Home page Globalization and the British Government In confronting the opportunities and threats of so-called Globalization, the Members of Parliamant enthusiastically extol the virtues of competition, the need for people to perform and even excel. They lecture their constituents on the need for business and small companies to be more responsive to consumer needs or fall by the wayside. Above all we must perform and be prepared to be subjected to assessments based on yardsticks, performance indicators and compared with best practice. Many politicians encourage immigration as a means of finding people to take on work where there are shortages, removing trade barriers threatens to reduce certain levels of protection and politicians encourage restructuring and redeployment of labour. Politicians, it would seem, have no problem introducing policies which expect a significant proportion of the population to jump through hoops and over hurdles as a result of policy decisions in facilitating the increase in direct competition throughout the economy. If British politicians, in their performance as representatives of the people of Britain were required to submit themselves to the same sorts of benchmarks against which they expect most people to be compared, they would fail miserably. For example, British MPs are supposed to represent their constituents but in parliament pay more attention to the interests of their party in a direct conflict of interest; their performance in representation is lamentable. British MPs should, as representatives of the people, be able to provide a transparent explantation of government decisions but fail to do so because they accept, in a furtive and cowardly silence, the concept of cabinet secrecy to the complete detriment of transparency. English MPs should demand equality of representation for the English by demanding an English parliament equivalent to those in Wales and Scotland. Their performance on this score has been shocking, reflecting an abandonment of duty of care and a lack of responsibility. Comfortably cussioned from anything Globalization might throw in the direction of Britain, British MPs can carry on in their somewhat idle and idiosyncratic ways. They live off the public purse and do little to improve their performance in representing and achieving advances in the status of the people of Britain. British MPs and the government can certainly talk about Globalization but they seem to be incapable of applying their doubtful wisdom on the subject to their own circumstances when it comes to setting an example of how to serve their consumers, that is constituents, better. Pay and performance Along the lines of their best advice on how to confront Globalization it is time for the Members of Parliament to become answerable to the market. A good way of doing this would be for their pay to be controlled by a constituency committee. MPs should receive a modest monthly salary plus a bonus which is paid according to their performance in serving the interests of their constituents. The pay committee would not be a closed shop of party members enjoying cabinet secrecy nor should they be permitted to control matters through some block vote. The committee should represent the community in the proportion of party and non-party vote distribution at the last election. The benefit of this would be that in order to secure the income they desire, MPs would have to perform by satisfying the consumers with their representation services. MPs who submit to party whips could expect losing bonus pay whereas those who show more independence of thought and purpose, those who respect their constituents and demonstrate a belief that such freedom is a vital asset, could expect to receive their full monthly bonus. This could be a small step in Globalizing the imperative of upholding independence of thought and action as a fundamental tenet of freedom. This is something which has been sadly lacking from the set of expectations, habits and practice of British MPs for a long time now; it is time for change.