Why We Get the Wrong Politicians

"I spend a lot of time writing, blogging and tweeting to correct misapprehensions about the legal system circulated by politicians, and criticising proposals for new laws purportedly aimed at “solving” the tabloid concern du jour . When I started this thankless enterprise, I couldn’t quite believe how our elected representatives could get so much so fundamentally wrong in their understanding of how the laws they have voted on actually work. Why We Get The Wrong Politicians lifted the cloud. It explains, accessibly but forensically, how our political culture—from the way MPs are selected to the way in which laws are scrutinised—results in ill-thought-out and counterproductive laws being enacted without the majority of MPs having the faintest understanding of what they are voting on. If, as I suggest, the justice system is broken, it is in the Houses of Parliament that the solution lies. And this book teaches us that fixing a broken Parliament is the first step. I think Select Committees have a vital role to play. The Justice Committee under the chairmanship of Bob Neill MP has been excellent in scrutinising and exposing the folly of many Ministry of Justice proposals; however, the Committees are ultimately unable to stop a bad Bill being passed if there are sufficient numbers of pliant loyalists to troop into the Aye lobby. The greater, insoluble issue, I would posit, is the democratic and educational deficit. The process of legislating, much like the law itself, is confusing and inaccessible, meaning that most constituents are unable to meaningfully engage with their representatives during the passage of a Bill, and, like the MPs that Hardman describes, only see the harm for themselves when the legislation is on the books and starts to bite. Our voting system and the affront of safe seats incentivises many MPs to conform to the will of the Party rather than the interests of their constituents, knowing that as long as they are permitted to pin the red or blue rosette to their lapel, they are unaccountable for their decisions. I find it incredible that a complete lack of prior knowledge or interest in an area of public policy is accepted as the default, sometimes even an advantage, to being in charge of a government department. The nadir for justice has coincided with the appointment of a succession of non-legally qualified politicians as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, starting with Chris Grayling in 2012. Boasting that his wholesale ignorance of law and justice afforded him “independence” in his decision-making, he set about with a hacksaw to the justice system, making a series of horrendous decisions—removing legal aid, banning books in prisons, privatising the Probation Service—the dire consequences of which future ministers are trying to reverse today. Had he any understanding of the justice system in practice, he would have known, for example, that removing legal aid in the family courts was a false economy, because the few hundred pounds it would cost for a legal aid lawyer is greatly outweighed by the cost of court proceedings taking three times as long with unrepresented litigants fumbling their way through complex legal hearings. He would have known that, contrary to his repeated false claims, legal aid lawyers are not “fat cats”, but often work for below minimum wage. He would have known that prisons were not “holiday camps”, and that by accepting 40% budget and staff cuts, he was inviting the inevitable acceleration in violence, suicide and drug abuse that now stands at record levels. A similar level of inadequacy was achieved by Liz Truss, who forsook her legal duty to defend the independence of the judiciary when the Daily Mail ’s infamous “Enemies of The People” splash made implied that the judges were biased and openly mocked one judge’s sexuality. A first-year law student would know what Ms Truss did not bother to internalise; the Lord Chancellor exists to defend the rule of law and judicial independence, not to cravenly appease tabloid editors for political favour. I don’t pretend this is exclusive to justice; I have no doubt that medics and teachers would make similar observations about health and education. Part of the problem is the ministerial merry-go-round, where itinerant ministers stay in post for barely a year before being arbitrarily shuffled. How on earth can you possibly have a meaningful understanding of your brief in such a short space of time? We have, for example, now had four prisons ministers in the last 5 years. No wonder prisons are in the state they are."