It seems to me that the House of Commons is supposed to be representative of commoners, not of the political elites.
As such, MPs should be representatives of their constituency members. It's obvious, isn't it?
Whipping, career politicians and those selected by the party so often fall short of what people want. It is difficult for the electorate to pin these politicians down on what they actually stand for because they have to toe the party line and therefore dodge direct questions and seldom give straight answers.
All of the above gives rise to spin, evasion and downright betrayal of the electorate.
Post-election, inevitably, the electorate finds that it is not going to get what it thought it was voting for.
The answer, surely, is to go with the Hannan/Carswell Plan. Two particular mechanisms come immediately to mind to make MPs more representative:
- Open Primaries - for selection of candidates;
- Recall - the power of the people to rid themselves of unsatisfactory MPs.
Worse, its recall mechanism still leaves recall in the hands of the executive. Fat lot of use that is!
The executive of both parties and government is far too powerful, maintaining for itself "discretion" on decisions like these. In other words, it always has the final say.
We need a written constitution, along the lines of the US Bill of Rights - not to grant 'rights'to the populace, but to limit the power of government.
We also need to make more use of referenda, as does Switzerland.
Has anyone noticed any news of riots or protests in Switzerland?
Edmund Burke, in a speech* to the electors of Bristol, 3rd November 1774, opined thus:
Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs,and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure,no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.* The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, vol. 2, p. 95
.bmp){kind=small}
2 comments:
Excellent stuff, Fausty. There isn't one word I disagree with - whipping, pre-approved candidate shortlists are anathema to true democracy. (As is this upcoming EU Bill which has to be checked by lawyers and pre-approved by a Minister before it can go to a referendum - no approval, no referendum).
What we really need Fausty, is Swiss style direct democracy... Democracy is not perfect, but it does have the capability of controlling the elites.
The problem is that they know this, so they will never just give it to us, indeed the Swiss, who have had it and have been honing it for 800 or so years, constantly find themselves being undermined by their own politicians, and now they are having problems with the international elites in the form of the criminal bankers and the Bilderbergers... (See the Talking Clock, today).
No, what we are going to have to do, is to take it! There are demonstrations and riots happening around the world as we speak, the problem is that, as Mrs. Gump so wisely said... "Life is like a box of chocolates, when you open it, you don't what ya gonna get!"
And that is the problem with chaos, it presents an opportunity for the elites as well as the people.
There is one thing that the Swiss have which helps them immensely... They are armed... Unfortunately that does not seem to be an option for us.
Post a Comment