What I have seen offends my Presbyterian conscience; what I have seen is something that is appallingIndeed, a lot of people feel that way about New Labour. Brown does have a tendency to use his background like a trump card or a shield. Though I fail to see why it automatically makes him moral or have a conscience. When it's something he's failed to actually prove.
He used the interview to announce his plans for a MP code of conduct, the BBC say it's:
thought likely to include minimum service commitments to constituents, with those who break it facing possible fine or even ejection from their seatsWhy not just choose better candidates? To paraphrase David Mitchell it's like complaining about the pee in the swimming pool, when you've been the one peeing in it. You are not going to claim for silly things if voters will see it, put MP's expenses on-line and get rid of safe seats motiving people to work for votes. Give MPs who perhaps aren't naturally inclined to put people above the party, a push in the right direction. Yet that of course will put Labour at more of a disadvantage in the election, so that won't happen.
Yet perhaps my unease comes from the words Constitution and New Labour in the same sentence. As Brown is also setting up a committee to look at wider constitutional reforms, such as a bill of rights, a written constitution and House of Lords reform. New Labour have a real "gift" of making broadly defined laws that are never used for there original purpose and making things conditional rather than constitutional. This sounds like it could become one more thing to add to the list.
While all this reform is taking place though, where does this leave Sir Christopher Kelly? What happens if his report disagrees with Browns reform ideas? And more importantly when we will see an end to this saga?