A working class MP is something to be.

More working class people would stand for parliament if the selection system was more favourable to them says Labour MP Dame Anne Begg in an interview for politics.co.uk.

Even though, in her opinion, this is the most representative parliament ever there is still a noticeable ‘narrowing of the people who can afford to be an MP’ and encouraging more people from lower socioeconomic groups into professional politics is the next big battle facing diversity campaigners.

The big stumbling block for potential candidates is the cost involved; Anne Begg cites the case of one prospective MP who had to spend £60,000 just to get selected by his local party. Even if this is an extreme case it is evident that many prospective MPs have to spend thousands of pounds on moving into the constituency they wish to represent. This, as Anne Begg rightly points out, is ‘just too expensive for anyone who doesn’t have a reasonable income from work or money behind them.’

Amongst the measures she advocates for levelling the playing field for less wealthy candidates is capping the amount they can spend at £10,000 and using something similar to Labour’s ‘all women shortlists’ to bring people in form lower socioeconomic groups. This last enthusiasm has already attracted criticism from the likes of Davis Cameron who said of Labour’s all women shortlists that they allowed the party to ‘practice oppression and call it equality.’

If you leave aside her silliness in calling a parliament where the cabinet is stuffed with millionaires and there are more lawyers than lorry drivers on the Labour benches the most representative parliament ever Anne Begg is unquestionably on the right track. We certainly do need to encourage people with a wider range of life experiences into parliament, unfortunately as is so often the case her good intentions founder on the rocks of cynical reality.

For example, closing shortlists to everyone apart from candidates from one particular social group is not the panacea it at first seems. Quite the reverse in fact, it can easily be abused by unelected party officials as a means of getting rid of awkward candidates and trampling wholesale on the wishes of grassroots party members.

If we are serious about making parliament more representative serves then a concerted effort has to be made to revive grassroots democracy within political parties and in the communities of which they are part. A common characteristic of the most effective and independent minded MPs, whatever background they come from, is that they learnt the trade of politics through serving an apprenticeship in local government and community activism.

Actually we need to go back even further, to before prospective members of parliament are even old enough to cast their vote. It is a matter of shame that the teaching of ‘civics’ in the British education system is at best patchy and more often non existent.

The problem is all these things will take time and parliament is filled to the rafters with thrusting young men and women who are all in a hurry. They want quick solutions or quick means by which an issue can be kicked into the long grass and bringing about the sort of profound political change necessary to make parliament more representative of the wider population requires the playing of a long game they don’t understand.

Pigs in trouble

Cartoon character Peppa Pig is, allegedly, to blame for making children naughty, rude and demanding; worse still she is guilty of encouraging them to splash in muddy puddles.

I have had a soft spot for Peppa Pig ever since she snubbed New Labour during the 2010 general election and don’t like to see her traduced in this way. If children are naughty, rude and demanding it has everything to do with their being subjected to parenting that is inconsistent and sometimes neglectful and nothing whatsoever to do with the antics of a cartoon pig.

As for the splashing in muddy puddles, in moderation at least, that isn’t naughty; it’s called being a kid.

A train down the drain

The government has given the go-ahead to the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project, this, so we’re told, is a good thing. It is going to create jobs, revive the economy of whole regions and there has even been some excitable talk that it might carry ambitious Transport Secretary Justine Greening all the way to Downing Street.

It all sounds very grand but as is the way of such things it is a total fantasy. Between now and the completion date some time in the 2020’s the already eye watering costs of the project will have ballooned just as those of the Olympics have and technology might well have made the whole thing unnecessary anyway. Far from making Ms Greening’s career being associated with HS2 could shunt it permanently into the sidings.

One thing is clear though, when it hacks its way through the Chilterns HS2 will also cut through nine currently Tory constituencies; which is probably how many MPs UKIP will return at the next election.

And finally, worrying rumours have emerged that thanks to Disney children’s classic Winnie the Pooh has been overwhelmed by Americanisms, making the inhabitants of the Hundred Acre Wood all sound like characters from The Wire. Asked about the claims this week Christopher Robin told the BBC that ‘the whole thing is a goddam dirty lie.’

So nothing to worry about there then.

Lords reform needs to be more radical than this miserable little compromise.

To make one miserable little compromise in a political career is regrettable but to make two though in the space of a year looks like carelessness. Nevertheless Nick Clegg, who has form in this area, has stepped up to the plate to lead the campaign for reform of the House of Lords.

On Tuesday with David Cameron sitting at his side he stood up in the Commons to announce a package of proposed reforms that would give the second chamber ‘greater democratic legitimacy’ and make it ‘more accountable’ to the voting public. Remarkably he managed to keep a straight face throughout, suggesting he either believed every word he was saying or has an almost Zen like ability to control his facial muscles.

The plans would see the number of peers cut to three hundred eighty percent of whom would be elected using proportional representation to sit for a single fifteen year term, with, if all goes to plan, the first elections taking place in 2015. Mindful of the lower case conservatism of his fellow parliamentarians Mr Clegg promised that the changes would be brought about through ‘evolution not revolution’, but affirmed that ‘in a modern democracy it is important that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom the laws apply.’

Noble sentiments put, as ever with Cleggy, in the turgid prose of a middle manager addressing an audience of bored sales reps. Even though they are far from revolutionary the proposals have attracted strong opposition from across the political spectrum.

Labour, who support a fully elected second chamber criticised the plans to retain a small, but not insignificantly so, number of appointed members. Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Kahn suggested that reforming the Lords would fail unless the government avoided the ‘rushed and piece-meal approach that has characterised their constitutional reforms so far.’

Several Tory back benchers also trained their fire on the reform plans with Andrew Turner accusing the Deputy Prime Minister of pursuing a ‘private obsession’ when the country faced far more serious problems; Bernard Jenkins said the plans to reform the Lords were ‘yet another tatty road show brought to us by the same people who thought the British people wanted AV.’

Baroness Boothroyd, a former speaker of the House of Commons struck a more reasoned note, questioning whether the Commons could maintain its traditional primacy if both houses were to be elected and whether an elected second chamber would be as effective in scrutinising legislation put before it.

Speaking for the Electoral Reform Society Kate Ghose said that it would take considerable strength of will to finally push through reforms that politicians have been talking about for more than a century without ever turning talk into meaningful action. It was, she said, possible to ‘break the deadlock, but it will require concerted action from all parties to bring this medieval chamber up to date.’

As one of those people who thinks the British people really do want AV, but were frightened out of voting for it by the hysterical scaremongering of the ‘No’ campaign I should be jumping for joy that the Lords are going to be reformed, not least because if the new chamber can be elected using PR without the sky falling in it might reopen the debate about wider electoral reform; but I’m not.

This is largely because I fear that this plan is being set up to fail, and not just because poor unpopular ‘nobody agrees with Nick’ Clegg has been put in charge. The details of the proposals simply fail to add up to anything like meaningful reform.

Why, for example, will the new peers (or Senators maybe) sit for a single fifteen year term. Harold Wilson famously said that a week is a long time in politics, which must make fifteen years an eternity; seriously, the only thing that keeps lazy or inept MPs keen is the fear of losing their seats. Electing someone for a single term the length of a respectable parliamentary career is hardly going to encourage diligence.

There is also the small matter of just who will be selected to stand for election to the new second chamber. Leave it to the three main political parties and you can expect to see the same parade of place puddings adept at attracting political patronage but ignorant about life outside the bubble on the red benches as you currently find on the green. The Lords as it stands may be too large and decidedly anachronistic, but many of its members have shown themselves to be independent minded and unwilling to be cowed by the Whips Office.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect though is the plan to continue appointing twenty percent of the second chamber. This goes way beyond the well meaning but muddle headed idea of giving faith leaders a free pass into the legislature and smacks unpleasantly of manipulation. The creation of enough compliant servants of the establishment to if not swing awkward votes than at least cause enough of a delay to frustrate any kind of rebellion.

The way Westminster works needs to change and to do so rapidly, compared to the devolved parliaments in Edinburgh and Cardiff the House of Commons looks increasingly like a cosy, complacent gentleman’s club mired in corruption and arcane rituals. The nation’s parliament has to be representative of the people it governs, the way they look, meaning fewer middle aged white men who went to public school and more women and members of the BME community. It has to represent how the people think and feel too; meaning we need more people in parliament for whom politics is the second act of a full and engaged life.

None of these much needed changes will, I fear, be brought about by the slate of timid reforms on offer here. To be meaningful reform has to be radical and what is being offered at the moment just isn’t.