Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE
However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday 1 November 2019

The laxative benefits of political churn

Paul Goodman of Conservative Home is, on the face of it, a textbook professional politician. From student political organiser to researcher, SPAD and MP, to ex-MP and political writer, with a bit of journalism on the side, the broad brushstrokes of his career are little different to the vast homogeneous mass of professional politicians with no real experience outside politics. He stood down from parliament during the expenses scandal. Not, I hasten to add, because of it. The Telegraph's only finding at the time was that
Paul Goodman claimed modest mortgage interest payments on a second home in High Wycombe. Underclaimed by £1,384 in 2006 and was reimbursed by fees office
Paul wrote one of those pieces yesterday for ConHome that strikes one immediately as 'right facts, wrong conclusions'. He notes the number of losses from the Commons, both recent arrivals and seasoned veterans, and postulates
Meanwhile, the shift from the elected representative to the professional politician model has been good news for constituents.  The days when the local MP could ignore the latter, or visit his seat only occasionally, vanished a long time ago.  That’s the effect of consumer competition for you over the years, with the emergence of the SNP, UKIP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats. We are moving from a model in which many MPs sat from late youth until early old age to one in which more serve for one or two terms – as the Editor of this site did.
Though I can't quite reconcile this with the quote someone has included on his Wiki page - "a House in which professional politics predominates, entrenching and empowering a taxpayer-dependent political class distinct and separate from those who elect them...for better or worse, this future Commons isn't for me". It seems he can't quite decide between the old patrician class and modern career professional politicians.

There is, of course, an alternative option. Neither.

Having read and digested the tens of thousands of comments on this blog for over ten years, the one thing I am sure of is that voters despise equally both members of the patrician political establishment and the privileged elite of professional politicians. They have both been responsible, as Paul quite rightly points out, for robbing the people of their rightful political power -
If you send much of your power outwards, to the EU; sideways, to the courts; and downwards, to the devolved institutions, then don’t be surprised if voters become resistant to backing you and funding you – especially in the wake of the Iraq War, “expenses” and the financial crash.
Paul mourns the loss of middle-ranking ministerial experience from the Commons because of recent 'churn'. I think he's wrong. Why entrench the failures, betrayals, sell-outs, mendacity and inadequacy of the past forty years? Why retain experience when clearly they have not only been getting it wrong but acting contrary to the interests of the voters, largely to their own benefit?

I have often pointed out that the only one of the six demands of the Charter of 1838 remains unmet
  1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
  2. The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
  3. No property qualification for Members of Parliament in order to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
  4. Payment of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
  5. Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger ones.
  6. Annual Parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in each twelve-month period.
Bribery and intimidation - today the corrupting effect of establishment power, and the brutalising consequences of social media - remain a threat. But it is a frequent clear-out of the Commons that will keep it healthy, and not the institutionalising of status, privilege and entitlement.

We are in the process of reclaiming power - the power they have given away - winning it back from the EU, from the courts and from the unelected quangos and NDPBs, from anti-democratic and unaccountable supranational rule-makers and from an elite who have captured the State. It will take time to get a Commons that reflects these aspirations, but we are making a start.

23 comments:

Stephen J said...

Not with Boris you ain't Raedwald....

More like same old, same old...

DiscoveredJoys said...

I always felt that Call-me-Dave Cameron's most disappointing failure was not to delivering on the 'bonfire of the Quangos'.

Now I realise that this was a tough job which would meet stiff resistance... but without sorting out the Quangos (and other similar bodies) change in government would be like trying to move a carpet with the furniture still in place.

JPM said...

It seems that you want a tame, rubber-stamping parliament to implement the edicts of your zealously-coveted elected dictatorship, chosen almost inevitably by a minority of voters. And yet you mockingly, and completely wrongly, accuse the European Union's of being just that.

If the Government were above the power of the law, that is, its agency the courts, then you have an absolute dictatorship too.

You don't even value the only thing which distinguishes civilisation from the jungle, the Rule Of Law.

But looking at the football hooligan mob, who make up a significant part of the Leave vote, that is hardly surprising.

Mark said...

Every time I read the troll I know we're on the right track!

RAC said...

Well done johnson, mission accomlished....

"US President Donald Trump has torn-apart Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal and said under the current terms the UK cannot strike a trade deal with the US."

But don't look at this look at that, lets discuss re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Mark said...

So what did the Donald ACTUALLY say then?

RAC said...

Don't tell me that out of a population of around 67,500,000 there would be any difficulty in finding 650 good people.
I don't care how indispensable they think they are.
MP's should be limited to one term and then be ineligible to stand again for the next two.
They need to be stopped from getting their feet under the table and making a meal out of it.
Call it damage control.

RAC said...

@ Mark 08:56
The interweb is your friend, it's in many UK newspapers, but if you go on youtube and search for a video posted yesterday titled "WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Farage Interviews President Donald Trump" you can hear the President say it.
I would give you the link but the censor would delete my reply.

Stephen J said...

@RAC:

Last night was his last night, I hope he is too important to return in mid November.

In the mean time vote Brexit Party, get Brexit...

And that is a fact.

Vote anything else for a version of remain.

Mark said...

It was a rhetorical question to a bit of trolling but I did look before typing above.

We can't strike meaningful deals if we remain permanently tied to the EU in its death throes, but we all know that.

I'll give Trump some credit here as I think he's trying to help us by pointing this out.

I don't know how much of a friend the US actually is and I'm not in any way dewy eyed about the "special relationship", but I don't see it as an enemy as the EU clearly is.

The EU who will "not tolerate" an economic rival next door BTW. Just let that arrogance sink in for a moment (and it's far from the only example of course)

mikebravo said...

Re your pic.
I don't much care for any particular groups' safety.

I would much prefer that we were all safe, free to associate, speak and travel within the realm as we used to be.

Special pleading for or by groups that can not be critisized is another form of opression that is used to crush us.

JPM said...

So, Mark Francois, why has the country not exploded?

Why, Alexander Johnson, are you not dead in a ditch?

Why does the Tory Party, at least in name, still exist?

Where are the riots, that commenters here promised?

Do the gape-mouthed goldfish not remember the promises?

Mark said...

Troll,

Because we're British, not that I would expect you to understand what that means.

The EU explosion is coming though. Take your pick. The frogs have form, Italy too. Let's just hope the boche don't revert to much to type. Another Spanish civil war? Once I would have laughed at that.

Why does the tory party still exist? Because it looks very much like they are not being blamed for the treachery of parliament. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the tories and I don't really trust them but I will at least consider voting for them.

As for the rest. If you find insane rambling therapeutic, good for you. It must be finally dawning, even on you just what an utterly cosmic tool you are and that must be hard to take.

Anonymous said...

Once we are out of the EU does the troll funding stop?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Boris! The world feels a better place now that we are out of the EU.

Happy 31st!

Anonymous said...

Hold on Anonymous 13:23

Nigel says that we've got a bad deal. Can anyone explain?

Anonymous said...

A hundred thousand nicker of taxpayer money for Boris' pole dancer.

A hundred and thirty thousand dollars for Stormy Daniels.

At current exchange rates, Boris and Donny have figured out the going rate!

Anonymous said...

JPM said @ 07:55

It seems that you want a tame, rubber-stamping parliament to implement the edicts of your zealously-coveted elected dictatorship, chosen almost inevitably by a minority of voters. And yet you mockingly, and completely wrongly, accuse the European Union's of being just that.

No mate, we just want what we voted for which is to leave the European Union - in effect a reverse of the '75 vote. You could call it a 'confirmatory vote' on our 45 year membership.

If the Government were above the power of the law, that is, its agency the courts, then you have an absolute dictatorship too.

No. Dictatorship cannot occur under the Bill of Rights. The monarch would instruct the armed forces to evict the dictator.

You don't even value the only thing which distinguishes civilisation from the jungle, the Rule Of Law.

No. The thing that 'distinguishes civilisation from the jungle' is trust.

But looking at the football hooligan mob, who make up a significant part of the Leave vote, that is hardly surprising.

Significant is generally accepted as at least half of a given number, so according to you around half of the 17.4 million Leave voters are hooligans.

Steve

DeeDee99 said...

"Paul mourns the loss of middle-ranking ministerial experience from the Commons because of recent 'churn'. I think he's wrong. Why entrench the failures, betrayals, sell-outs, mendacity and inadequacy of the past forty years? Why retain experience when clearly they have not only been getting it wrong but acting contrary to the interests of the voters, largely to their own benefit?"

Absolutely, Raedwald. And what you most definitely should not do is shuffle many of them off to the House of Frauds, so they can continue getting it wrong, largely to their own benefit, without even the inconvenience of having to be elected every 5 years or so.

The first reform needed, post-Brexit, is abolition of the House of Frauds and election of a far smaller Senate - with strict qualification criteria which does not include making large donations to a political party or "serving" the Prime Minister / Leader of the Opposition.

DeeDee99 said...

@DiscoveredJoys ..... Call Me Dave couldn't scrap many of the Quangos since they were set up to deliver and monitor compliance with EU Regulations, free from interference with our own elected Parliament.

One of the bonuses of leaving the EU would have been the ability to de-regulate and cull the regulation monitoring-regulation-proposing Quangos. But since Boris intends a Brino, where we are forced to abide by EU Regs across a swathe of policy areas under the eye of the ECJ, that's another Brexit-benefit he's proposing to ditch.

Anonymous said...

Oh, slippery Boris. UK will be out while surreptitiously being in.

Clause 1 of the WAB inserts a new section 1A into the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This new section does two things. Firstly, for almost all practical purposes it delays the repeal of the ECA until the end of the transition period. However, it achieves this by a convoluted mechanism: giving the ECA continued effect for transition ‘despite’ its repeal on exit day. For example, UK law would continue to track applicable EU law dynamically as before and UK courts would continue to be able to refer matters to the CJEU until the end of the transition period.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/the-eu/withdrawal-agreement-bill-implementing-the-transition-period/

Span Ows said...

Thanks Anon, 11:57, sounds like a never-ending transition.

JPM said...

Anyone here pay their hundred quid to be a Brexit Party parliamentary candidate?

Apparently there are three thousand of you, and Nige didn't even bother to take many of your names.

It's quite touching in its way.