clearly a problem with the ability of MPs to make sound and mature judgements. Mr Evans has been acquitted, Mrs Miller has reluctantly left office (but with a promise of a speedy return from the Prime Minister  when things have blown over) but the culture of Parliament has been laid bare and the judgement – both personal and professional – of those who represent us found to be seriously wanting. And, one last thought, if when Mr Evans or Mrs Miller put themselves forward as possible MPs they had respectively put into their election campaign literature the statement“.......oh, and in addition to all my other many qualities I can also promise you that if elected I will regularly get drunk, behave in inappropriate ways, harass young employees, cheat on my expenses........”  then I wonder how many of us electors would have had second thoughts before putting our cross at the side of their names.  If I applied for a job and on my CV wrote that my personal qualities included getting dunk in public on a regular basis, being touchy feely with other staff, cheating on my expenses and in my dealings with the tax man or use inappropriate language then I could not reasonably expect my application to be taken seriously. But Westminster, it seems, is different.

  

It all reminds me of the joke that has circulated for several years now – and as with all good jokes its humour is based in the fact that we know it is based in truth:

One day an old age pensioner  went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, ‘It’s community help week this week Sir, where we shopkeepers help valued members of the community. Your hair cut is free'  The pensioner was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' note and a basket of vegetables from the old man’s allotment waiting for him at his door.

Later, a policeman comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied ‘It’s community help week this week where shopkeepers help valued members of the community. Your hair cut is free.'   The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and note explaining that the policeman would call round when he was off duty and check out the barber’s security on windows and doors and the burglar alarms.

Next day  a fireman comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied ‘It’s community help week this week  where shopkeepers help valued members of the community.Your hair cut is free.'   The fireman was delighted and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and note explaining that the fireman would call round later and check out the barber’s fire alarms and electrical wiring so the business was safe from fire.

Then an MP came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied  It’s community help week this week  where shopkeepers help valued members of the community.Your hair cut is free.'  The MP was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there was a line of  MPs stretching from the barbers shop door and all the way down the street and round the corner – all waiting for their free haircut.

And that illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it. And it is why politics and politicians  are increasingly despised – and that is very, very bad for democracy.