Politics Three

No doubt, I surmise, in the early days of Parliament party politics evolved to fill a need, students of political history should be in a better position to voice an opinion on that supposition. At one stage different factions of "The Establishment" probably went head to head in the quest for power but, I should think, it took much longer before "The Rest" took on "The Establishment". Now I think the situation is such that none of the political parties will come out with a manifesto that is too far to the left or right of centre. The situation now, as I see it, in simple terms is as follows. There are 664 MPs, approx 90% of them try to follow the line set by their own parties' hierarchy, 10% are the hierarchy of the parties. 50% minus a few % are trying to get the ruling party out of office, 50% plus a few % are trying to stay in office and belittle the opposition parties. Very regrettably it could be argued that a goodly percentage of them tried very hard, and in many cases successfully, to greatly increase their affluence by making the maximum use of various expenses that they could claim. Then, to further increase the shame that this approach engendered, many of them did their utmost to restrict the publication of essential details. A revealing spotlight is now being shone on the salaries and expenses claims of other public. or quasi public bodies.

Recently there have been suggestions that there are too many MPs. On the TV this morning
[13/07/2009] there were figures showing a massive increase in the annual costs, related to politicians over the last ten years, some of this brought about by salaries now paid to elected members of councils.

I suggest that the number of MPs in the Commons could be reduced to 300. This number of truly independent MPs, motivated by the knowledge that both their "constituency voters" and their fellow MPs can force their resignation if their performance is sub par would, surely, be more effective than double that number following the orders of their party hierarchy.

Switching the focus to the House of Lords raises many questions, first and foremost is the main one, that being "Is a gathering of mature brains required to act as a steadying influence over the House of Commons"? If the answer is yes then a natural question that follows is "How mature should the brains be"? That is to say should it be specified that to be a member of the House of Lords a person must be at least forty years of age, or 50?, or 60?

The next thing to be resolved is whether or not members should be elected, I think they should be and I also think there should be only fifty of them. I also think that voters and members should be able to force their resignation in a similar way to that which I have suggested should apply to MPs.

Having sorted out the composition and function of the House of Lords perhaps some thought could be given to the use of the words "Commons" and "Lords". In my opinion they are archaic
and smack too much of "The Establishment", again, in my opinion, some thought should be given
to the need, in this day and age, to attempt to enhance the importance of members suggested by the ceremonial robes they wear. Carrying that theme a few more steps I suggest that the word Lord should be restricted to use in its religious context.

There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered. In this context I feel that much more use should be made of referendums to decide critical or contentious issues.

I am convinced that now is an ideal time to consign party politics to the dustbin of history, they are long past their sell by date.

To be continued in Politics Four. Frederick W Gilling