Parliamentary Reforms?

Clive Strutt raised some important issues in his letter (EADT 24th July) with regard to the selection of MP's and Parliamentary procedures. Indeed the Mother of Parliaments is increasingly known around the world as the Grand Mother of Parliaments these days. Many of the procedures such as requiring 100MP's to be present to close a debate frustrate democracy and allow important measures to be 'talked out.' The Government frequently blocks private members bills on important subjects; the absence of MP's for whatever reason is used as tactic to block important measures.

Reform is needed. Substantial reform not simply an adjustment to how MP's are paid or reimbursed their costs. One resident recently told me MP's should not be paid at all. We tried that once. Parliament was full of the aristocracy, landed gentry, and very occasionally a wealthy merchant. Men who really knew how to look after their own interests, and certainly had little regard for 'commoners'. We had no education system, no health service, no pensions, no police.

We need paid MP's to protect and preserve the rights of ordinary people...and there perhaps is the problem.

A two party political system has distorted Parliamentary traditions. The desire for power has subsumed any sense of decency. Hence our soldiers fight in the Courts for compensation as a result of 'secondary' injuries not directly caused when their limbs are blown off. Why because 'Government' is so desperate to cut taxes that they are blind to their responsibilities.

Far too much money is spent checking, auditing, monitoring and controlling from the centre of power. Trust, professionalism, local accountability all sacrificed by a desire to be so in control that nothing can go wrong...and the newspapers have a field day because of course things do go wrong.

Parliamentary democracy has been undermined by powerful Prime Ministers, controlling their respective parties with an iron rod. Even the principle of Cabinet Government is sacrificed on the altar of power by the idea that only the occupant of 10 Downing Street 'has it right'. Fear of news headlines has destroyed trust and delegated responsibility.

We need a hung Parliament. Only that will restore the balance and take power away from Nr 10 and the Treasury.

An election which restores 'one prime minister's dictat' will be a disaster for Britain. We will simply return to a political cycle breeding more distrust, angst and failure. Those who vote for such, and those who stay at home and don't vote, will be equally responsible; along with the media and individuals that fed the distrust.

As for political parties choosing who will be their candidates I can speak with some authority on that, including so called safe seats. It is certainly not the case in the Liberal Democrats. To be approved potential candidates go through an all day review comprising presentations, vigorous debate, team building exercises, and rigorous questioning...get only a few questions wrong out of a 100 and you fail. The panel doing the review are ordinary members, no MP's or party officials involved. Once approved you have to find a constituency looking for a candidate. Constituencies have strict rules to follow to ensure equal opportunity and a fair process is followed. A purely local panel will produce a shortlist, and then it is for local party members to choose from that short list. Any candidate who indicates he has the support of any central party figure is automatically disqualified! Yes, its in the rules!

Nobody joins the Liberal Democrats because they want power, or wealth. They join the other parties for that. Most just care about the community, but don't expect to get elected.

Perhaps we could do with more people like that in Parliament, and on our Councils?