The public aren’t anti-incumbent – we’re anti-politics

By Theo Grzegorczyk

One of the more common misinterpretations of the expenses scandal is that it has made the public anti-incumbent, and that – as a result – the 2010 General Election will be a bad one for sitting MPs. In some cases, where MPs have clearly abused the expenses system, this may certainly be true. But that doesn’t make it a national trend.

In setting a path for recovery – whether through constitutional reform, or through our campaign strategies – we need to make the distinction between “anti-Westminster” and “anti-Politics”. In the heat of the moment, plenty of people are advocating a purge: an “anti-Westminster” snap election to “wipe the slate clean”. But when you probe a little deeper into the discontent, it is always the disconnect between the political class and the voters which offends people the most.

In terms of constitutional reform, this just highlights the need for across-the-board Open Primaries, so that voters have a real chance to decide on who gets to run for Parliament, and so that we can finally end the stranglehold on candidate selection currently enjoyed by political parties. In this regard, Proportional Representation is a step in the wrong direction: it might answer the anti-Westminster sentiment by producing a House of Commons with an entirely different makeup, but it will do absolutely nothing to reconnect voters to their representatives. Any system which requires political parties to draw up a “list” of candidates is one which takes power away from the electorate, rather than giving it away.

In terms of our political campaigns, it is time for all of us to take a leaf out of John McCain’s playbook, and start looking for our inner maverick. All of the MPs who noticeably haven’t been caught up in the expenses scandal need to start making their case loud and clear: that they defy the stereotype, that they buck the trend, and that they – sometimes – disobey the party whip. Of course, it helps if this narrative is true.

In my own constituency, Martin Linton fits this narrative. He might be hanging on to one of the slimmest majorities in the country, but he has a narrative which could potentially return him to Parliament at the next election. He is a lifetime Battersea resident, was a Wandsworth councillor for 11 years, and is an MP with a clean expense account and a maverick voting record.

All the while, his opponent is a Tory Party Hack with a record of nothing but subservience to CCHQ: having lost elections in Tottenham, Barnsley and Lancashire – quite literally the length and breadth of the country – she has now been parachuted into a “winnable” seat as a reward for her loyalty. Does she represent the people of Battersea? Not a chance. Is she beatable? I should certainly hope so.