Earlier this week, referring to the continuing political crisis engulfing Westminster, Chuka said that “Labour’s next generation has a duty to make a contribution if it does not wish to inherit the public’s contempt”. In that vein Chuka appears in today’s Independent on Sunday, in which he argues in favour of reforming the electoral system, and the Sunday Times, in which he argues for party selection processes of candidates to be made more open and to involve the public. Click on the logos below to read what Chuka said.

Many of my fellow PPCs have signed up to these ethics pledges that Progress, the independent organisation for Labour party members, has put together - I agree with them and pledge to observe them. However, I think we need to go further (which is not to say that others do not) if we are to restore trust between voters and political representatives. In the article below, which appears in today’s Guardian, I advance some suggestions on how to do so with my friend and colleague, Cllr Mark Bennett, who serves Streatham South.

The collective reputation of MPs has been burned to ash and the clean-up begins not a moment too soon. MPs of all parties have been shamed, but it has been most galling when associated with people on the left, who were first elected by telling voters they would change the rules – in politics and beyond – to make Britain better and fairer. Labour activists who go door to door for them have been on the receiving end of public anger and are themselves furious.

The mantra often repeated is “my claims were within the rules”, but this is a complete irrelevance when the claims do not stand up to moral scrutiny. How can they not see this?

It appears they have been deafened to political reality by the siren songs of vested interest, manifested in the deference of Commons police and staff, the patronage of the whips, the Speaker’s offices and the indulgence of the fees office. To the public, it seems they have been rewarded with TVs, kitchens, massage chairs and imaginary mortgages for doing so. If politics in Britain is to have a future, all this must change.

Another future is possible. We are two Labour politicians but there are many more of us – parliamentary candidates, councillors and activists – who still believe in what Harold Wilson called the “moral crusade” of our party. We are all putting our hearts and souls into it and a better future for our communities.

Most of our politicians are idealistic and well-intentioned. The corrupt are few, and now is the time for them to be driven from office by the many who want to rebuild trust in what should be an honest and open vocation.

As the Commons considers what to do, Labour’s next generation has a duty to make a contribution if it does not wish to inherit the public’s contempt.

We must start by recognising that if we want to dismantle the “gentlemen’s club”, we must tackle the machine ¬politics out of which it was born. Root and branch constitutional reform is a prerequisite. We must elect the Lords, make the voting system more ¬proportional and end the degraded adversarial culture of Westminster, as exemplified by the so-called theatre of prime minister’s questions.

The Labour party must change too. MPs who have acted within the rules but outside the bounds of public acceptability should be deselected. There is a moral and political imperative to do so – we will not retain seats where we are offering damaged goods. The higher education minister David Lammy has mooted introducing primaries as a way of making parliamentary selection more open, and to involve the public. The clamour for this is growing.

But first, changes to MPs’ expenses and the election of the Speaker are imminent. Gordon Brown’s proposal of an independent parliamentary standards regulator, responsible for pay and allowances, is welcome. Expenses should now be fully published online and investigated without further delay, with absolute application of the law towards MPs found to have broken it.

Whatever shape the new expenses system takes, one principle should win out: there must be an end to any privileges that set MPs apart from the people they represent – no first class travel, no London congestion charge reclaim, and no claims for anything that is not directly related to the work of being an MP.

In 1994, the then Labour leader, John Smith, said: “The opportunity to serve our country – that is all we ask.” Service. That is what our parliamentarians need to remember as they consider reform. The time has come to serve the people, not politicians.

Dear Resident

Like the public in general I have been horrified at the evidence of abuse of the parliamentary allowances system. As an MP representing an inner London seat, with my home in Streatham, I knew nothing of the scope for manipulation of the second home arrangement and was amazed to learn of the £400 monthly food allowance. I eat all my meals in the week at the House of Commons and it had never occurred to me that an MP would not pay out of his or her own pocket for them.

I wanted to be an MP because I believed it to be a noble and decent activity and I have always tried to do the right thing. Now, alas, we are all contaminated and I shall retire next year from a tainted institution.

However, because the elected House of Commons is the lynch pin of our democracy we must act firmly to establish its integrity in relation to expenses and salaries. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Sir Christopher Kelly, is due to report on expenses in the autumn. It seems likely that it will recommend an independent body to determine the nature and size of expenses and their independent audit – I shall support such proposals.

It seems to me blindingly obvious that MPs should not be voting either on their allowances or on their salaries. Indeed, in the mid 1990s I was one of the MPs who voted for their pay to be decided by the independent Senior Salaries Review Board and this was also the recommendation in Sir John Baker’s report on MPs’ salaries last summer. I hope we can stick with the independent determination of MPs’ pay instead of governments repeatedly meddling.

I have written at greater length about this issue on my website and would invite you to visit it at www.keithhill.org.uk for further details. However, I write now simply to reassure you that there has been no abuse of parliamentary expenses here in Streatham. Our local Labour Party is not of great means. Chuka Umunna, a local boy and our new parliamentary candidate, has spent just under £15K on his campaign to date, less than one fifth of that spent by other political parties in this area. His campaign is mainly funded from small donations from local people, with additional funding from local trade union members. That is the way it should be.

As ever, I am at your service. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you need assistance.

Best wishes,

Keith

Rt. Hon. Keith Hill MP
Member of Parliament for Streatham

The parliamentary constituency of Streatham covers Streatham and parts of Clapham, Balham, Tulse Hill and Brixton.

Chuka was a guest on BBC One’s Politics Show on Sunday, discussing Boris Johnson’s cancellation of Rise Festival and promoting the UpRise campaign to save the anti-racism event. To see Chuka’s appearance, follow this link (the Rise feature is at 48mins in)

This week, Chuka attended the launch of Votematch, a new application which aims to boost turnout at the upcoming European elections. The event, organised by the pressure group UnlockDemocracy, was held at Apple’s flagship Central London store in Regent Street and hosted by actor and comedian Stephen Fry.

The event showcased the Votematch application, which allows people to see how closely aligned their own views are with parties standing in the European elections. After answering a series of policy-based questions and deciding which issues matter most to them, users can see how their responses compare with party positions on each issue, and how closely each party’s manifesto as a whole matches their own views, with the aim of encouraging them to vote in the European elections. Introducing the application, Stephen Fry described it as being “like a dating site for voters”.

Commenting on the launch and on his support for Votematch, Chuka said: “Anything that can help boost voter turnout is a good idea, and combining democracy and new technology will help engage people who might not have voted otherwise, especially young people. For the European elections, it is imperative that all mainstream parties encourage people to get out and vote, not least so that we can prevent the BNP from gaining representation.”

Vote Match is accessible both online and via handheld devices such as the iPhone, and has been successful in boosting voter turnout elsewhere in Europe. Take the Votematch test here.

Chuka and Kate Hoey, MP for neighbouring Vauxhall, have joined forces with the Communications Workers Union to oppose the part privatisation of Royal Mail. Kate and Chuka joined Communications Workers Union members and officials last week in a demonstration against the proposed privatisation at the major Royal Mail sorting office in Nine Elms.

Chuka is supporting the alternative proposals for Royal Mail’s future outlined by Compass, the left wing pressure group on whose managing committee he sits. The plans recommend that Royal Mail be kept in public ownership as a non-for-profit body, following the model set by National Rail, which was established as successor to the failed privatisation of the railways under Railtrack. The proposals would give the Royal Mail access to both private and public resources and it would remain operationally separate from government in the same way as the BBC does.

Privatisation of Royal Mail could threaten jobs at distribution centres including Nine Elms and Streatham sorting offices. The universal service which Royal Mail offers would also be at risk with services cherry-picked on the basis of profit, rather than the benefit of all users. This week, it was announced that Royal Mail’s profits have doubled, with all parts of its business turning a profit. This undermines the case for part privatisations, reinforcing the fact that Royal Mail is far from being the failed organisation it has often been portrayed as.

Commenting on proposals for privatisation, Chuka said: “The Royal Mail plays an important role in all of our daily lives, and we deserve the best from it. Everyone, including Royal Mail employees, management and users, agree that modernisation and investment is necessary, but selling off the postal service is not the way to achieve these goals. Modernisation doesn’t have to mean privatisation.”

Greg Charles, secretary of the CWU London South West (Postal) Branch said: “The governments plan to part privatise Royal Mail coupled with management’s plans on modernisation will lead to a worsened service, failing collections and failing deliveries, whilst profits will be siphoned of by our competitors. Our members across South London are living with the fear of cuts in jobs, cuts in earnings and an uncertain future.”

Read more about Compass’ proposals for Royal Mail’s future here.