Before I start this month, I would like to warn anyone with a politically closed mind just to pass on by. If you have an open mind and can actually think for yourself, welcome.
I
also have one final initial warning before I plough on – if you are a
particularly ideologically imprisoned individual with strong
affiliations to a political party, you will probably be offended because
I will be sticking it to politicians of all parties including our
beloved MPs Jackie Doyle-Price and Stephen Metcalfe. You have been warned!
Several
things have happened or come to light since the General Election that
have demonstrated the need for political change and not just a change of
administration but a change in who can and should represent us.
Let us begin with a look at the leadership of the parties…
The
leaders of the big three political parties have not only become
increasingly divorced from their supporters but from the real world of
the people they represent. Yes, politicians have always been rather isolated from reality but it has now truly become an impenetrable bubble. It
was revealed recently that the three leaders have the lowest approval
ratings for quite a time and voters have become so disaffected with them
that the repugnant George Galloway actually won a seat in the Bradford
West by-election. Is it any wonder that voters are so disaffected? Ed
Miliband has shown himself to be a rudderless, ineffectual leader with
the charisma of a soggy dishrag, certainly no competition for his
brother David who should clearly have been the one of the two brothers
to have won the leadership contest. David
‘Call me Dave’ Cameron is a smarmy millionaire who is married to a
millionaire, already divorced from the real world by the privilege such
riches provide; beyond that fact, he has shown himself to be a leader
who either could not control his party members, like Andrew Lansley, or
simply did not know the plans Lansley was working on which is just as
bad. Cameron certainly seemed
surprised at the extent of the measures in the NHS Reform Bill when it
was presented and such wide-ranging reforms were not in the Conservative
Manifesto; yet Cameron pushed on ahead, illegally, some would say,
implementing actions to prepare the way for the main reforms before any
of them had gained Royal Ascent and passed into law. Then
we turn our attention to Nick Clegg, a verminous individual who had in
his hands the balance of power, the gift of bestowing the ability of one
major party or the other to form a Government, but sold his soul and
that of his party to obtain a scintilla of power that amounts to almost
nothing. Yes, joining with
Labour may not have been enough to have formed a full Government, but it
would have led to the Conservatives having a minority administration;
surely a better guarantee of slowing the Tory agenda than capitulating
to the weight of numbers and selling their principles down the river for
a taste of power. How could anyone truly respect these men? The disaffection of the voters was surely an inevitability.
The
recession that ended Labour’s stranglehold on Government, caused by the
worldwide banking crisis and Labour’s deregulation of the banking
sector, certainly left a financial mess to clean up. This
situation made worse by the extremely high levels of public spending
and years of Blair’s ‘Thatcherism Lite’, Labour having thrown off its
socialist garments to stand, diluted of identity, as followers of a true
child of Thatcher. And when
the public could take no more, they turned back to the Conservatives
under Cameron and his “compassionate Conservatism” only to be betrayed
as the austerity measures they implemented saw the poorest, the disabled
and most vulnerable hit the hardest whilst the rich found themselves
better off, especially those who manage to avoid paying the various
taxes. The divide between rich
and poor widens whilst the current Government looks on, its members
unaffected, and Labour denies its role in the disaster. The
Liberal Democrats stand by idly watching, professing to act helping the
poor, but are on the whole, ineffectual in their minor Coalition role.
It seems as though there is no one to speak for the common man in a world entirely hostile to him. National
Government is the province of the ‘professional’ politician,
individuals so far out of touch with the real world that they may as
well come from a different planet. So, how can the common man take back some modicum of control over the Government? By
instigating three simple changes – 1) replace all ‘professional’ career
politicians with non-partisan representatives who are willing to work
together for the betterment of all and supported by knowledgeable
non-partisan advisors, 2) scrap the current wage structure for MPs and
instead cover the elected representative’s modest living expenses –
being an elected representative should be seen as a public service, not a
money-spinner – although the members of the Cabinet will obviously get
more so they ‘look the part’ on the international stage, and 3) any hint
of impropriety, wrong-doing or scandal from any elected representative
that is found to be true will result in their immediate removal and a
lifetime ban from standing for office again – our elected
representatives should act as an example of integrity.
This
is how Government should be run so that the needs of the many far
outweigh the needs of the privileged few and the current culture of
scapegoating and fear mongering that dwells at the black heart of the
world of politics is forever banished. Representatives,
in this form of Government, may not always do what people want or find
palatable but it will always be done in the interests of all.
This
method is easily adopted at a Local Government level as well; it
certainly needs as much reforming as National Government as it too
suffers from the tribalism of partisan politics, an evil neither level
of Government can afford to live with.
We
now come to two examples that form the case for change in our political
system – local MPs, Jackie Doyle-Price and Stephen Metcalfe. In building this case, I have consulted three prominent websites – http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ (which contains “Hansard and official reports for the UK Parliament”), http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/ (which contains the voting records for all MPs and Lords) and Wikipedia (for the General Election 2010 results). I
already knew Ms Doyle-Price’s record from a previous piece I wrote
about her but, in the hopes that she had reformed and to make this piece
as up-to-date as possible, I accessed They Work For You and The Public Whip websites on Tuesday 17th April, taking the liberty to check Mr Metcalfe’s record as well. I
was desperate to find out that I was wrong about them, especially Mr
Metcalfe following his speech about assisted suicide, a subject very
close to my heart. Unfortunately, Mr Metcalfe’s voting record is even more horrifying than Ms Doyle-Price’s record. I
am, however, getting a little ahead of myself but these opening remarks
had to be covered prior to the case being laid before you.
Firstly, both our local MPs are supposed to be representing the residents of Thurrock (and South Basildon, in the case of Mr Metcalfe); this is their duty and beyond dispute.
Secondly,
we have to examine whether either individual represents a true majority
of their constituents; to do this I accessed the voter numbers for both
areas, voter turnout and the number of votes cast for each candidate at
the 2010 General Election on Wikipedia (accessed on Wednesday 18th
April) and then calculated each candidate’s percentage of the votes,
both as a percentage of voter turnout and as a percentage of the total
electorate. The statistics are
both interesting and rather damning of our ‘first-past-the-post’ system
whilst calling into doubt the legitimacy of both MP’s claims to
represent the views of the majority of their constituents, let alone the
entire population of their areas.
Amazingly,
the voter turnout was higher than I expected to find with 45822 casting
their vote in Thurrock, which represents 59% (rounded up) of the total
electorate, and 44735 casting their votes in South Basildon & East
Thurrock, which represents 62.3% (rounded up) of the total electorate. As a percentage of votes cast, Jackie Doyle-Price gained 36.8% of the votes in Thurrock whilst Stephen Metcalfe gained 43.9% of the votes cast in South Basildon & East Thurrock. Not
bad you may think as both successful candidates gained between one
third and a half of the votes; however, when we look at the results as a
percentage of the total electorate of each area, the results are poor
to say the least – 21.7% in Thurrock and 27.3% in South Basildon &
East Thurrock. Therefore, the
successful candidates actually represent significantly less than one
third of their constituents, assuming they ignored the views of those
who either did not vote at all or voted for someone else. Yes, that does seem like a huge assumption to make but I will back up that assumption in a moment. On these figures, it hardly seems representative, does it?
It
is not my intention to place the blame for this terrible, undemocratic
system on Ms Doyle-Price or Mr Metcalfe for we have had this system
since time immemorial and, for some reason, the electorate have accepted
it to the point that, when given a chance to change it, the chance was
not taken. Every MP, however,
is a beneficiary of this system, one that is held up as a sign of a
democratic electoral system but results in the few dictating to the many
who will lead the country.
The
case for change now rests on whether our elected representatives
actually represent the views of their constituents despite their
minority support shown by the statistics. To
do this, we must look at the voting records (I bet you had thought that
I had forgotten about those) of both individuals who I have taken as my
examples in favour of the case for political change.
The
voting record of an MP gives a good indication of how their thought
processes work, where their allegiances are and how willing they are to
represent the views of constituents who have opposing views. Oh dear, things do not look good when you look at our local MP’s voting records.
Taking Jackie Doyle-Price first, as she is ‘my’ representative, we find that They Work For You says that she “hardly ever rebels against their party in the parliament”. A good sign you may believe…until you actually look at the full record of the votes she actually attended. To her credit, Ms Doyle-Price attended 456 votes out of 508 (89.8%), according to The Public Whip; this is described by They Work For You as “well above average amongst MPs”. However, of the votes she attended, she has rebelled on only four votes (0.9%). These
votes must be on subjects of vital importance for so loyal a
Conservative MP to rebel against her party thusly – the reforms to the
NHS and the benefits system or, perhaps, ‘workfare’. You would be making a grave error in thinking Ms Doyle-Price had that kind of integrity. The rebellions of which ‘my’ beloved representative is guilty of all took place on a single day (20th January 2012) on the vital subject of the Daylight Saving Bill.
Each
line of the voting record below is in the following format: Subject;
whether the MP is in the majority or in the minority; Con vote; MP’s
role (either loyal or rebel).
Ms Doyle-Price’s record of rebellion:
1) Daylight Saving Bill – Clause 1 – Report to be prepared on advancing time; minority; aye; Rebel
2) Daylight Saving Bill – Clause 1 – Report to be prepared on advancing time; minority; no; Rebel
3) Daylight Saving Bill – Clause 4 – Power to advance time by one hour for trial period; minority; aye; Rebel
4) Daylight Saving Bill – Clause 4 – Power to advance time by one hour for trial period; minority; no; Rebel
From
the evidence we have seen thus far, Ms Doyle-Price seems to be picking a
rather minor point on which to rebel against her party so she can say
that she does not always blindly follow the party line.
Let us look at some other statistics from They Work For You to get a deeper impression. It is stated that Ms Doyle-Price has: “spoken in 23 debates in the last year – below average amongst MPs”, “received answers to 42 written questions in the last year – average amongst MPs”, and “voted in 89.72% of votes in this Parliament with this affiliation – well above average amongst MPs”. It is also stated that “people have made 0 annotations on this MP’s speeches – well below average amongst MPs”.
From
the statistics above, an impression emerges of a person who attends
most of the votes she should attend but says little in debates compared
with other MPs and says little worth annotating in her speeches. As for attending votes, I would put forward the case that that is her duty. Speaking
little in debates could mean that she has little to contribute to the
topic; depending on the subject of the debate, that could be positively
worrying. Finally, no
annotations on her speeches indicates that she makes speeches to
audiences who already feel the same way she does and that is a good
indication of lack of originality in her thinking. Does any of that make you feel secure in Ms Doyle-Price’s ability to act as your representative?
Let us now look at Mr Metcalfe’s record…
They Work For You states that Mr Metcalfe “hardly ever rebels against their party in the parliament” - already not a good sign. To his credit, Mr Metcalfe attended 453 votes out of 508 (89.2%), according to The Public Whip; this is described by They Work For You as “well above average amongst MPs”. This attendance record is very similar to Ms Doyle-Price’s record. However, of the votes he attended, he has rebelled on only one vote (0.2%). This singular rebellion against his party (7th September 2011) is, however, about an issue that could be considered a matter of conscience. The record follows the same format as for Ms Doyle-Price’s record.
Mr Metcalfe’s record of rebellion:
1) Health and Social Care Bill 2011 – Independent Abortion Advice; minority; no; Rebel
From
the evidence we have seen thus far, it appears that there may be hope
for Mr Metcalfe as his act of rebellion may have been one solitary
incident but it was on a major Bill and on an issue that shows a modicum
of conscience.
Let us look at some of Mr Metcalfe’s other statistics from They Work For You to get a sense of his personality. It is stated that he has: “spoken in 45 debates in the last year – above average amongst MPs”, “received answers to 9 written questions in the last year – below average amongst MPs”, “voted in 89.13% of votes in this Parliament with this affiliation – well above average amongst MPs”. It is also stated that “people have made 0 annotations on this MP’s speeches – well below average amongst MPs”.
From
the statistics above, an impression emerges of a person who attends
most of the votes he should attend, is more vocal in debates compared
with other MPs but says little worth annotating in his speeches. Again, I would put forward the case that attending as many votes as possible is his duty. Mr
Metcalfe seems to be better value for his constituents with a better
than average number of contributions to debates but, like Ms
Doyle-Price, no annotations on his speeches indicates that he makes
speeches to audiences who already feel the same way he does and that
could indicate a similar lack of original thought. How do you feel about Mr Metcalfe’s ability to act as your representative now?
All
of this makes me wonder whether either of our ‘representatives’ are
actually truly representative of the electorate of their respective
areas. Such obedience to their
party and a lack of original thought brings to mind the members of other
groups, such as cults, religious fundamentalists and the migrant
‘slave’ workers in the garment districts of LA. Can such people find it within themselves to stand up for someone who has opposing views?
The case for political change is almost complete and you may be thinking that I have been unduly harsh on our local MPs. Perhaps I have. I
have taken them as examples simply because they are local but I believe
that there are many other MPs in Parliament who are similarly lacking.
I have, however, two more pieces of evidence to present, a piece that is exclusively about Ms Doyle-Price. I
have built, in my opinion, a fairly solid case against our local MPs as
being unfit to represent the views of the entire electorate of their
respective areas. The following pieces of evidence seals the deal for Ms Doyle-Price.
First
of all, during the run up to the referendum on the Alternative Vote
system, Ms Doyle-Price wrote a piece for her column in the Thurrock
Gazette about why the Alternative Vote was a bad idea and why she was
not in favour of a change in the voting system. For
someone in her position to voice that opinion prior to the referendum
was unacceptable as some voters may have read that piece and interpreted
it as the authoritative position on the subject. If
Ms Doyle-Price was a freethinker, she should have presented the
arguments for and against the Alternative Voting system so that her
constituents could have made their own choice in an informed way. If
her thought processes were anything but drone-like and subordinate to
the Conservative hierarchy, she would have kept her own views on the
issue to herself, holding as she does a position of authority in the
community. She did not and may
have unduly influenced the local outcome of the referendum as a result. I
hold no position of authority in the community but I do hold a minor
position in the public arena and I kept my views on the Alternative Vote
to myself until the referendum was over. I am obviously much more professional in my amateur journalistic career than Ms Doyle-Price is.
Some
readers may believe that I am attaching too much power to Ms
Doyle-Price’s column concerning its ability to influence the result of
the referendum. Possibly. However,
I make this point – people who vote normally vote the same way as their
family has done for years; they do this because their parents have a
position of authority within their lives and therefore act in a similar
fashion. Such is the power of authority. Ms
Doyle-Price has a position of authority and her opinion therefore
carries with it the authority of that position whether she is right or
wrong.
The last piece of evidence is regarding a request from myself asking Ms Doyle-Price to support the case for releasing the Transitional Risk Register (TRR) on the then proposed NHS reforms. As ‘my’ representative, and that of every other voter in the Thurrock constituency, she should have honoured that request, even though it was against her own opinion on the matter. I am not suggesting that my request was any more important than any other requests she receives. I
am suggesting that, as the NHS reforms were a potentially explosive
issue and one that I would not be alone in worrying about, she should
have seen the wisdom in having the TRR published. In
my last column, I included extracts from Ms Doyle-Price’s reply to my
request and extracts from the Tribunal’s judgement on the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request asking for the TRR to be released which
concluded that the Government had a duty in the public interest to
publish the TRR. It seems that she follows the party line unquestionably.
I
think I have shown that there is, indeed, a need for political change, a
change from the tribalism of partisan politics to a non-partisan
representation in Government and a change in who can and should
represent us. The world is changing and so is society therefore it only makes sense that the political system changes too.
I
know I may have been a little harsh on our local MPs; however, my
comments are not aimed against the people but against their thought
processes. I have no doubt that Ms Doyle-Price and Mr Metcalfe are delightful company and are good people. They
just need to show that they are willing to put the views they may not
agree with forward as forcefully as they do the ones they do agree with. They
need to prove to that they are in Parliament to represent the full
range of views of their constituents, fairly and without bias.
If
there is any phrase that sums up my “dark philosophy”, as one
particularly uninformed commentator called it, it has to be this – let
us all just get along, cut out the tribalism and work together to build
a society we can be proud of for generations to come, built on the
principles of integrity, equality and fairness. I was going to go for “Truth, justice and the British way” but that seemed a little on the nose.
Until next time…
If you would like to comment on any of my columns, please send them to valen1971@hotmail.co.uk or you can check out my personal blogs at http://valen1971.webs.com/ or http://valen1971.blogspot.com. You can also find me on Twitter (@valen1971).
References
Jackie Doyle-Price
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jackie_doyle-price/thurrock (accessed 17 April 2012)
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40607&showall=yes#divisions (accessed 17 April 2012)
Stephen Metcalfe
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/stephen_metcalfe/south_basildon_and_east_thurrock (accessed 17 April 2012)
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40540&showall=yes#divisions (accessed 17 April 2012)
2010 General Election results
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurrock_(UK_Parliament_constituency) (accessed 18 April 2012)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Basildon_and_East_Thurrock_(UK_Parliament_constituency) (accessed 18 April 2012)
There is the biggest left of centre challenge in 60 years on May 22 for councils, that is not being covered in the media. These socialist parties actually offer to save lives from this month if voted onto councils. These parties are gathered together on my personal website's home page at: www.theswansnewparty.org.uk.
ReplyDeleteUKIP.ED is on the page to mop up Labour votes in the irrelevant European Elections. Irrelevant because Coalition ignored the Council of Europe telling them the government was in breach of the Social Charter and therefore EU international treaty law by low amount of state pension and benefit, which should be £138. Look at what is being done to women's state pension at 60, when the ring fenced NI Fund is well in funds and has not needed a top up from tax for decades and MPs cannot use the money for general expenditure as NI is not a tax, but costs a worker 12 per cent of their wage in NI each year off their money, plus their boss paying. Just so women can forever lose around £40,000 of payout over 6 years from 2013, when women MPs kept the payout at 60 if within 10 years of 60 from 2012. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
Thank you so much for your comment and the link therein.
DeleteVoice of the Resistance is non-partisan although we obviously have an anti-ConDem adminstration bias to begin with as the current administration is causing untold damage to the vulnerable people in society and needs to be ousted; however, we want to work with members of every part of the political spectrum to do away with partisan politics and institute a new fairer non-partisan system which we hope will be a lot less corrupt than the system we have now.