HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by David Hatch, 16:09, Monday 12 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Whilst I agree in general with the point you are making I think you are missing the fundamental principle that ought to be essential if a country is to claim itself to be democratic.

  That is that everyone's vote ought to count.

  At present that is not the case, in either the US or UK election system, and until it is neither will be a true democracy.

  In my personal case, I have voted all my life, a total of 35 years worth of elections, and in that time my vote has never counted for a thing, simply because I have always lived in Bedfordshire, and Bedfordshire has always been a safe Conservative seat.

  If the UK wants a truly democratically elected government then it needs to bring in proportional respresentation, so that every vote actually counts and we don't get governments like the current Labour Party who managed a landslide victory whilst only getting 40% of the total votes cast.

  The current electoral system is too easy to corrupt and manipulate, which is why governments like Labour are so resistant to changing it. The Conservative Party should have more commitment to its own principles and establish a true democracy in the UK.

• Posted by Tony Beswick, 16:41, Monday 12 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Mr Burt. I emailed you twice for help with a problem but you never showed any interest. As for more democracy through the Tory party!!!!! Dont make me laugh. The Tories have opposed reform of the HOuse of Lords continuously...especially as they have a vested interest in maintaining the rule of the aristocracy. Change the voting system? You had years and years of opportunities while you were feathering the pockets of your financial backers at the cost of the country's major industries, signing the Maastricht treaty that tied us forever to Europe and joining the disastrous ERM. Your poll tax disenfranchised and disillusioned a huge number of voters.

  Keep your weasel words where they belong...in a burrow.

• Posted by John Pugh, 17:32, Monday 12 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  If one could believe what politicians say, more people would be inclined to vote.

• Posted by Paul Burne, 18:58, Monday 12 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Two things in my opinion would drive up voter take-up:

  One - there has to be a clear and differentiated choice on offer. At the moment I struggle to see the difference between parties on many topics. They always seem to morph into one another

  Two - focus on content not spin. Time and again both Brown and Cameron simply attack each others ideas yet offer no real alternatives.Negative and empty campaiging is a real turn-off and this is showing in the numbers who turn out to vote.

  Imagine parties who were steeped in principle, offered up clear and meaningful polices and simply kept honest. That'd capture my interest for sure and offer a real choice.

• Posted by David Hatch, 07:42, Tuesday 13 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I'd just like to pick up on the point raised by Tony regarding the House of Lords, mainly because it is based upon the misrepresentation of the the role of that House as portrayed by Labour Party spin, rather than the actual facts supporting its existence and its current status in the British constitution.

  Firstly, we the public have been consistently misled into associating the existence of the House of Lords as an arcane and useless throwback to aristorcratic rule. This is a half-truth and a smoke screen thrown up by those like Blair and Blunkett who wanted it abolished because it was blocking their attempts to abuse their power.

  In fact, because Britian has no written consitution the House of Lords, ironically, is our only safeguard to prevent elected governments abusing their priveleges and destroying democracy.

  They have consistently blocked the Labour parties attempts to legislate away our human rights and in the past have blocked political parties attempting to extend their own period in office.

  For this reason alone Blair and Blunkett ran a protracted misinformation campaign to sway public opinion against their continued existence.

  What they did not publicise was that at the same time as they were calling for the abolition of the Hourse of Lords the Labour party were pushing through more newly appointed lords to it than any other party in history in a blatant attempt to control its voting.

  The other point worth noting is that when the suggestion was made that the House of Lords ought to become an elected body similar to the US second chamber, it was Blair and the Labour party who stepped in blocked this legislation not the Conservative Party.

  The reason being that the Labour party are not opposed to the House of Lords on the grounds that it is not elected, they were opposed to it because it limited their quest for personal power.

  The abolition of the House of Lords would in effect be the first step on the road to dictatorship, and would place our consitution and democracy is dire peril.

  If anything what is needed are further safeguards to prevent the House of Lords being manipulated by the government in power, and reinforce its role in protecting our constitution.

• Posted by A J Davis, 08:25, Tuesday 13 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Why should anyone in Bedfordshire trouble to turn out to vote when the character of the Government is always, repeat always decided by a few marginal seats alan davis

• Posted by Thomas Meehan, 15:13, Tuesday 13 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  A lot of the problem lies in the fact that you had to make a dig at the government half way through asking about involvement in elections. It's not possible for any common sense to prevail even briefly as one side is always attacking and the other defending themselves, which turns into petty meaningless squabbling. I seem to remember the conservatives thinking there were worldwide economic difficulties when they were in power. Maybe all the world's governments are simultaneously rubbish.

  Another problem for me is the feeling that the real influence in government is not coming from my vote. This is why I was angry that Christian charities are funding interns for MPs. It's not necessarily that they were Christian, but that organisations are paying, or appearing to pay, for influence. I think it would be a reasonable idea to ban corporate donations to political parties, as well as any donation above party subs. I don't know where the money would come from to replace it and don't care, but I do feel elections to parliament or local councils should be based on personal politics and not the richest person's personal politics at that. If that means real down-at-heal cheap elections, then so be it. It would make corruption a lot more subtle if nothing else and make political conviction more necessary.

  Similarly, I read the other day that Gordon Ramsay spoke to Gordon Brown about his ideas for vegetables in restaurants: why on earth is a TV chef accorded that kind of influence? Perhaps they are personal friends and I have it wrong, but I wonder. Alan Sugar did a similar thing on the Apprentice the other week and ostentatiously swanked off for dinner with Mr Brown. Again, perhaps they met in an East End market as young men, but I suspect it's Mr Sugar's money that is more important.

  Lastly, although I see the benefits of first past the post for generally producing stronger governments, I do agree that proportional representation would be a very good thing to revitalise elections. Perhaps one House could be as it is but focussed on larger regions (like the US senate), and one House could be proportionally elected. A House of Lords that is even part nominated would be a disaster, as the question then turns on who does the nominating, and it then becomes a party political matter, which is no good for anyone.

• Posted by Tony Beswick, 19:09, Wednesday 14 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Re David Hatch defence of the House of Lords.

  The usual defence of the undefendable. Once again ( and you avoid all other points) The conservatives had the chance to reform the "upper" house many times... I wonder why they didn't take these opportunities? Could it be because of their built-in majority? And where does this inbuilt majority come from? Oh yes!!! The aristocracy!!! And which colour of government has had the most bills blocked by the superior house? surprise surprise they have blocked bills by a labour government by a factor of no less than 7!!! So despite a government having a huge mandate this bastion of democracy feels more able to block bills of Non-tory governments by 7:1...If in doubt check the figures for the last 80 years. As for the Labour party appointing new peers to reduce the huge imbalance between the 2 parties I wonder why you object to fairness and balance?

  To remove the House of Lords would be the first step to dictatorship? hmmmm look around the world. I see excellent systems working in most major democracies.

  This smoke screen laid down to protect those who have power without earning it or gaining it by popular vote is hopefully being blown away by a wind of change.

• Posted by Thomas Meehan, 09:31, Thursday 15 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Tony Beswick: while I wholeheartedly agree that the old Lords was indefensible in our constitution, it did at least have the merit of comparative randomness: its aristocratic members were not beholden to politicians or interests in the Commons or elsewhere. However, I think it is disingenuous to ask "As for the Labour party appointing new peers to reduce the huge imbalance between the 2 parties I wonder why you object to fairness and balance?" Members of one House appointed by members of the other House is the worst possible system, for whatever reason. The failure to complete reform of the Lords on an electoral system or at least some system that is protected from patronage (which is all that happens now) is in my opinion disgusting. I would far rather have preferred the government to have waited until it had a replacement solution sorted out before abolishing the old House of Lords.

• Posted by David Hatch, 09:36, Thursday 15 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Tony, you really need to get your facts straight here. The House of Lords certainly has its origins as a court of the nobility, but that ceased to be true many, many years ago. Its current composition only includes 91 Hereditary Peers, out of a total of 745. The vast majority are life peers, who basically could be anyone, but most are nominated by the party in government.

  Likewise, the suggestion that this house is by design anti-Labour is equally misleading. A simple review of the composition confirms that out of the 745 members the Labour party has no less that 217 currently in their camp and the Conservatives only 202.

  This would apear to suggest that the reason Labour has had so many bills blocked, has nothing to do with some out of touch aristocracy being obstructive and much more to do with the nature and quantity of the legislation the Labour Party has been attempting to force through parliament to increase their powers. The classic example being 'national identity cards.'

  Finally, yes lets looks around the world at the fine examples of democracy at work in other countries, and then lets wonder why Britain is considered to be the model for them all, and lets look at the history of dictatorships in Germany, France and even here in England and compare the political reforms which took place historically just prior to those dictators seizing power and compare those reforms with what the Labour party are trying to do here and now in ours. there has been a direct comparison made for instance between the reforms proposed by the Labour party and those undertaken in Germany during the 1930's

  Don't get me wrong I am not defending the House of Lords per see. What I am saying is that before it's abolished we need to have something equally independant and beyond parliamentary influence to replace it. Some sort of independantly elected second chamber would seem to make the most sense, but when that was proposed the Labour party blocked it.

• Posted by Tony Beswick, 11:50, Friday 16 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Thanks Tom. The ( threatened) appointment of 200 labour peers was during the Wilson Govt, when so sick of the blockingmade by the Tory house, HW threatened to restore the balance. I Totally agree that an upper chamber appointed by the party in Govt is a long way less than satisfactory.

  As To Dave's point about the numbers.... forget those are entitled to vote..look at those who actually do so. And the figures still speak for themselves despite the spin by the supporters of Aristocratic privilege.The blocking of bills introduced by Labour goes back to Ramsay McDonald it is not a new phenomena as you try to make out. It is feeble or at best naive to suggest that bills presented by a Labour government are weakly drafted and therefore there is no political bias involved!!!

  You suggest that the British system is the model for democracy. NO. The parliamentary system is the model - find me another modern democracy which allows those who inherited power to sit in their own chamber and over rule the wishes of ( mandated) and democratically elected government. Oligarchic Russia perhaps.

  Anti terror legislation is a terrible thing. My only comment on that is that the dichotomy of the two freedoms ( freedom from v. freedom to) is a tight rope all societies walk. The view of the previous radical Tory government was "there is no such thing as society". I wonder how Mrs Thatch would have handled the current situation. Internment?

• Posted by Thomas Meehan, 22:17, Saturday 17 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I do hope that Mr Burt will offer some thoughts or comment on these suggestions, especially as he asked for them particularly. I wonder if he has any thoughts himself. I hope he's dissuaded that advertising if the answer; it is probably most of the problem. I don't think this is much of a solvable problem in that the problem is politics and you can't have voting without politics. I think, however, that a properly reformed and (in some way) democratic second chamber with ridiculously strict rules on MP's and parties' public and financial conduct would be a start.

• Posted by Tony Beswick, 10:58, Sunday 18 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  With you on that Tom. To diverge only slightly ( as the theme is democracy)... It has struck me with governments of all colours that people firstly say they all " never listen" yet when they are adult enough to adult they made a mistake and/or change a policy or direction they are castigated for making a " U turn". I well remember when canvassing as a local councillor I was asked a question on a doorstep and when I replied " I have no idea" or " Yes Im afraid we cocked it up there" I was greeted with amazement. Our politicians are expected to have all the answers and are afraid to admit to mistakes or change direction of a policy ( 10p tax??) because they fear the repercussions of honesty.

• Posted by Alistair Burt, 09:01, Wednesday 21 May: (Is this post abusive?) #

  ‘Thank you all for your responses to my article. I am happy to reply to the main points made, though not all the abusive ones, which may be fun to write but don’t get us very far.

  I understand the points on PR. As you would not be surprised to hear I start from the position that no system is perfect, but as Mr Meehan says our present one has the advantage that it usually produces a clear result, so that there is accountability and responsibility that a Government cannot avoid at the end of its term. That is not a small advantage.

  But of course the downside lies in the constituencies which do not change hands, though you will not get many MPs to refer to theirs as safe; the winds of severe change such as ‘45, ’79, or ‘97 can make quite a change in that position. I am not keen on lists, or multi member constituencies, or pure PR which might let the BNP genie further out of the bottle. But the transferable vote within single member constituencies, which ensure that the MP eventually is elected with over 50% of votes, might be an answer to this for all of us.

  Choice and content: both very important. It has been harder to differentiate the main parties than when we were divided over nuclear weapons or nationalisation, but this is because, I submit, the Conservative Party 79-97 shifted the terms of political trade in a manner similar to Labour’s 45-51 government, forcing Blair’s Labour Party to move towards the centre. I think there will be differences within the time before the next election, and as for ‘content’ just look at the reaction to Labour’s appalling ‘Tory Toff’ campaign in Crewe. I hope they don’t get away with it, even from their own supporters.

  As for Christian or any other interns, the Register of Interests is designed to negate any unfair or undeclared influence. MPs could accept no such support, or go anywhere at anyone else’s expense, and just sit in their offices with the internet, but I don’t think we would learn as much as we need in order to do our jobs. As long as you know who assists us, or pays for any visits then you can make your own judgements on any influence you detect. But we are unlikely to be influenced just because we have an intern; it is much more the case that if we have such interns it is because we already have mutual sympathies. If you look at the votes of those MPs (like me) who have CARE interns you will find that, as Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour MPs we vote in different ways on many, including ethical, issues.

  Finally the Lords. I side with those, like David Hatch, who think the public has been led a bit of a dance with this. The second chamber does a pretty good job, and has a balanced membership, between over 500 life peers and only 92 hereditaries. No party has a majority, certainly not the Conservative Party. The problem for the Government is that whilst it is easy to say ‘change’ it is hard to work out just how. If it is all elected, it rivals the Commons. This happens elsewhere in the world, so is not insurmountable, but people must be sure just what each chamber would do, and which would have dominance. We don’t seem to have reached this point yet. If it is all appointed, is it a crony chamber?

  I am not convinced that reforming the Lords is the key to voter participation or satisfaction. Present company excepted, I get hardly any spontaneous letters or e-mails on Lords reform, and people’s dissatisfaction with the present system does not seem to revolve around this.

  Thank you again for you participation, and I hope you have found the correspondence useful. Please feel free to pick up on anything else which you might be tracking. I cannot always promise a prompt response, as these matters must take their place amongst all the other issues I am dealing with, and we will not always agree, but I hope I will be able to persuade you that I do have my own views and opinions and am neither afraid to promote them or defend them.

If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency, log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK, sign up in order to HearFromYourMP.