And Another Thing…

I realise that when writing comment pieces it’s now in vogue to misrepresent arguments but Straw-man commentary really is pathetic.

“To sum up the arguments currently in vogue: everyone hates MPs, so there should be fewer of them. And that’s it.”

No. The argument is the majority add no value. And that’s it.

Tom will only every vote of party lines as per his whip. Lot’s of Tories, Lib dems etc do the same. Tom is actually proud of his voting record.

The Commons has given up coming to a conclusion by reasoned debate (or heaven help us, doing what the majority of the population want) – it’s purely a percentage game.

Labour won the election so the executive will win all votes.

Why do we need over 646 people all voting as their whip tells them ?

We need less MP’s as the current crop refuse to hold the executive (and their own party) to account.

Of course, the other reason to have fewer MP’s is quite simple.
The majority of the population want it. It’s called Democracy.

I gues your views have nothing to do with the fact that the existing number of MPs and constituency boundaries favour Labour, and have for a generation, with the effect that it takes more voters to vote Conservative to elect an MP than it does Labour.

Labour has been sitting on this electoral cushion, and will continue to do so even at the next general election. If Labour loses, against the electoral odds, then it ill-behoves one of the losers to talk piously about the status quo.

The status quo is about to change, and not before time, even if it involves a different Government inheriting the worst economic context in more than 50 years. Vivat prudence …

The suggestion that MPs who backed the Second Iraq War in Parliament and elsewhere were simply following orders is a sick joke.

Anyone with any insight at the time would have realised that there was agonising on all sides of the arguments.

Perhaps in turn I might suggest that all those who voted against the war were slaves to islamo-fascism? Just about as true as the accusation of slavish loyalty in the opposite direction.

Ach I wasn’t referring to your lippy preference, Mr Harris -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you‘re_no_Jack_Kennedy

Shazia (I own two of her lovely wee sketches) has been beaten up and is frequently insulted and threatened with harm. All you have to put up with is being ticked off by polite ladies.

I don’t excuse Labour policies with which I disagree.

I have twice left the Labour Party – over the Commonwealth Immigration Act of the mid ’60s, and the 1983 change in the anti-nukes policy.

I supported the Tories’ policy re incarceration without trial in N Ireland for a few years before Labour came round to it, for a final example.

Democracy is the best system we shall have to form a basis for important decision making in our society.

“Oh how I hate the human race!
Oh How I loathe its silly face”

as my late Labour Alderwoman Godmother was wont to quote.

Spoken like a true advent turkey.

I know it’s something you don’t like to think about but lets consider how devolution has created two classes of MPs.

There are English MPs that are responsible for the full range of legislation and then there are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs who are responsible for the few areas of legislation that affect the whole “UK” but not devolved issues.

Devolved issues, such as health, education and training, local government, social work, housing, tourism and economic development, many aspects of transport, law and home affairs (including, the police and the emergency services), the environment, agriculture, forestry and fishing, sport and the arts, statistics, public registers and records, planning, natural and built heritage – are handeld by members of the devolved administrations – not MPs.

So just what do these Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs do with all this extra time on their hands?

They spend their time voting on issues that do not affect their own constituents, namely English issues – often to the detriment of the English people.

And regarding constituency sizes – the current situation is deeply unfair and changes need to be made.

Some constituencies should be bigger like “Na h-Eileanan an Iar” (Scotland)with 22,200 voters and compare that with The Isle of Wight (England) with approx. 110,000 voters.

In order for the system to be just constituencies need to be roughly the same – currently they are not.

So I would disagree with Tom’s predictable analysis – there is plenty of scope to cut the number of MPs – and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the places to look first for savings.

I agree with your opinion of Minette Marin – I don’t I’ve read any piece by her that I didn’t think was mean-spirited and unpleasant (and she came in from some scorching criticism from one of her fellow columnists on the Sunday Times, India Knight, over some comments she’d made about disabled children and their families).

Marin is tapping into the general mood of blanket condemnation of MPs. I think most people only have a vague idea of what MPs actually do all day, and perhaps there is a very small minority who do as little as possible and get their bag-carriers to do most of the work while they get to do the photo ops. But most MPs have the kind of punishing workload which would freak out most people.

But there’s a media consensus that all MPs are self-serving wastes of space. A dramatic version of this is The Thick of It – which is mildly amusing, but certainly isn’t doing much for politicians’ credibility (yeah, I know that’s the point). It seems very mischievous to portray MPs as that chaotic and incompetent. Malcolm Tucker is more like Trainspotting‘s Begbie than Alastair Campbell. (Although that line ‘You look very suave, Malcolm, it’s as if there was Scottish James Bond.’ – said without irony – that was funny.)

In last night’s episode, they kept referring to ‘Rob Holt’s blog’. Wonder what the inspiration for that was? Tucker was very disparaging about those who read and comment on blogs = something about people who can’t spell, overeat and wear tracksuits. Huh!!

OT

A write up of my little walk, Tom

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/guy_fawkes_demo/

@Robtro: Plus! you’re missing the fact that Cameron is expecting to devolve powers from the top to the bottom…

Given that Cameron is essentially going to do nothing about the EU issue, his policy of devolving powers from the top to the bottom hasn’t exactly got off to a good start.

Dictatorship of the net would immediately become dictatorship of the billionaires who manipulate our media.

Stuff like this would be suppressed toute suite:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/08/cocaine-alcohol-mixture-health-risks

Most people don’t want to have to keep up with every minute idea propagated by the raving right, or the sane centre, or the left.. They show that largely by not voting, and that should remain their right.

Representative Democracy rules fairly well. The “best” is often the enemy of the Good.

Don’t be daft Tom, of course the LibDems won’t say what they will do in the event of a hung Parliament. They want to ‘poach’ votes from Labour in the north, Tories in the south. If they indicate their intentions now, voters who are tempted to switch might not support them.

You might say that is deceptive and wrong. Maybe so, but it is no more wrong than Gordon Brown lying to the electorate about the true state of the economy. Or Labour refusing to provide any information on where the cuts Gordon Brown now accepts are necessary, will be made.

One of the reasons voters are so cynical about politics is because we know the 3 main parties are not to be trusted and we know we are being lied to. Thanks to Gordon Brown, we also know that anything ‘promised’ in a Manifesto is worth diddly-squat after the election. Because if it doesn’t suit the PM, he will just renege on the promise. Nice one, that – builds trust (not).

Don’t be daft Tom, of course the LibDems won’t say what they will do in the event of a hung Parliament. They want to ‘poach’ votes from Labour in the north, Tories in the south. If they indicate their intentions now, voters who are tempted to switch might not support them.

You might say that is deceptive and wrong. Maybe so, but it is no more wrong than Gordon Brown lying to the electorate about the true state of the economy. Or Labour refusing to provide any information on where the cuts Gordon Brown now accepts are necessary, will be made.

One of the reasons voters are so cynical about politics is because we know the 3 main parties are not to be trusted and we know we are being lied to. Thanks to Gordon Brown, we also know that anything ‘promised’ in a Manifesto is worth diddly-squat after the election. Because if it doesn’t suit the PM, he will just renege on the promise. Nice one, that – builds trust (not).

Not many agreeing with Mr Harris.
But the point still stands.
Mr Clegg can make his position clear by confirming votes or seats or % or by party vote or whatever. Yet he hasn’t. And Won’t.

Come on Tom get real. Of course he is not going to show his hand its called politics. You remember, promise a referendum then dont have one. Its all the same.

Chick flick? Is there, hand on heart, anything Nick Clegg could say or do that would not have a sneering or dismissive response from you? And you didn’t even listen to him! Sad thing is all the hooha over footballers being role models and how they should behave themselves, but I want my children to respect politicians and our system of democracy. But you (all of you – not just you) make it very hard. Politics is a hard nasty business with all of you trying to shout over each other and accusing everybody else of lying or worse, often without any foundation. This is a reality I have to accept – but trying to explain to my ten year old how important this election is, and how we have to listen to each party and decide who to vote for on the basis of their beliefs – it is almost making me lose heart and advise her to forget the whole thing and concentrate on Eastenders instead. Depressing.

Since no party will be getting anything like 40% of those who bother to show up and vote I just can’t see how it is democratic in the first place.

Might I remind you that Labour currently govern with a substantial majority having gained only 35.3% of the votes cast at the last election.

You never know, maybe the Libs will gain enough seats that they need not be in a coalition with either of the centre right parties. I think I’d prefer a hung parliament though (or a hanged one if I’m feeling malevolent towards MPs…)

There won’t be a coalition govt. that much is clear… Listening to Clegg it sounds like he will allow the party with the most seats to form a minority govt. if they are willing to sign up to the four key party pledges.

I know to a member of the Labour party this may come as quite a shock, but we Lib Dems actually have a say in what we do, it’s called democracy and we kind of like it (a bit more than either of the other two parties)… I can tell you one thing I will not stand by and allow my party to side with the horribly illiberal Labour party nor the horribly vacuous Tories, so no I can’t see a formal siding with either Labour or the Conservatives and I believe that you know this in your heart, you’re just playing on peoples worst fears for your own political gain and it is pathetic.

“he will allow the party with the most seats to form a minority govt”?

That’s very gracious of your “leader”, but I’m afraid that’s a decision Clegg will not be in a position to take. It would be up to the main opposition party (either Labour or Conservative) to decide whether it wants to force the minority government into a pact with the Liberals or (as happened last time) to allow the government to govern on its own for a while. The LibDems will learn of that decision in the same way as everyone else in the country – through the media.

Who will Labour support in the event of a hung parliament – the Conservatives, LibDems or some others? This is not just a question for Nick Clegg and there are other options.

I think you are talking mince about the Lib Dems being undemocratic. The Lib Dems will have a democratic mandate to represent the people who voted for them. In the event that there are negotiations about propping up one party or another they would be perfectly entitled to say we will support you if you agree to x,y or z in terms of Lib Dem manifesto commitments.

However I would venture to guess that the London parties may just have taken a wee peek north of the border and realised that minority government is perfectly feasible and that it is not actually necessary to go into a coalition provided you can get support on an issue by issue basis.

What an arrogant post!

Why should it be down to Clegg to declare in advance what he will do if the voters decide on a hung parliament? Has Gordon Brown set out what he will do in the various permutations of a hung parliament, or Cameron?

You accuse the Lib Dems of being undemocratic, but are happy to be part of a Government that was elected by only 35% of those who voted. If that isn’t undemocratic, what is?

You claim to dislike hung parliaments because ‘That’s the essence of PR: let the little people have their vote, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them.’ Yet isn’t this EXACTLY how Government is done at the moment. Did you ‘consult the people’ before bartering away your pledge not to introduce tuition fees behind closed doors? Do Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling hold their arguments about the budget out in the open? Of course they don’t.

Not that I meant delete the rest it!