What's wrong with a Parliament made of Tweedledees and Tweedledums?

David Nuttall may have ridiculed the idea of job-sharing MPs, but a new system could restore faith in British politics.

I don’t think it would be the most controversial statement to suggest that MPs are not popular creatures. They weren't before news came out their expenses were at a record high, and they certainly aren't after. Whisper the word “MP” in a crowd and you will soon get the impression most of the public would like their representatives dropped to minimum wage, and the spare money spent on a giant stick for voters to take turns to poke them with.

That’s one reason why job-sharing – the idea of two MPs literally sharing the job – has always seemed against the grain. Voters aren’t keen on the MPs they’ve got, so a move that means there’d be more of them might not go down that well. In a way, it's a bit like the political equivalent of telling someone you’ve got a rat in your kitchen and them responding, “Oh that’s terrible… Would you like another?”

It’s refreshing, then, that new research shows, actually, voters aren’t that fussed about having job-sharing MPs (feelings on rats in kitchens to come later.) Philip Cowley, Professor of Parliamentary Government at the University of Nottingham, and Dr Rosie Campbell, Senior Lecturer in Politics at Birkbeck, University of London, found that only a minority actively opposed the idea. Moreover, once the reasons were explained – for instance, it could help more disabled people or women into power – the number of people saying they’d vote for a job-sharing candidate outnumbered those who wouldn’t. And when hypothetical descriptions were given (such as being approachable or their background before politics), what a candidate was like proved more significant to voters than whether they were by themselves or came as a pair. Which seems quite logical if you consider how you’d feel choosing between one Iain Duncan Smith and two people with a sense of reality (or indeed, terrifyingly, two Iain Duncan Smiths).

Done well, job-sharing could be like two-for-the-price-of-one. Of course, if you believe that politicians are inept, corrupt wasters then you’d be getting double the lot of inept, corrupt wasters. Which is the opposite of good maths. But if you believe that, actually, most MPs are fairly hardworking, decent humans doing a moderately tough job for (at least in part) some sort of civic purpose, then getting twice as much of that sounds a good deal. More to the point, you’d have embraced a mechanism that means odds are on, those two MPs would, for once, be outside the usual clique of advantage – may well be “normals",  as they are so affectionately called.

Whichever way you look at it, we’ve got a disgustingly unrepresentative Parliament. Rich white men are consistently the ones in power and, unless you believe that sort of arbitrarily chosen type of person happens to be the most capable, there are obviously mechanisms that are keeping everyone else out. One of those is the demanding hours: hours that are impossible for many people who are disabled, have children, or have other work or voluntary commitments to meet. The type of people who, funnily enough, voters might be more drawn to in the first place.

Other, bigger changes are needed to help fix this; for instance, more all-women short-lists (and while we’re at it, addressing why women are still the ones whose careers are much more commonly affected by becoming a parent.) But job-sharing, once you get past the practicalities, seems like a good option.

The Greens have already come out as supporting it, the Liberal Democrats have produced a policy paper for debate at Spring conference, Labour backbencher John McDonnell has even put forward a bill on it. Perhaps now voters have been shown to be open to the idea, Parties might start to really do something about it. After all, a by-product of improved representation may be getting more of the electorate onside – by letting in the sort of people voters have been asking for all along. People who have “real jobs” in the local area, as opposed to career politicians with a knowledge of PR. Disabled people, not shut out of work, who can represent millions like them. Women who are juggling work and childcare. Or as David Nuttal MP put it, “a Parliament made of Tweedledees and Tweedledums.”

There’s an ever-growing perception of MPs as an alien species, one that should be punished with uncompetitive income and general misery. As Party conference season starts and innocent cities and beaches are infested, perhaps it’s time the political elite, like voters, start thinking about fresh ideas. Why not job-sharing? Tweedledees and Tweedledums might make an improved face for British politics.

 

@frances__ryan 
http://differentprinciples.co.uk/about/

 

People walk past the Houses of Parliament in the wake of the expenses scandal. Image: Getty

Frances Ryan is a journalist and political researcher. She writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman, and others on disability, feminism, and most areas of equality you throw at her. She has a doctorate in inequality in education. Her website is here.

Getty
Show Hide image

School funding: the £3bn problem creeping up on Theresa May

Parents are starting to notice the consequence of schools funding changes. And they're not happy. 

As speculation grew last Tuesday morning that Theresa May would imminently call a snap general election, Kevin Courtney, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, was furiously re-writing the speech he was due to deliver at the union’s conference at noon.

The resulting changes included a pledge to put school funding “at the centre” of the union’s campaigning in the run-up to 8 June. Alongside a call to arms for teachers, he also wrote a message for parents.

“I am talking to the activists in this hall, but I have a wider audience in mind,” Courtney told teachers in Cardiff.

He was, he said, also addressing the “hundreds of thousands of teachers who aren’t here and the millions of parents and children currently engaged in our schools and colleges” and who were ready to mobilise against funding cuts. 

Tapping up angry parents as a campaign resource is nothing new. But the growing disquiet among the wider public as the school funding crisis reaches breaking point means the parents’ voices are now a particularly powerful tool. One the government could do without in the run-up to polling day.

The figures are stark – the Institute for Fiscal Studies says real-terms spending is set to fall by 6.5 per cent by 2020 – that’s the steepest cut in school funds since the 1990s.

Schools must find savings of £3bn by 2019-20, according to the National Audit Office. That’s the average salary of around 100,000 teachers.

The schoolcuts.org.uk website - put together by the unions using government data – shows that 99 per cent of schools will have per-pupil funding cut, and there are concerns the final version of the government’s upcoming new formula for handing out cash to schools will hit those in cities even harder than first thought.

But it is the plight of individual schools that is really getting through to parents. School leaders are increasingly having to ask them for donations, while the curriculum on offer to their children narrows, with creative subjects often the first to go because they do not count towards the government’s accountability measures.

Support services are being cut too. - Stuart McLaughlin, from Bower Park Academy, told the education select committee that he faced having to axe support staff roles, including those of the school’s counsellor and first aid officer. These are things that parents notice.

The impact of the government’s decision not to protect school funding in the face of rising costs from salary increases, pension and national insurance rises and other pressures such as the apprenticeship levy is now very visible on the ground, and parents are increasingly worried.

To an organisation like the NUT, the maths is simple. Its 300,000+ members can shout pretty loudly, but millions of parents can shout louder. With the unions facing a battle on two fronts – grammar schools and funding – they are going to need all the help they can get.

This is why groups like Fair Funding for All Schools are increasingly important. While the complaints of teachers and union members are often – wrongly – dismissed as scaremongering, parents make up a huge chunk of the electorate, and were already starting to organise before an election was even announced.

Jo Yurky, a mum of two from Haringey and founder of Fair Funding for All Schools, told the NUT conference last week that she was confused when she heard the head of her local secondary talk about needing to increase class sizes. She thought funding was protected, and had believed the government when it said it was spending a record amount on schools.

“Teachers and head teachers are trusted by parents – we leave our children in their care each day,” Yurky told teachers.

“They are speaking out publicly about their concerns out of desperation, because they are so worried about the financial situation in our schools. When headteachers speak, parents listen.”

Education funding is also a key campaign issue for Labour. Jeremy Corbyn has accused Theresa May’s government of breaking the 2015 manifesto commitment to protect the money following pupils into schools.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, pledged last week to restore the role of the Local Education Authority and “fully-fund” schools, although the party will now have to explain in detail what this means in its upcoming manifesto (and where the money will come from).

However, this isn’t a partisan issue. Tory MPs Michael Fabricant, Tom Tugendhat, Maria Caulfield and James Duddridge are among those to have spoken out in parliament about cuts faced by schools in their constituencies under the proposed new school funding formula.

The government wasn’t due to publish its final funding plans until the summer anyway, but has rejected calls for it to bring the announcement forward to better inform voters, blaming pre-election purdah rules.

It is admirable to move cash around the system so it is more equitable for people in different places, but without injecting extra cash, ministers are simply moving inadequate levels of funding around, and children will lose out in the end.

It is no longer acceptable to parents, teachers, school leaders and children for the government to peddle its line that there is record funding going into schools. There are also record numbers of pupils in the system, so you’d hope that this would be the case.

Urgent action is needed to properly equip schools for the additional cost pressures they face, and if this doesn’t happen soon, Theresa May is going to see a lot more than just a few union activists attempting to block her road back to Downing Street.

 

0800 7318496