Abuse Of Parliament - Abuse Of The Electorate

Prodicus posted yesterday a sense of despair about the present Government and the contempt of Parliament it exhibits, coupled with the lack of opposition from the Conservative Party; in so doing stating what I believe most people are thinking. As Douglas Carswell has noted, politicians have recently spent more time debating their expenses and addresses than they have discussing the state of the country and its economy. Having read Dominic Grieve's speech, giving the Lord Smith lecture, it is apparent that he does not understand either what is wrong with this country and the present system under which we are governed. It is often said that politicians live in the 'Westminster Bubble' - they certainly do not live in ours! It should be noted that Members of Parliament are ordinary members of the public, elected to represent their fellow countrymen and the moment they cease to be that they lose their moral mandate. No MP should have any right, other than being able to speak freely in the Chamber of Parliament without fear of a libel suit, than any member of the public..

It is obvious that politicians, of all hues, believe that they are the 'chosen' ones, that only they have the ability, even the 'right', to inform us, dare I say dictate, what is for our good. Politicians forget one basic fact in all their utterances and that is they are elected by us to do our bidding, yet come election time they present manifestos to the electorate containing statements of intent so loosely worded that the effect is to give them 'carte blanche' as to how those intentions are implemented. Not only that but manifestos are, presently, documents that try to 'hoodwink' the electorate by 'glossing over' or even 'hiding' some basic facts. As an example all three main parties pontificate about the need to control immigration, waste and energy and produce their 'answer' to the problem; yet not one will say that their hands are tied due to our membership of the European Union.

Whilst on the subject of political manifestos and to underline the point of their being 'loosely worded', consider this question in relation to all those of the three main political parties. Did one of them offer you an answer to your questions - would it enable you to send your child to the school of your choice; would it mean more police on the streets; would you be able to stop unwanted or unpopular local development. Politicians have abrogated their responsibilities to government bureaucrats, quangos and to the European Union; in fact to everyone except those that matter Is it any wonder therefore that politicians are held in contempt by the electorate? Come to that, the question has to be asked - what business is it of national politicians how an individuals child is educated or whether a locale should have a large supermarket development? Should not those questions be for the individual in the particular area in which they live? Remember the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, in Yes, Prime Minister that "If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it....... Councillors! Ordinary People!"

In his speech Dominic Grieve talks a great deal about freedom and maintains that whilst freedom is essential, there needs to be 'checks and balances' and it is up to the state (politicians) to provide them. He talks about the creation of a 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' to 'better help define ECHR prescriptions'. What is this 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' if not yet another document, issued by an employed 'privileged class', telling their employers how they should act and behave? What is the point of such a document stating 'Rights and Responsibilities' if it would result in this country still being capable of being over-ruled by foreign judges? The repeal of the Human Rights Act which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into British law coupled with the simultaneous abrogation of the Convention itself is what is needed.

Members of Parliament are too powerful and too numerous. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives administer a population nearly six times that of the United Kingdom with just 435 members! Members of Parliament should be elected with a mandate to safeguard our country's interests in the areas of international relations, defense, immigration and to maybe set standards of education, healthcare and policing. How the implementation and provision of those internal mattes is carried out is the choice of local people. Earlier it was noted that MPs are elected to represent their constituents, yet how often do they do that? Too often, when casting a vote in Parliament, they are voting for party rather than those they are supposed to represent. Consider, an MP in a 'safe' seat, ie with an impregnable majority, can ignore his constituents, however he cannot ignore his Party Whip to the point where he loses his right to stand for election. Members of Parliament are elected for a set period, during which time they can basically do as they please. A mechanism needs to be introduced whereby MPs who do not represent their constituents can be 'brought back', before the mandatory period, to answer for their actions - now that would be democratic!

Politicians repeat the mantra that society needs to be changed - sorry, it is the democratic system that needs to be changed, so that power actually reverts the people!