[ad_1]
Being Speaker of the House of Commons is unlike any corporate job. Since its creation in 1377, several of its residents have been beheaded by monarchs, but it’s unlikely that Unilever’s top brass will suffer this fate. The benefits package includes use of a small palace overlooking the Thames, a portrait and a set of frilly robes. The job itself is a strange hybrid. The Speaker serves as the general counsel and makes rulings based on precedent set by the Chairman of the Chamber. He is also a chief executive, responsible for the vast House of Commons government.
The 158th Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has added another role to the mix: chief people officer. Managers around the world are increasingly concerned about how “engaged” their employees are. Sir Lindsay’s speech also seemed to owe a lot to 21st century leadership books such as Winning Hearts and Minds: How to Create a Culture of Fully Engaged and Fish! A proven way to boost morale and improve outcomes’, as it did with the 19th-century manual of parliamentary procedure, Erskine May. Concern for MPs’ welfare made Sir Lindsay unusually popular among MPs . But it does little to boost confidence in politicians: only 9% of Britons trust them to tell the truth, a figure that fell 5 percentage points in 2019, according to pollster Ipsos .Now, this has jeopardized his career.
When Sir Lindsay was elected Speaker in 2019, the venom in the House of Commons rivaled that of the most toxic workplaces. His predecessor John Bercow was later found guilty of bullying by the independent standards regulator. With Parliament locked in a three-year deadlock over Brexit, one MP cried on television; another grabbed a ceremonial mace in frustration. The response from customers was terrible: Protesters, some threatening, gathered outside parliament. Democracy itself appears to be in danger.
Sir Lindsay’s response is in the spirit of the company, which responded to a poor round of staff surveys by offering fortnightly pizzas and a mindfulness app. He has no authority to offer more compensation. Nor can he change the thankless and erratic nature of a political career. But at least the voices of disgruntled members of Congress will be heard. Sir Lindsay thought that by taking some of the poison out of the room, public confidence in the institution would be restored.
“When we speak, we are all equal in the House,” he said. The Health and Wellbeing Agenda promises MPs and House of Commons staff on-site doctors and mental health services, an overhaul of complaints procedures and anti-bullying training. Sir Lindsay will tackle online trolling, tighten security and seek a “fair and balanced relationship” with the independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which many members have expressed dissatisfaction with. His constituency of Chorley in north-west England voted for Brexit; his rolling Lancashire accent and anecdotes about his many pets seemed to soothe a parliament divided over Britain’s relationship with the EU. On the core business of parliament – changing legislation and scrutinizing the executive – he is much quieter.
A happy workforce tends to produce better results for its organization than a miserable workforce. However, the interests of workers and organizations are not always aligned. This was demonstrated during the debate on February 21 when the Scottish National Party (SNP) called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Concerned about weeks of harassment of MPs by pro-Palestinian campaigners, Sir Lindsay gave in to Labor lobbying to abandon usual parliamentary procedure and avoid a vote on a motion the SNP deemed unbalanced.
This sparked outrage among many MPs and Sir Lindsay’s apology could have come directly from HR. “I have a duty of care,” he said. “If my fault lies in looking after members, then I am guilty.” In other words, MPs’ personal welfare trumped the institutional interests of the House of Commons. The CEO would have directed the vote to proceed; the Chief People Officer decided to abandon the process.
This was too much for 92 MPs, who signed a motion of no confidence in Sir Lindsay as The Economist went to press. They range from nationalist MPs from Scotland and Wales seeking revenge for perceived party favors to conservative MPs who believe it is inexcusable to allow the threat of violence to shape parliamentary affairs. During Prime Minister’s Questions on February 28, Rishi Sunak accused Labor leader Keir Starmer of succumbing to “mob rule”. The meeting was noisy but Sir Lindsay remained seated, showing a rare reluctance to intervene.
human Resources! human Resources!
For Parliament to fail to vote on an issue because it is too controversial is like having the fire brigade choose not to enter a building because it is too hot. But the matter has something to do with Sir Lindsay’s tenure. In 2021, MP Sir David Amess was stabbed to death by an Islamic terrorist who wanted to avenge British air strikes in Syria. In response, his colleagues proposed “David’s Law,” which would ban anonymity on social media. Sir Lindsay has long been concerned about the same issue and has redoubled his calls for legislation. Politicians are understandably distressed by the barrage of hostility and violent threats on social media. But two different policy problems that require very different solutions become muddled. While trolling is unpleasant, it is not the same as jihadism.
If concern for MPs’ welfare may lead to bad policy, involving staff may also be detrimental to their own health. The Victorian Palace of Westminster was riddled with asbestos and damaged by fires, collapsed masonry and leaks. The builders want it completely vacated so it can be demolished. Many councilors hate the idea: it would be expensive, making it difficult to justify to their constituents, who love the old place anyway. Sir Lindsay sided with his colleagues, preferring repairs to keep them in place. Once again, the well-being of MPs trumped the interests of the institution. The chief human resources officer may work hard to keep employees happy. The speaker has more important things to prioritize.
Read more from our columnist Bagehot on British politics: Sir Keir Starmer: Bureaucracy first, politics second (February 21) Tougher bans! An unwelcome new development in British politics (February 16) The former prime minister who fascinates the Labor Party (February 8)
Also: How Bagehot’s column got its name
© 2023, The Economist Newspapers Limited. all rights reserved. From The Economist, published with permission.Original content can be found at www.economist.com
[ad_2]
Source link