In the US House of Representatives, 20 Republicans could trump 200 loyalists over Kevin McCarthy

It is not the first such internal revolt, nor the first in which some of the players give every indication that they will never compromise about their cause, and that they are willing to take matters to the point where control of the Congress is effectively passed to the Democrats. Hardliners often do say such things, if only to strike a tougher bargain, of course. But the problem that students of the new types of American political conflict must contemplate is that many of the rebels in the Republican Party have no interest in having a role in government and want to be in Congress only to frustrate anyone else governing as well.

Kevin McCarthy is the choice of most of his Republican colleagues to be Speaker of the House of Representatives, the person able to set the House's agenda, the composition of its committees, and the distribution of most of its patronage. The Republicans have 222 members in Congress, four more than the 218 they need for an absolute majority. But about 20 of the Republicans think that McCarthy is too "liberal", too inclined to compromise and make deals with the Democrats, and not likely to push the nihilist anti-government agenda they want to see.

Indeed, they fear that McCarthy, and a proportion of the party, secretly want to be involved in the business of governing America. This would include acting in the public interest to seek compromises with other legislators, including Democrats, to produce legislation and appropriations that improve the lives, safety and wellbeing of Americans and America (the sort of thing they were elected for, a naive Australian might say).

The rebel 20 think that the Republicans were elected to stop Biden's power to govern. The Republicans who want to govern are as much the enemy as the Democrats. They are derided as RINOs, or Republicans in Name Only, more traitorous because they do not adhere to the doctrines of smaller government. Politicians with agendas, particularly over health, education and welfare, housing and the environment, are particularly suspect, as are politicians who talk policy rather than politics, the possible rather than the prohibited.

READ MORE: US Speaker vote - what you need to know

Naturally, politicians suspected of having agendas, and those who show signs of being practical and pragmatic, may also be under suspicion of being part of wider conspiracies, or of having instincts for more and more regulation likely to add to the costs of business, and for more controls over American citizens. They are thus, by definition, enemies of freedom.

As it happens, McCarthy has the endorsement of Donald Trump, and has long parroted Trump, so it is not to be assumed that the distaste some of his colleagues feel for him is because he is some sort of mainstreamer. But those who have swallowed the Kool-Aid have an infallible instinct for the potential rat, and McCarthy has been under suspicion for a long time.

It is idle to point out that the mainstream of the Republican Party once contained ordinary American businessmen and women, most of whom were only slightly right of centre, and many of whom were generally liberal in their ideas. The party is now much changed - in major part because of the anti-government philosophies of Ronald Reagan, the movements he inspired, including the Tea Party, and later the economic nationalism and focus on white unease, anxiety and displacement refined by Trump from the slogans of Richard Nixon and George W Bush.

It is true that the party has long harboured bigots, loonies and conspiracy theorists, but they were mostly at the fringe until the last few decades. Now they are at the forefront, and it is not by coincidence. Moderates in the party have been pushed out of the party councils. They are under attack for being weak. The new radicals of the right have come to own the idea that the party is one for limited government and that the old guard secretly yearn for big government and lots of power. Party arguments have almost ceased to be policy focused and have become intensely personal and political - as well as being dominated by "fake news", reckless allegations and stunts. The primary system generates the loudest and most extreme candidates, using attack ads and new media rather than debate to promote themselves.

The House of Representatives is the most important engine room of practical government. It is where most laws are initiated, budgets are devised, and where choices are made - between different policies, and between different programs. With a looser party system, politicians bargain for their support for measures, seek to put clauses in appropriations favouring their constituencies and pet causes, and are lobbied relentlessly by major interests. Their parties, and their party leaders, including the White House, put pressure on them to support the general party line and signature executive branch legislation and programs. They can sweeten their pressure with campaign donations, attractive committee appointments and assistance in election campaigns. Members of Congress are also responsive to attack from within their own electorates if they support measures that are said to hurt jobs or local industry.

But as politics has become more tribal, most politicians are more known for their loud opinions and prejudices rather than their considered views on different policies, or their records. A candidate may come under withering attack, if not necessarily so much for something done in the direct theatre of politics, but for some attitude that is said to characterise their approach to politics. Sarah Palin's first foray into politics involved attacks on the books that school libraries were buying, and in attempting to frame the argument as being about abortion. In recent time, elections have become referendums about Trump, or about ideas being implanted by his side of politics, such as about white decline, the alleged stealing of elections, and alleged attempts by the Biden administration to politicise the Justice Department with a view to having that fine citizen charged with some crime. Republican politicians get more exposure for expressing views on such matters, or on attacking others of different views, than for putting their own ideas into the political marketplace.

In this sense, the present judgement of the recalcitrant 20 that there is nothing in it for them in accepting some blandishment from McCarthy and re-joining the fold might well be sound. McCarthy needs better arguments, or better bribes, than he has come up with so far. The most serious party activists are forever going to be critics of what Republicans do in the American parliament, other than blocking appointments and rejecting legislative proposals, especially those with any sort of tax component. If they take some attractive committee appointment - even if they settle for some local boondoggle - they are likely to be accused of being sell-outs, even RINOs. On the outer they can be lionised by the crowd and find themselves even closer to the centre of power around Trump. It may well be that Trump is by now unlikely to get the Republican nomination. But he still controls large sums of Republican campaign cash. And even his strongest critics in the party are reluctant to attack him head-on because of his grassroots following. So far, a candidate for decline is still setting the terms of debate. It will be someone else 12 months from now. But that someone is unlikely to be Kevin McCarthy and being in his good books may be lead in the saddlebags at the next election.

I have long been a fan of the British parliament's system of having independent commissioners for standards who review complaints that MPs have breached their Code of Conduct or the Nolan Committee's set of standards of public life.

By comparison, the Australian way - privileges committees, or ad hoc bodies of officials chosen just for the occasion - never seems to have the detachment, or the speed, or even, it seems to me, the focus on the fundamental principle involved. And that is so even when the matter has not been flicked off by a prime minister to a tame official to get delay and obfuscation, or to some lawyer cronies for some fine points of distinction in a secret report able later to be described as a complete vindication.

But we beat the Poms at some things, at least for a while. We had the Bowen report on conflicts of interest 50 years ago. Since then, at least, it has been understood here that an MP cannot act, for money or otherwise, as a lobbyist or private adviser for a company. Britain didn't really get to that point until this century. In the past, many British MPs were public company directors, lobbyists and advocates and sometimes even received rewards for asking a question in parliament. Whether one declared such matters or not could hardly resolve obvious questions of whether conflict of interest was involved - or just as significantly whether there was the appearance of conflict of interest.

Some months ago, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that an intimate in the Morrison court, Stuart Robert, had been giving advice and making introductions to a lobbying firm looking for government contracts. At the time, Robert, who has long appeared to have had problems in recognising conflicts or potential conflicts, was on one of his sojourns on the back bench for just that, but he was soon back in cabinet again. Bill Shorten has announced an investigation into any contracts let by Stuart Robert agencies. But questions were also asked about whether acting as an intermediary, agent, lobbyist or urger might be in breach of parliamentary standards.

I should emphasise that Robert has denied any impropriety, and, so far, none has been shown. There was no suggestion that money was paid by the company which was said to have been warmly commended to his colleagues and officials.

It is interesting in this context to look at a recent report by the House of Lords commissioner for standards, together with observations upon it by the House of Lords Conduct committee, acting in effect as a court of appeal. It involved the Earl of Shrewsbury finding himself a nice little earner as an adviser of sorts to a company making hand and body sanitisers at the time of the COVID lockdowns in Britain.

The previous British indulgence with backbenchers is now inoperative. Recently, the Conduct committee reviewed a decision on appeal by the Earl of Shrewsbury, who had been found by the house's commissioner for standards guilty of breaches of the code of conduct. The commissioner had recommended that the earl be suspended from parliament for nine months.

The earl wrote emails to a company called Spectrum X in 2020 when it was seeking regulatory approval for various COVID-19 products, including hand sanitisers and a walk-in disinfectant tunnel. He offered to meet with various ministers and officials to discuss and promote SpectrumX's spectriPOD system in return for a monthly retainer of £3000. Altogether, over 19 months, the earl was paid £57,000 for "parliamentary advice and other matters".

The commissioner found a breach of provisions of the code prohibiting members from "exercising parliamentary influence" and from providing "parliamentary advice or services". It also found a breach of that part of the code of conduct which said that "members should always act on their personal honour in the performance of their parliamentary duties and activities".

Lord Shrewsbury had argued that his work was "openly commercial dealing". He said he was helping the company promote its products to a range of customers, including some, such as West Ham Football club and the Jockey club, completely unconnected with parliament. He saw his approaches to ministers and officials in the same light.

The committee said that this showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the code of conduct, including its history after the "cash for amendments" scandal of 2009. After that the parliamentary leader's group had declared that "the phenomenon of what were variously described to us as 'peers for hire' or 'peers on the cab rank' is not acceptable. Membership of the house should not be a source of profit."

MORE WATERFORD:

The guide now says that the prohibition on receiving payment for parliamentary advice means that members may not act as paid parliamentary consultants, advising outside organisations or persons on process, for example how they might lobby or otherwise influence the work of parliament.

"On his own admission Lord Shrewsbury made use of his position to promote the interests of SpectrumX by personally approaching ministers and officials on behalf of the company."

Providing "parliamentary services" might be described as "monetising expertise" in procedures. But Lord Shrewsbury went further: he was changing how he carried out his duties and activities in return for money.

"The rules prohibiting the provision of parliamentary advice and services in return for payment or reward were adopted by the house to uphold the integrity of the institution of parliament. And [to] reflect the key Nolan principle of selflessness, according to which 'holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest'.

"As the Guide to the code of conduct emphasises, it is incompatible with this principle for members to seek to profit from membership of this house."

No doubt the facts, and thus the guiding principles, will be shown to be quite different in the Robert case. But if anyone any longer takes any notice of Westminster, I should think that no one will be making any point about the absence of money changing hands, or suggestions that the introductions were but personal interchanges rather than matters of any sort of official nature. It is the appearance as much as the reality which is the sticking point when an outside person might wonder about partiality.