IT’S NO SECRET that in recent weeks and months, many MPs have been considering whether or not they want to continue in their chosen profession. And I’m not saying I’m considering standing down, but it’s fair to say that the Commons is not an uplifting environment these days.
The constituency, however, is a different matter.
After any time spent in London listening to colleagues’ complaints and fears, their conspiracy theories and dispiriting forebodings, being back in Glasgow is literally a breath of fresh air. And the reason I’m in a better mood than I’ve been for a while is because tonight I presented one of the prizes at the annual awards ceremony at one of my local secondary schools, King’s Park Secondary.
And although I don’t usually do this, I’ve reproduced the speech I made. Not because it’s particularly brilliant (some of the stuff about James Croll is lifted almost verbatim from Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything), but because writing it reminded me why I’m in parliament.
One day, probably some way off, parliament will regain some of the respect it’s lost, and the ambition to serve as an MP will once more be seen as a noble one. One day.
In the meantime, this is what I think:
Members of Parliament are used to telling other people what to do, how to live their lives, how to be a good citizen.
And you know something? I don’t think many people are listening to us any more, because they have concluded that MPs no longer have the moral authority to tell anyone how to live their lives.
It’s a pity it’s taken something like the expenses scandal to make us aware of the fact that we should have been listening, not talking, in the first place. Why should I, as a middle aged (young middle aged) man lecture these excellent young people on how to be a good citizen. Because from what I’ve heard, they’re already far better at it than I was at their age.
It’s become something of a cliché that all young people are trouble-makers. It’s also become a cliché that young people get too hard a time and that they’re too often demonized.
Well, here’s another cliché to make up the full set of three: many, many young people know far more about good citizenship than most adults, and certainly more than many MPs, as we have seen from recent newspaper coverage.
And I think those young people who actually make an effort, who want to make a difference in their community, in their world, should be recognised.
I’m delighted that King’s Park Secondary took me up on my offer to sponsor this annual Citizenship Award. Mind you, there’ll be a general election between this one and the next one, so it could be a one-off.
And my part in all of this is a very small one (no, that doesn’t mean the speech will be short – stop looking at your watches). All I have to do is buy the shield (not on expenses) and present it. But I have no say in choosing the recipient. I leave that to the people who know the candidates far better: the school itself.
And I don’t offer any guidance about what criteria should be used to judge the winner. I want it to go to a “good citizen”. The rest is up to the school and to the pupils.
I’m delighted that the Computer Lunch Team have been chosen as recipients. From what I’ve learned of them, they are very worthy winners.
I want to make one more point and it involves a short history lesson, so please bear with me.
In the 1860s, journals and other learned publications in Britain began to receive academic papers on hydrostatics, electricity and other scientific subjects from a James Croll of Anderson’s University in Glasgow. One of the papers, on how variations in earth’s orbit might have precipitated ice ages, was published in the Philosophical Magazine in 1864 and was recognized at once as a work of the highest standard.
Croll was the first to suggest that cyclical changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, from elliptical (which is to say slightly oval) to nearly circular to elliptical again, might explain the onset and retreat of ice ages. No one had ever thought before to consider an astronomical explanation for variations in Earth’s weather. Thanks almost entirely to Croll’s persuasive theory, people in Britain began to become more responsive to the notion that at some former time, parts of Earth had been in the grip of ice.
When his ingenuity and aptitude were recognized, Croll was given a job at the Geological Survey of Scotland and widely honoured; he was made a fellow of the Royal Society in London and of the New York Academy of Science and given an honorary degree from the University of St Andrews, among much else.
So there was some surprise, and perhaps just a touch of embarrassment, when, following the publication of his first paper, it turned out that Croll was not an academic at the university, but a janitor.
Born in 1821, Croll grew up poor, and his formal education lasted only to the age of 13. He worked at a variety of jobs – as a carpenter, insurance salesman, keeper of a temperance hotel – before taking a position as janitor at Anderson’s (now the University of Strathclyde) in Glasgow.
By somehow inducing his brother to do much of his work, he was able to pass many quiet evenings in the university library teaching himself physics, mechanics, astronomy, hydrostatics, and the other fashionable sciences of the day.
Croll was obviously untypical in some respects, but in a vital way he was very typical indeed: he was a clever intelligent working class man who was denied the education that would have helped him meet his full potential. He managed to overcome that handicap by having a persuasive personality and a gullible brother. But millions more through the ages have not been so fortunate.
My own father was forced to leave school at 14, and he never gained any formal academic recognition. Yet he is one of the cleverest men I’ve ever known. Ability wasted.
And for every James Croll who was lucky, who somehow beat the odds to have his ability recognized and to make a genuine and important contribution to mankind, how many thousands – millions – of other geniuses, academics, chemists, engineers, doctors, mathematicians have been lost to us because of a short-sighted notion that education was only for the better off?
Which is why I have supported wherever I could the chance to improve educational opportunities, because on every single occasion where such opportunities have expanded, pupils from less well off backgrounds have disproportionately benefited.
Every week, in the faces and the work of young people in this constituency I see for myself the commitment, intelligence, confidence (and occasionally bare-faced cheek!) that will, in time, open up opportunities for them that their parents could never have dreamed of. That makes me, as well as their teachers and parents, incredibly proud.
So good luck with whatever choices you make for yourselves. If I had one word of advice, and if you were in the mood now or in the future to listen to the advice of an MP, I would say this: You can make wrong choices – that’s not the end of the world and you’re young enough to make more than one. But whatever you do, don’t waste your ability and your skills, because you’re the only person on the entire planet who can use them.














Thursday 18 June 2009 at 11:25 pm
Nice speech!
If I can ignore all the fine stuff below and just focus on the political bit at the top: “I don’t think many people are listening to us any more, because they have concluded that MPs no longer have the moral authority to tell anyone how to live their lives.”
Alternatively, it may be that actually people just don’t want to be told how to live their lives. Not by anyone, no matter how moral they may be. Declining congregations might be a bit of a hint.
Instead, I’d suggest that what people want is a government to quietly get on with administering public services. A government to take care of all the boring little details that none of us has time to be bothered with. On the big issues, e.g. school closures, we’ll let the government (whatever level) know when they’ve got it wrong, and expect them to acquiesce accordingly.
Meanwhile, we (I at least, but I suspect many, many others besides) would like MPs to concentrate on keeping the government honest and ensuring that only good and necessary legislation is passed. One new law each year and a couple of minor amendments should be sufficient to clarify the rights that citizens should expect as times and technology change.
What we certainly don’t want, are people to spy on us, catalogue us and attempt to micromanage our lives for the convenience of bureaucrats.
If James Croll were around now, he’d probably be denied access to the latest journals for lack of an authorised account, prosecuted for allowing his unvetted brother to come into proximity of minors and berated for misrepresenting his credentials to the publishers.
Thursday 18 June 2009 at 11:57 pm
I thought that was a pretty good speech. I liked the Croll-anecdote in particuar. I’m enormously intrigued by the stylistics of it. My secret ambition in life is to find some niche from which I can write political speeches for talented orators.
So, in the spirit of encouraging teenagers to make the most of their lives, could you possibly answer a quick question: did you have it laid out in front of you as you posted it above? Given that it’s so prosaic, I’m guessing you’d have to have be pretty acquainted with the precise wordings in order to avoid burying your head in the lectern.
@Geraint Alternatively, it may be that actually people just don’t want to be told how to live their lives. Not by anyone, no matter how moral they may be. Declining congregations might be a bit of a hint.
To be fair to Tom, I think he does recognise this when he says, in the stanza below:
It’s a pity it’s taken something like the expenses scandal to make us aware of the fact that we should have been listening, not talking, in the first place. Why should I, as a middle aged (young middle aged) man lecture these excellent young people on how to be a good citizen.
Thursday 18 June 2009 at 11:58 pm
Very good speech.
The case of James Croll has important lessons in it for a couple of your previous posts about anonymity and blogging. It shows that we should assess arguments according to their own merits, not the supposed authority of author. If Croll’s arguments had been judged according to his academic authority, they would have been rejected out of hand. That is why NightJack’s identity should not have been revealed – it doesn’t matter who he is, it matters what he says. And it is why the authors of newspaper leader columns should remain anonymous too.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:00 am
I agree with this and it’s good what you’re doing and the final sentence is excellent.
(You know there’s a ‘but’ coming, don’t you?)
But, the very fact that the UK has to import teachers, doctors, dentists, plumbers and so on while one in ten youngsters is a ‘neet’ shows just how much talent has been left to rot.
You can talk all day about the vastly increased numbers attending university, but what are the benefits for the country?
At least a doctor or dentist should be able to repay his student debts fairly quickly, but you have inspired me to search for what subjects British students are signing up for these days, if not teaching or the various branches of medicine. Harry Potter, probably.
Geraint is right, we don’t want the government’s continual interference in our everyday lives as we all keep telling you, but one thing you that should be done is to make sure that we can look after ourselves as a nation, in terms of our military, food supply and employment in vital services and our ability to be productive.
We already rely on imported food, imported goods of all kinds and even imported labour. Centuries’ worth of skills are being lost and people are standing around street corners dealing (imported) drugs instead.
It’s no way to run a country – unless the idea is to run it into the ground.
But, yes, I know some teenagers and they are very inspirational to me, especially the ones I meet at church, some of whom are multi-instrumentalists already.
They deserve a better government.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:01 am
Andrew F at 11.57: “did you have it laid out in front of you as you posted it above? Given that it’s so prosaic, I’m guessing you’d have to have be pretty acquainted with the precise wordings in order to avoid burying your head in the lectern.”
Because I wrote it about an hour before I was due to leave, I didn’t have the time I would normally give myself to become familiar with it. So, yes, I probably spent too much time looking down at my notes, which is not how I like to make speeches.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:09 am
Because I wrote it about an hour before I was due to leave, I didn’t have the time I would normally give myself to become familiar with it. So, yes, I probably spent too much time looking down at my notes, which is not how I like to make speeches.
Thus illustrating that busy politicians need speechwriters. I am ever hopeful.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 4:28 am
God, it’s so depressing.
And you know something? I don’t think many people are listening to us any more, because they have concluded that MPs no longer have the moral authority to tell anyone how to live their lives.
Did MPs ever have the moral authority to tell people how to live their lives? Is that what they’re supposed to be doing?Aren’t they really supposed to be representatives of the people in their constituencies? Aren’t they supposed to be public servants?
What you seem to be suggesting here is that, with their ‘moral authority’ restored again soon – perhaps after the worst of the troughers have been made to walk the plank – MPs will soon be able to get back to telling people how to live their lives in the most exact and minute detail. Is that what you mean? Is that what you think an MP is?
If so, the unhappiness and distress among MPs most likely grows out of not knowing which of them will be forced to take a running jump off the side of the ship, and who won’t be able to return to doing what they so love doing, which is telling everybody else how to live their lives in the most intimate and humiliating detail.
What you seem to be suggesting is that, once a ritual cleansing process has been carried out, the remaining MPs will have regained sufficient moral authority to start enacting even more petty and tyrannical pieces of legislation. So now I’m beginning to think that this is what will happen.
But it seems to me that this is exactly what’s wrong with this parliament. It’s not made up of public servants, but of petty tyrants who simply can’t wait to vote their prejudices into law just because they can. For them, becoming an MP was a bit like becoming king for a day. Or becoming one of about 650 little despots furiously struggling to become Prime Despot, and set the agenda of What Gets Banned Next.
I’m not making a party political point here. They are all the same. They are all little despots. They just want to ban or restrict or criminalise different things.
It’s a pity it’s taken something like the expenses scandal to make us aware of the fact that we should have been listening, not talking, in the first place.
I really don’t understand why this paragraph follows the previous one. If it’s the job of MPs to tell other people how to live their lives, what the hell has ‘listening’ got to do with it?
Well, it’s got bugger all to do with it, that’s what. It’s just a pretence. It’s just the form of things that has to be gone through before slapping another set of restrictions on people. It’s a ‘consultation’ process in which nobody is consulted at all, and then whatever it was that they wanted to ban gets banned. The mock ‘consultation’ process just provides a fig leaf to cover the sheer despotism of what is being done.
I’d like to see ALL the MPs of this Parliament stand down. And an entirely new parliament of newbie MPs elected, made up of people who haven’t spent their entire lives trying to tell other people what to do, and to have their wishes backed by the force of law. I think that in that bewildered parliament, made up of all sorts of surprised people who never dreamed of being MPs, none of them would want to be Prime Minister – instead of all of them.
And, who knows, they might do a much better job than the current crew?
Friday 19 June 2009 at 7:05 am
I found it sad. That Labour does not appear to understand this anymore.
I notice the was not even a Labour minister or MP on Question Time last night.
This tells me the party is not facing up to anything yet, and then I hear that Blears has been cleared by the local party.
So fine words from you Tom, but no action from the party. As I have said many times about Labour. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 7:16 am
Politics is not a profession. Politics is something each one of us engages in as part of our everyday living, as normal as eating or breathing. And standing for election to occupy a democratic position is something that should come after having gained valuable experience in some other walk of life, not after having been a students’ union Ents officer and spending a couple of years as an MP’s researcher.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 8:53 am
“..they have concluded that MPs no longer have the moral authority to tell anyone how to live their lives.”
Hate to break it to you, but you never did, Didn’t stop you though, did it?
Progressive[pruh-gres-iv] -noun: progressivly involving themselves where they really arn’t wanted.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 9:23 am
Frank Davis: “What you seem to be suggesting is that, once a ritual cleansing process has been carried out, the remaining MPs will have regained sufficient moral authority to start enacting even more petty and tyrannical pieces of legislation. So now I’m beginning to think that this is what will happen.”
Okay, Frank – you got me! It’s a fair cop! Bang to rights. You’ve worked out politicians’ infernal plot to control everyone’s (but particularly smokers’) lives. Bah! And I would’ve got away with it if it weren’t for those pesky kids!
Friday 19 June 2009 at 9:27 am
Hallelujah Frank Davis and Jonjo.
The latest batch of politicians seem to believe that because they were president of the Student Union it gives them a insight into how the country works.
MP’s are accused of being detached and other-worldly simply because they are detached and other-worldly.
There is no other explanation for the mess they made of publishing expenses for example. Beyond idiocy.
We desperately need fewer MP’s, less people trying to control us, less laws and petty bureaucracy.
As it seems unlikely, despite what Tom says, that many will stand down the best solution would be to remove at least 1/3 of the seats, say down to 400. Whilst that is still too many I doubt it will cause anyone any concern either so a good starting point.
Why exactly do we, as a country, need over 600 people to vote as their whip tells them (whilst they keep telling us how important they are)? Probably the same reason as why we need so many communication studies graduates.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 9:27 am
@ Tom
“You’ve worked out politicians’ infernal plot to control everyone’s (but particularly smokers’) lives”
Would be funny if it weren’t true…
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:00 am
Good speech, Tom. As you say it must be a like a breath of fresh air to be back in Glasgow. The atmosphere in the Westminster Village sounds very oppressive at the moment, what with the misery mongers of the mass media keeping the pressure on. It must be good to meet some optimistic young people full of potential and remember the positive reasons why you got into politics.
What you were saying about your father, and James Croll, reminded me a bit of my own dad’s experiences growing up. He was born exactly 100 years after Croll, but his horizons were similarly limited – growing up in a small Cambridgeshire village, most people worked on the land or went into service. He left school at 14, did some pretty menial jobs, and joined the RAF as soon as he was 17, in 1938. As part of his training he did intelligence and aptitude tests, which showed he had a high IQ, and was put on a course to study electrical engineering, specifically regarding aircraft maintenance. In later years the irony wasn’t lost on him, that it took a war to shake up society and be the means where some people could get the educational opportunities that they’d otherwise miss.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:09 am
Always good to see an MP spending some time with the younger folk. I never saw one – not one – in my time at school, much less heard a speech from one.
Anderson’s University Glasgow? And I thought I knew this city. I’ll need to look that one up.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:15 am
Triffid100: “that many will stand down the best solution would be to remove at least 1/3 of the seats, say down to 400. Whilst that is still too many”, yes it is too many, how about 100, nice round figure, and works fine for the US congress..
We need to get to the point however that only laws that need to get passed are passed, none of these ‘nice to haves’ that do all the unintended damage.
How about we just adopt the US system, and stick to it rigourously, allow no ‘mission creep’ in legislation, that seems to be where the americans are going wrong.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:26 am
Bill Bryson’s books are treasure troves of good anecdotes, well done for using this one to illustrate why everyone should have the chance of a decent education. (And down with the doomsayers who imply that any subject developed after, say, 1958 isn’t worthy of study.)
On of (many) joys of having a child who did a degree at Durham is that you get a Bill Bryson speech at their graduation ceremony (he being the university’s Chancellor).
Many of your contributors would have loved the first point in his list of advice to graduates. It was about how unique we all are as individuals and how amazingly small were the chances of the one sperm and egg that grew into us having met and developed successfully.
They may not have enjoyed his second point so much though. He pointed out that we’re not that unique – there are six billion or so of us on the planet each of whose needs and opinions are just as important as ours.
We have to live as communities – all mankind’s greatest achievements are the results of collective endeavour. Even the lone maverick, so beloved of right wing bloggers, needs society to supply their daily needs and take away their sewage…
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:47 am
@Geraint
Nice in principal, wrong in fact.
Sad to say, most people are happy being told what to do.
No need to think, just obey.
As long as they’ve the things in life that matter to them and it is others who are paying they are content.
Even those who pay are often quiescent, rather than rock the boat they suffer in silence.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 10:53 am
Tom: “You’ve worked out politicians’ infernal plot to control everyone’s (but particularly smokers’) lives.”
Tom, have you noticed how people think this true rather than being sarcasm? Incidentally, in your speech you talked about telling people “how to live their lives” so what did you mean?
Actually, I think the truth is simply you believe that you aren’t authoritarian BUT the public think you are. Surely, that is YOUR issue to bridge the gap, either by NOT introducing authoritarian polices or by convincing us why a policy that infringes civil liberties is necessary.
At this point I can sense Tom rolling eyes, however, no politician has yet made a case to convince us why we need the more malicious parts of the following bills:
SoCPA 2005 (ban spontaneous peaceful protest)
RIPA (public sector spying)
Coroners Act (Secret coroners reports at the whim of home secretary)
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (part 5, section 63 introducing a THOUGHT crime into the UK)
ID Cards
National Identity Register
I note that the National Identity Register, although universally condemned by the public, is introduced by Nu-Labour and won’t be repealed by the Tories.
Seriously Tom, when you started in politics did you really think that what this Country needs is the banning of spontaneous peaceful protest ?
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:02 am
I think there’s an interesting question here.
Since it’s not possible to do both,and since s/he is sworn to serve all without favour, is it an MPs duty to work for the most needy or for the most?
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:16 am
jonathan campbell “yes it is too many, how about 100, nice round figure, and works fine for the US congress..”
I wouldn’t argue against 100, would accept 200. Actually, I would accept 400 as a start just to get rid of some of them.
Your analogy isn’t quite right about “Mission Creep” though. In the military, mission creep happens as an unattended consequence. In politics it is done by design – look at the many acts these days and you can see how many “wrap up” issues were included (or smuggled through under a bland title, depending on your viewpoint.)
However, a banning of legislation not in connection to the title of the Bill would, I think, be a good start for most of the public. It may even make MP’s read the Bills before voting on them.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:16 am
“My own father was forced to leave school at 14, and he never gained any formal academic recognition. Yet he is one of the cleverest men I’ve ever known. Ability wasted.”
This was the tragedy of a generation.
And yet, what would have been the point of your father, or mine, learning Shakespeare or Latin? It would have given them ideas above their station and led to much frustration and discontent because their social positions would have not been commensurate with the mores of the ruling classes.
Most of the people I know, over the age of say, 75, experienced this “lack of opportunity”, and yet, they went on to become film directors, writers, journalists and entrepreneurs.
What I am saying is that ability will win through, regardless of socially engineered “opportunities” – especially those promulgated by guilt-ridden toffs from New Labour who have the benefit of an expensive public school education and consequently cannot bear to let anyone else have one.
“pupils from less well off backgrounds have disproportionately benefited.” – meaning that those who are lucky enough to be born in better circumstances have been disproportionately discriminated against.
The pedagogy of the opressed is a pedagogy of enabling and empowerment and does not involve brutal social engineering to curb the rights of those who are born lucky.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:31 am
Triffid100 at 10.53 am: “the truth is simply you believe that you aren’t authoritarian BUT the public think you are”
No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:51 am
Tom: “No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.”
Tom, I say “you” due to your voting record including
Voting record (from PublicWhip)
How Tom Harris voted on key issues since 2001:
*Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
*Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
*Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war
*Voted FOR Power to detain terror suspects without charge for 42 days
*Voted FOR a government proposal to extend the maximum period for police detention of a terrorist suspect without charge to 90 days.
*Voted FOR ID cards bill
*Voted FOR Serious Organized Crime and Police Bill — Authorisation for demonstrations in a designated area
Tom, you voted to BAN spontaneous peaceful protest. I guess the question is what exactly you think the word authoritarian means ?
Now if you think the only people who are concerned about the loss of civil liberties are commentators on your site then I suggest you browse through http://www.modernliberty.net/
Tickets were sold out, up and down the length of the country.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 11:56 am
I would like to pick up on the “authoritarian” thing.
MPs are elected to a position of authority over us. They “tell us what to do”. This does not mean they are de facto “authoritarians” But it does mean they have a philosophical basis for power, as well as a political one.
Morality is not necessary to the exercise of authority, but merely, desirable.
I can think of dozens of regimes which have a philosophical stance that goes against any definition of “morality”.
In this country, morality is part of our philosophical outlook, based upon a Judeo-Christian worldview. You cannot escape this!
It would be impossible to declare that the expenses scandal is “wrong” unless you apply these values – even a Marxist interpretation is essentially a Christian one by another name.
When people apply moral values to politics they are trying to humanize them, which is fairly obvious, but overlooked sometimes.
What has happened of late is that pragmatism has taken the place of morality. The dilemma of underpaid MPs was putatively solved by the generous application of expenses claims – a pragmatist’s solution, not a moralist’s one.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:03 pm
“I don’t think many people are listening to us any more, because they have concluded that MPs no longer have the moral authority to tell anyone how to live their lives.”
Oh god, you actually think you’re there to tell us how to live our lives. Typical bloody socia….. what a minute..
“It’s a pity it’s taken something like the expenses scandal to make us aware of the fact that we should have been listening, not talking, in the first place.”
Wha-hey. Finally, you get it. What a shame Obama Beach doesn’t. Anyway, to start you off on this new journey of listening, try this. We want a general election and we want a referendum on Lisbon. Give us those, and we’ll tell you some more stuff.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:33 pm
Tom said
“No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.”
I think you are anything but authoritarian, but your party is in the laws it has passed the secret way it keeps information etc etc.
But Tom you are an MP in that party and you have to take collective responsibility so you support your party and therfore aprove of its methods.
You cannot pick and mix in your party so take the hit.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:35 pm
Tom said.
“No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.”
But you are when it comes to some of the blogs( like mine) you decide not to publish.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:52 pm
@ Tom
“No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.”
Actually I think that your stance is hypocritical and schizophrenic. You come across as a staunch libertarian and then support your party’s authoritarian agenda.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 12:59 pm
“Members of Parliament are used to telling other people what to do, how to live their lives, how to be a good citizen.”
A breathtakingly arrogant and stupid outlook on life.
Listen to an MP about how to liev?
Lets see: Sir J Major: Wittered on about back to basics whilst affair with eggs what’s her name MP….
Ted Heath? Say no more.
Boothby? A drunk liar – on oath – who successfully sue for lible when lying and almost every other MP knew he lied
J Aitken and Archer? say no more.
Profumo.. etc etc.
The list is endless.
MPs are human. If they think being an MP entitles them to lecture us on living – and have ever done so, they are deluded.
I have a very jaundiced view on most politicians (not all). I think most are lying thieving hypocrites. Recent events prove my view correct.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 1:04 pm
Tom
good speech and what appears like a heartfelt statement about a career in politics…problem is that is your goverment who has created this mess…
1. the speaker…whose choice was he?
2. the various mps’s who have behaved badly under the labour goverment who never resigned (who the hell was the fella who was caught with his pants down in the houses of parliament and then still didnt resign?)
3. spin…you guys created it!
4. iraq….why?
5. making gordon brown pm….yes we dont actually vote for a pm in the uk but was we all know the majority of people in the uk vote on party and leader when they vote…i mean not being disrespectful tom but who the hell actually knows their mp? GORDON WAS A 100% MISTAKE….
6. going on about the tories all the time…i read mr. browns article in the mirror on sunday…my goodness how scary! but why does he not want the tories in power? its not his choice really is it? and if he is going to tell porkies re cuts! even mr. macguire tells him to stop it!
7. expenses….speaker (labour), PM (labour), leader of house of commons (labour)…and to think most people would never have thought the labour mps would behave as they have…but they did and there is now officially no difference between them and the tory pocket fillers they always moaned about!
8. no one ever tells the truth…yvette cooper on you tube! absolutely hilarious…why cant politicians just tell the truth!
9. the goverment is appearing to control us…by not offering an election, forcing gb on us and keeping him there it appears the only interest is in the labour party itself….people wont forget tom they will not forget!
10. caring about everyone else other than actual white faced middle class english people! i lived out of this country for 8 years before returning and i am simply staggered by the way english people are now treated! what happened, what did they wrong!
11. saying stupid things like david cameron insults people with his ‘german jokes’…grow up labour party! they started a war for goodness sake…actually they started 2….and we are not allowed to mention that or have a giggle or anything! why? why strip us of our one endearing trait….a sense of humour?
12. you all have over inflated opinions of what we want from you….gordon is apparently sorting out the constitution because he says that what people what him to do! no over 61% of people in the uk what him gone…so why doesnt he listen instead of annoying everyone even further?
13. goverments like the labour party never admit they are wrong about anything….you took this country to a completely unecessary war, based on a lie! you were wrong!
14. alistair campbell, p mandelson, a sugar, g kinnock..unelected people serving the people…not right tom…not right..and how exactly do young people get into politics if clowns like brown simply pick his politicians himself? no point voting really is there!
just a few reasons why people wont go into politics and what needs to change!
good luck tom and keep up the good work..people like you actually make politics a respected trade
Friday 19 June 2009 at 1:25 pm
“I guess the question is what exactly you think the word authoritarian means ?”
I think authoritarian is the wrong word , at least in describing the intent of many MP’s if not the outcome.
As i see it many in parliament regard the general population as feckless children who are to be protected against themselves by their parents (politicans).
This explains quite a lot of the ‘do as we say not do as we do because we know better than you’ attitude that comes out of westminister.
So,for example, the government can propose a minimum price for alcohol for us, whilst also using taxpayers money to subsidise the bars in Parliament to ensure that they’re the cheapest in the land.
The grownups can be trusted with booze whilst us children have to be kept under control.
It’s for our own good you see, we just don’t understand the real world, we’ll thank them in the long run,etc,etc.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 1:32 pm
Tom wrote: No, the truth is simply I believe that I’m not authoritarian BUT some of the commenters on this site think I am.
You may not be particularly despotic, but plenty of MPs are. I imagine that conversations between MPs waiting for the division bell go something like this:
Two MPs wait in a corridor outside the chamber, waiting to vote.
First MP: “I’m going to vote to ban mint chocolate in a minute, are you too?”
Second MP: “No, I’m not too bothered about mint chocolate. I want to ban coarse fishing. And knitting. And people with leather patches on the elbows of their jackets”
First MP: “I can live with that last one, because I want to ban jackets altogether. But aren’t you bothered about chocolate? Isn’t it about time it was banned? It rots people’s teeth.”
Second MP: “Then you should be banning all chocolate, not just mint chocolate. You’ve got no principles. Anyway I think fishing should be banned first. It’s very painful for the fish. And I just can’t stand the sight of those people all sitting along the riverbanks with their rods, abusing fish, when they could be doing something useful and productive.”
First MP: “Like what?”
Second MP: “Oh, I don’t know! Building motorways. Or making lampshades. Or boiling up jars of marmalade.”
First MP: “Marmalade rots your teeth. I’m going to be voting to ban marmalade next Thursday. And you know perfectly well that lots of people want to ban motorways. And lampshades too.”
Second MP: “Who wants to ban lampshades? They’re perfectly harmless!”
First MP: “No they’re not. They waste energy. People could use lower wattage lightbulbs if they just removed the lampshades from lights. It’ll save a gigasomething of electricity.”
Second MP: “I thought we’d banned lightbulbs already?”
First MP: “Not yet. First we’re going to ban lampshades. And then a year or so later we’re going to ban lightbulbs. You can’t rush progress, you know.”
Second MP: “That’s true. So little time. And so much to be banned.”
First MP: “Anyway, how about this? If you vote to ban mint chocolate, I’ll vote to ban coarse fishing.”
Second MP: “And knitting?”
First MP: “OK. Fishing and knitting it is.”
Second MP: “And playing Bohemian Rhapsody on pub juke boxes?”
First MP: “Done!”
They leave to vote to ban mint chocolates.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 1:55 pm
Wow, I think I’ve just had my first post censored ever, I feel kinda dirty, im still gonna stick it to the man though..
Tom, the country doesn’t need half the laws passed, they are optional, they are illiberal, and authoritarian and as triffid points out YOU vote for them.
Assuming for a mimute that this blog comment audience thinks that liberty has gone down the toilet in the last decade, do they think a bill of rights thingy would be better accerting the freedoms of the individual, or limiting the power of the state?
Friday 19 June 2009 at 3:35 pm
So what happened to the Scottish Enlightment that it led us to thugs like Brown, who even denies his Scottishness (North Britain, you may recall, he comes from)?
Good speech, Tom, and I recognise that you recognise your responsibilities as an MP.
Sadly, the publication of the redacted expenses, this morning, after the Telegraph’s exposure has simply ramped up the anger amongst Joe & Joanna Public.
Here’s what someone wrote on Cif. I’d have to say, it is very well put.
No, the press is right this one time. Public servants speculated. They profited from their speculating. They profited from their speculating that was conducted with public money. They profited from their speculating that was conducted with public money that was fraudulently gained. They profited from their speculating that was conducted with public money that was fraudulently gained and then conducted a successful cover-up so they wouldn’t be caught. They profited from their speculating that was conducted with public money that was fraudulently gained and then conducted a successful cover-up so they wouldn’t be caught, and then when they were caught tried to claim that they’d done nothing wrong!
How tiny is the minority that you inhabit. Most of Britain are in a hanging mood.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 4:43 pm
Thanks a lot Tom. Simply the best post on a blog I’ve read.
Friday 19 June 2009 at 6:22 pm
@Jim Baxter
You do suprise me Anderson’s University Glasgow? And I thought I knew this city. I’ll need to look that one up.
One of the antecedents of the Royal College of Science and Technology.
The amalgamation of Anderson’s College, the College of Science and Arts, Allan Glen’s Institution, the Young Chair of Technical Chemistry and Atkinson’s Institution became the Royal College of Science and Tecnology.
Other schools, such as The Scottish School of Librarianship joined later.
When the Scottish College of Commerce combined with RCST Strathclyde University was born.
Strathclyde University a place of useful learning since 1796.
http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/inst/strathclyde.shtml plus other sites.
Saturday 20 June 2009 at 6:44 am
Tom if you want another story about one of your/our countryman read this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/naval-obituaries/5580622/Lieutenant-Commander-Max-Shean.html
Sunday 21 June 2009 at 2:20 pm
@kb 1.25pm – apt that you should use the word ‘children’ as Frank Field said in an interview that politicians use that very word to describe the electorate! The attitude you describe is one of benevolent paternalism, the nanny state, but I think that it’s morphed into something much more dictatorial and its aggression is echoed throughout society down to the jobsworths zealously and arbitrarily issuing their on the spot fines and binmen threatening householders who dare to complain.
I went to a Forest event last year at which Philip Davies said, very refreshingly, that he hadn’t entered politics to stop people having a fag with a pint. I, too, have always thought that MPs were there to run the country, the collective life of individuals, not individuals’ lives.
Most alarming of all, though, is Harriet Harman’s proposal to enshrine Labour’s values in law before the next election. I wish I could emigrate.
Sunday 21 June 2009 at 4:47 pm
@Chris’ Wills
Oh… STRATHCLYDE… right. Thanks. We called it ‘Glasgow Tech’ at the Uni I attended. Glasgow Uni call Strathclyde ‘John St. Tech’., I believe. I believe too though that Strathclyde types refer to Glasgow Uni as ‘Hogwarts’. They’re so much more up-to-date at Strathclyde.
Monday 22 June 2009 at 11:07 pm
Hmm. No response eh? Dead thread is it? I think not. While I am on the subject of the names that our betters call each other it should be known that there is a ‘Neeps’ University’. Their graduates never do that well.
Leave a comment