Grumpy Two

Three grumpy posts about expenses/Parliament, journalism and broadcasting. Appearing in the way of a blog, in reverse order.

It's not just the expenses issue that shows a Parliamentary process out of touch with the electorate.

When the Wall Street Journal lead with the resignation of the Speaker, you could see the picture editor's relish in using pictures of men in tights. Our democracy, visually, is based somewhere between Ruritania and Freedonia. And the scale of the expenses story is creating a new audience in the UK which finds some of this stuff beyond bizarre.....












How will first time voters will take to the notion that a range of pubs and restaurants around the Commons have relays of the Division Bell, an eight minute alert to a vote ? So the MPs can push back the stroganoff and claret and vote on the outcome of a debate in which they have taken no part ?

When you watch a Parliamentary debate in the afternoon or evening, there could be 20 to 50 people taking part in what ought to be an intelligent discussion. But they sit where they have always sat - and often forty feet away from the person they're talking to. Is there really any problem in taking over the Front Benches when the numbers are so low ?

When our leaders move to the Dispatch Box, they lean in the manner of a bar-room lout, and are inclined to jab fingers because of the pose. To engage in debate with people on their own benches, they twist, turn, sway, and go off mike. The cameras are not allowed in at eye line, so these antics look even more bizarre on screen.

When Michael Martin didn't know the rules of the House, he had to whisper to a row of three men in wigs for the answer. If they know the rules, why can't they just say them ?

There's more. I don't want to rebuild the House of Commons and throw away valuable tradition, but let's hope the party leaders and a new Speaker take a look at the way MPs do business, how debates and major speeches are shaped, and how we present them on screen.