How would Gordon Brown's new MPs measure up? Photo: PA  Put aside political allegiance for a moment: what kind of person do you want to send to Westminster as an MP? Honest, naturally. Hard working – goes without saying. Intelligent, I suppose (though perhaps not overly so). Above all, independent-minded.  And what kind of MP does Gordon Brown want? Biddable. Submissive. An automaton governed by the daily mood swings of the electorate. A call-centre operator, endlessly chirruping “how may I help you?” to the voters.  This is the choice currently before the country as it considers how to revive our politics. The excitement over the Prime Minister’s latest narrow escape and the frenzy surrounding the truth about MPs and their expenses have obscured a more urgent debate between these two competing visions of what a Member of Parliament should be. It must worry all of us that for the moment Mr Brown has the upper hand.  Edmund Burke’s line about an MP owing his constituents not just his industry but his judgment is an old favourite at Westminster, not least among those who want to hide themselves from the tyranny of the constituency. But it is also at the heart of how our parliamentary system works. It enshrines the principle that MPs are not delegates mandated by their constituencies to vote in a particular way, but free agents who must be trusted to use their discretion as events and their conscience tell them.  Mr Brown has fatally undermined that notion in recent weeks with two changes – one voted through last month, the other threatened – that will transform the House of Commons from a collection of individuals representing the varied interests of the nation, to a cosy home for professional politicians subsidised exclusively and generously by the taxpayer. The aspirational middle classes are being purged.  He has already pushed through – with Labour votes – restrictions on outside interests that mean from July 1 MPs will have to declare not just the nature of their extra-parliamentary work, but also their earnings and hours worked. Alongside that he proposes to introduce a legally enforceable code of conduct for MPs, similar to the dreaded Standards Board now terrorising local councillors.  Together they will hollow out Parliament. Experienced MPs with bankable skills that can inform debate will walk away, while talented individuals from life outside politics will think twice before applying to become an MP. It is happening already.  Look at those who have quietly announced their departure in recent weeks. Paul Goodman, a young, assiduous Tory frontbencher who has made a valuable contribution to the debate about Islamist extremism, gave his notice a few days ago. He has no outside interests worth mentioning, but concluded that Parliament was about to change beyond recognition. “The spirit of the age is against citizen MPs,” he concluded. “Parliamentary elections threaten to become Dutch auctions of self-abasement.”  Despite Mr Brown’s efforts to make this a Tory issue, the exodus is not one-sided. About 40 Labour MPs declare outside interests, among them 10 former ministers. Patricia Hewitt, shaped by a long career in government and with considerable expertise in health care, has accumulated a number of lucrative outside interests and is standing down. In the City there is anecdotal evidence that would-be candidates in their 30s and 40s are pulling out of the selection process rather than see their affairs filleted.  Mr Brown’s attack on outside interests was calculated to emasculate the Tory benches. The Labour leader believes the public is susceptible to a subliminal message about Tory toffs. Why else bang on about a “gentleman’s club”? Alan Duncan rightly described the scheme as “timesheets, designed for one thing only, which is the subsequent embarrassment of those who have to publish them”.  For the time being, the embarrassment is largely on the Conservative side, and with good reason. For too many the directorships have been about maintaining a squire’s lifestyle rather than broadening horizons.  Andrew Mitchell, the shadow international development secretary, resigned his six Lazards directorships this week, preferring financial pain to the political variety he anticipated when his numbers came up. William Hague has already hacked back his lucrative extra-parliamentary activities, and no doubt others will follow.  David Cameron told his MPs not to oppose the measure, although a handful of them did. He sensed – rightly – that a public exercised by venal MPs would not be prepared to take a philosophical view about outside interests. His own weakness on the issue left him powerless to resist the change: last year he tried to face down the moonlighters in his Shadow Cabinet – about half of them – but was threatened with resignations, and backed down.  He was in no position to make the argument that representing interests is what MPs do. What matters is that they are declared openly. Mr Brown’s criticism that constituents expect their MPs to work full time is knocked on the head by the life of a Prime Minister. By what measure can Mr Brown’s electorate in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath be said to have a full-time MP?  The consequences of this politically motivated purge for the quality of future government are potentially far-reaching. A parliament of professional politicians drawn from the ranks of researchers, think-tank dwellers and Westminster hangers-on must produce ministers from the same class, free of any relevant experience, be it the law, banking, business, health, farming, the military or even the circus.  There is already a shortage of experienced, worldly ministers – of any party – to make sense of an increasingly complex government machine. Lord Salisbury, himself a Cabinet veteran and man of many parts, regrets the drift towards a political class as inaccessible as the Japanese Imperial Court. His plea is for the revival of the amateur politician: “Judgment is difficult if you have done nothing but professional politics.”  The former parliamentary clerk Douglas Slater points to the problem of the “family friendly” Commons hours introduced by Labour – and deplored by several candidates for the Speakership. Earlier sittings mean MPs must choose between debates in the chamber or attending select committees. Mr Slater wants a return to the system that allowed MPs to spend longer hours at Westminster “sitting around, plotting, discussing their ideas and sharpening their judgments”.  There is a shortage of voices raised against the threat posed by Mr Brown’s changes. The prospect of a quango monitoring the behaviour of MPs was raised with Mr Cameron in a meeting of the Conservative parliamentary party on Tuesday. The idea of MPs being referred to some legal body for not answering letters fast enough should fill anyone who believes in the sovereignty of the Commons and the idea of parliamentary privilege with dread.  The fear is that with the Tories powerless to resist, and Labour preferring to win the class war than worry about the consequences, Parliament will be left a sterilised place peopled by those too rich to care or too poor to complain, and no one in between.
The Prime Minister is changing the face of the House in a spiteful act of class envy, says Benedict Brogan.